I'm not trying to be a jerk I swear to God but there is one you missed that I've been using lately this working great called astrosurface it's at least worth looking at it's really good for planetary stuff as well super easy to use pretty intuitive too but my quality of my images has gone up exponentially using it
Hi, thanks for showing Affinity Photo in this showdown! Just a clarification, all data is stacked in linear 32-bit unbounded, and stays this way once you apply the stack and move back to the main Photo persona (workspace). This seems to confuse quite a few people because of the way Photo handles working in 32-bit linear: the actual pixel values remain linear, but a non-destructive gamma view transform is added to the document view so you're seeing gamma corrected pixel values. It does this to avoid the Flatten>Convert and tone map step that is often required in other software (e.g. Photoshop). You can do your entire edit in 32-bit, then simply go to File>Export, knowing that if you export to a gamma-encoded format such as 8-bit JPEG it will look exactly the same. You can bypass the view transform by going to View>Studio>32-bit Preview and switching from ICC Display Transform to Unmanaged: this shows you the scene-referred linear values. This is only useful for an analysis purpose, however, and you should use ICC Display Transform for actual editing so you don't end up surprised when exporting to an interchange format. A way to confirm this behaviour is to use the colour picker tool: it will be picking linear values, so a background value will likely be 0.01 for example. The other behaviour to be aware of is that Photo adds non-destructive Levels and Curves adjustments to the layer stack, for a gamma transform and tone shaping respectively, which presents the user with a more meaningful starting point. You can of course hide or delete these if you wish to tone stretch completely from scratch. PS for multi-night stacking you would simply use file groups. These allow you to split your data up, as you may likely have separate calibration frames for each night. Hope the above helps!
I was about to comment and point him to your videos and your macro packs, all of which are incredible. Glad to see you beat me to it. Now we just need him to rescore it appropriately.
@@davidjones7544 Yes it is, so much value, so massive simple, not too slow, and i'm happy with the files it does produce. Now i just need to strech the photos in to it instead of photoshop
I'm going to give your grid layout a 5/5: the way you gave annotations about each score and then the total possible points listed at the bottom of each column made it really easy to follow 😂
Sure! I think it is mandatory to learn the features of the softwares before publishing a comparison video like that. Otherwise it is not more than "a first impression" comparison.
His first impressions are better due to his experience with all of the other software that he has already used. He spent the money, the time, and the effort to bring us a good review. Unless you can remove all personal bias from a review and boil it down to purely mechanical details, one person's judgment may not match that of another. This was a great review no matter if he had not used them extensively before producing it.
Also, not sure if he chose LNC degree and other features before integrating which will make a huge difference. Personally I tried PI (WBPP) and APP in stacking many times and APP always giving me a better result so I stocked with it then process my image in PI
I had the same "yell at the screen" moment - but I also agree with Nico with his impression of the UI/UX, because I made the same mistake for the first few months of using it until Diego Colonello pointed out i was doing it the hard way. Now I think it's the easiest software to use - but it does need a slight rethink - but I believe Mabula is working on it. I also agree that its got way too much junk on teh right hand side that doesn't even need to be made visible until much later in the process. Curious to know how the "noise" was measured versus subjectively assessed.
One final comment about Sequator, which I use for deep sky as well as for nightscapes, is that it can register stars correctly even in the presence of significant geometric distortion from a lens. This is not something that affects images from telescopes but can certainly affect images from wide-angle lens and even some telephoto lenses when aggressive dithering is used or when shooting untracked images (say, for nightscapes), both of which cause significant changes in where specific stars appear from frame to frame. That is something you did not test. Some of the other programs may also handle that well but some like DSS are known to be poor in that regard.
In regards to your notes on AstroPixelProcessor, noting that you cant do everything and then click one button to start everything... yeah you can. You just configure everything, then hit Integrate in the last tab, and it does everything in order.
Great breakdown. From this, I think the way to decide which one to choose is to look at the final result score (since that's the most important thing), and then work your way backwards. For example if PixInsight is too expensive then you look at ASTAP, but if the processing time is too long for you then you go with DSS or Siril, etc.
Thanks Nico. I am just graduating to DSO photography so getting such a comprehensive comparison of Stacking software is greatly appreciated. I was aware of most of the software you covered but ASTAP was new to me and I will investigate further. I am presently working to understand SIRIL for now though and getting a bit of your insight into how it actually works was also very helpful.
Nico, great video. Regarding Affinity and the final result not being linear... By default Affinity applies a curve and levels adjustment to the image (as layers) and you can delete those to return the image to the linear state before exporting out to something like PI. Also, in APP you mention that you have to work through each "step" one at a time and click the button at the end of each tab to process that step before moving on to the next. This is also not necessary. You can simply set each of the options as you desire and then click the button under the final (integration) tab and it will run through any "unprocessed" tabs in order to get to the final result. I think part of why this is confusing is (as you said) the interface looks like a relic at this point.
Like others have said, really grateful you did a great job of laying out a grid that allowed us to understand the comparisons, and as a Mac user I appreciated knowing what resources were available without having to give them all a try. Keep up the good work.
ASTAP is also a completely offline plate solver that can do a blind search in a couple of minutes or a directed search in seconds. That's what the main page of the program is about. Love it for that, just drop in a snapshot and click solve (to direct it you can either enter RA/Dec in the top left or double click and enter an object to find in the catalogue).
Tremendous work Nico! the amount of effort it undoubtedly took to put this together is nuts, maximum respect man! 🙏 I had serious initial confusion when I switched over to APP for my stacking needs, for a long time I didn't realise that I could load my frames and skip straight to the 'integrate' part, it was only after this was pointed out by a friend that I knew haha! No doubt a major failing of the programs UI that this info isn't made clear to a new user right away as its such a huge usability boost! Thank you for taking the time to make such an honest run through of all these options mate, again - wonderful work! :-) Clear skies!
Ha, thanks Luke! Glad I wasn't the only one. The comments here made me think everyone else found it obvious. My guess is by numbering the tabs, a lot of people would assume they had to go through each one, and not just skip straight from load to integrate.
@@NebulaPhotos Now you mention it, I think that's what initially tricked me! - the numbering of the tabs making it seem like it needed to be in sequence, as you say! It's a wonderful program, but needs a UI overhaul someday for sure, Clear skies mate!
APP is fab but not much support online - a lot of questions unanswered - which I guess was born out by the issue of thinking you had to go through the steps one at a time.
In some sense APP has the most consistent UI of all (It may look or feel not so beautiful to you though). The left hand tab is for processing. The middle is for visualisation. And the right hand is for creating the final look of the image from the linear one. None of the options on the right hand side affects the FITS files, just the visualizaton, unless you export to a TIFF with the button in the right hand panel. You may call it "stretching" but there is more to it, like saturation or sharpening. This way you can overstretch your image during processing just to see the faults better, then take back for the final result. Or for color calibration you can stature, then calibrate (because that works on the linear image, not the stretched and saturated one). If you don't like the result you can go back. Not even Siril have that feature.
In APP you don’t really need to click through all of the steps one by one and create all the intermediary files. Just load your source files, set up the params you want and hit Integrate on tab 6). It will do it all and spit out one (or one per filter) integrated final image
APP is excellent. Tons of control over the process when you need it but also great for one click operation too. Hover tips explain all the controls generously, but you don't really need to change much of the settings regularly. Just hit integrate!
I would add that in Siril , you can do the manual steps on the left side, loading in the files and darks and flats, scripts are nice and easy, but full manual stacking is also available right there. The problem is, it's not very intuitive and many people opening up Siril the first time might be lost what to do first.
Thanks Frank, I have done it, but forgot to mention it. I wish they had a more unified GUI for the chained scripts like Sirilic built-in. I think more people would use Siril if they did.
Without watching: my prediction is that DSS will result in the best score for beginners and PixInsight and (maybe SiriL too) will score the best for people who know the entire process and want full control. Edit: after watching the full video, glad to see my preconceived notions were correct! I am also surprised by astap. Not because it’s so good, but because I’ve never tried using it for stacking (I use astap as a plate solver too). I guess I will need to try it out! Pixinsight is still the best though because if you set up remote connections you can have a different computer preprocessing your data in real time as it comes in. Super important for big telescopes like the one we have at our observatory! Great video, Nico! Thank you!
In astro pixel processor you can set everything up and click only the integrate button on tab 6. That will do all the previous steps as well. Anyway, Awesome video as always!
An indepth 8 way comparison? My word, if you keep working this hard on youtube videos you aren't going to get any imaging done :) You mad hatter, although I am interested to see the affinity segment, I've never even really looked into it before.
A big plus for Siril is you can open multiple windows and work on different projects at the same time. I once had 7 versions of Siril open and stacked different projects. On a ssd it is 5x faster than on a hdd.
Great comparison Nico! Thank you for the effort. There is new stacker in ZWO ASIStudio from ZWO (astronomy imaging camera manufacturer) called ASIDeepStack. Fairly basic but works.
Great video! I think siril ui needs a little more love, specially for the great descriptions you get when overing a setting with the mouse and the tutorials on their webpage are pretty good too.
I would agree about Siril. I Love how fast it is and stacks supper quick but after messing with it for 30 hours of the process of 4 days I could not figure out how to make ti work with more complicated Narrowband images.
Great comparison that was fun to follow. A couple of years ago I started with DSS which is very easy to learn. Now I use PI which has a very steep learning curve but is so powerful. A couple of issues to consider. First high cost of PI needs to put in context that it's a complet and incredible powerful imaging processing program. Second, for all of these programs, the range and quality of online tutorials, free and not, also has an impact on how easy it is to learn to use the programs, especially when you get beyond the basics.
I think where Sequator really shines are those wide Milky Way shots that include the ground - perhaps with quite a bit of light pollution - rather than deep sky astrophotography. It was dead simple to get results for an otherwise complicated scene.
Oh good. I always wanted an answer to this as I have to take thousands of exposures sometimes and it's really time consuming to try multiple programs to see if one gives better results in that particular case. Looking forward to this!
Affinity Photo looks really good to me. a bit ritcher nebula colors and less noise with no banding. - just what i see on youtube. 4k and btw. what a great work with this one! really appreciate your work. for us newbies it's such a value! thanks!
With APP, just go direct to Integrate and hit integrate. It runs through all the processes without needing user intervention. Unless there is a problem with the data.
You know what the best thing about being a subscriber? Watching you develop over the years as an astrophotographer, as a producer/director/creator here on youtube. Im proud of you buddy!
Regarding Siril, you can do all tHe preprocessing via the UI , with a lot of additional options like stacking only the best xx% based on several metrics… I often used the manual proces to compare what additional improvements can be found to the scripts.
I may be an advanced user of Siril but I use custom scripts to preprocess my images, apply synthetic bias, etc and then a second nearly identical script for additional nights with an index offset to the file name, gather all of the preprocessed images into a working folder then register, drizzle and stack using the UI windows which allows a ton more options such as viewing an analysis and selecting images, change stacking methods and many more. The speed that Siril works is a real asset when I’m stacking 3 nights of 36mp images with a set of flats for each night. Stacking 500 x 144mp images (after drizzle) makes most computers cry and PI to crawl and crash. Siril can munch through the data in about an hour.
I would redo the Sequator test using "select best pixels: strict", "high dynamic range", and "remove dynamic noises." This is my preferred stacking software since, with these options, it gives good detail while preserving color. DSS and Siril tend to murder color.
I like the video, you did a good, but kind of basic outline of feature. However, there is the continued push towards Pix Insight. You are docking APP for its UI, and yet giving pie a better score. How you weighted Speed was also I thought a bit biased, because what is more important than time. When you are waiting for system to process stack your images. I can stack and remove the noise in far less time than it takes Pi or APP to stack. I do appreciate what you are doing and how well you did present most things. However, the UX UI for Pi, is horrible, and to say they are not, gives me a feeling that someting isn't right in the evaluation, especially since SIRIL is obviously way more intuative, less confusing, faster, and just a great product, and did I mention FREE !! Appreciate yoru work. Much respect. Clear Skies !!
Thanks for all the hard work! I was die-hard DSS user even after I went to PI because it was easy and what I learned first. Once I got WBPP going...especially the later updates, I never looked back. PI can sort diff exposures and gain so easily...plus assign flats and dark-flats effortlessly it's a no-brainer to use it all the time now!
Small correction: During the ASTAP stack menu section you implied that flat dark frames are the same as bias frames. This is not the case. Dark flats are, well, dark calibration for your flat frames. Just as dark frames calibrate for amp glow of light frames, dark flats calibrate for amp glow for flat frames. Bias frames calibrate for a different sensor anomaly.
If you use a stronger light source, ie sky flats, you can get your exposure time down pretty short and then it will be very close. I typically take flats at around 1/1000s
Discovering that was a pain, given ASTAP rejected all my bias images, and I have no way of creating light flats. I don't know if this was the cause, but I found the outputs from ASTAP to be pretty atrocious.
@@Morgyborgyblob Are you exporting them? The preview ASTAP shows is not great but once exported and stretched in ie Photoshop it gives vastly better results compared to say DSS.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel I opened the files in GIMP, and there were masses of striations, and angular shapes across the images, as soon as I started stretching the histograms. I don't get that with DSS.
Hi, Nico. Thanks so much for this excellent evaluation. I've been trying a couple of options and you have certainly helped me consolidate my own choice. One thought, which may (or may not) help folks decide what is best for them, is to 'weight' each of the criterion according to how important it is to them. For example, one person may consider Cost more important than Features, and someone else, Features more important than Cost. The table you presented, essentially has each of the criteria weighted equally. Here's an example - the weighted totals are simple each score multiplied by the value in its Importance column and then all added together. I’ve chosen to used weights in the range 1-5, but you could use 1-10 equally well. In this example, Final Result is weighted the most important (5), Features second (4), Cost and UI/UX in the middle (3 each) and Speed(2) and OS(1) least important). With these, weightings, PixInsight becomes an even more distinct choice, but with different weightings, others may emerge as more favourable to the individual making the choice. Apologies if the table is a little hard to read - it's best done in Excel of course, but I couldn't work out how to copy that in here. Cost OS UI/UX Features Speed Result Total Weighted-Total Importance (1-5) 3 1 3 4 2 5
Great comparison. Didn't know about ASTAP either. I will definitely have to check it out. I do use Affinity Photo, and noise is an issue with my pics. Still very new to the hobby, so it may be due to my data collection, etc. Thank you for the showdown.
Nico, thank you for all your videos, and this one comparing pros and cons of different stacking software. I have learned much from you (and Borealis Lite) on how to use Siril. I also have Affinity. I was actually surprised that you gave Siril and Affinity similar ratings on features. I use both, but I mostly use Siril. While I agree with all your other rating comparisons of the two software, I feel that Siril is much better on the initial stage of post-processing. Siril has much better and more flexible background extraction than Affinity, and it also includes photometric calibration, banding software, and a median filter, among many other tools. I agree the later part of processing is not good in Siril. Sometimes, I will use Affinity to stack, but then use Siril for background extraction, etc.
Excellent comparison Nico! Can I suggest/ask for a similar video for the planetary stacking programs like PlanetarySystemStacker, AutoStakkert3, and AstroSurface. I know you don't primarily do planetary/moon/sun imaging but lots of folks that watch your channel do. Thanks again for all your efforts!
It would also be useful to use some of the general purpose apps he reviewed here as reference, like PixInsight, Siril, etc. While stacking planetary is different than stacking deep sky, it would be nice to know if one app is decent at both. I find having too many apps in my image processing process just creates a headache of intermediate data laying about. It's one reason I like Siril, because I can do with it what I previously needed PiPP (iphone mpg4 to avi or tiff conversion) and AutoStakkert!3 for.
In APP you can set all the tabs up for multiple filters and hit integrate - you do not need to do each step individually. Personally I much prefer to do my calibration and stacking in APP and then move to Pixinsight for processing. It is also way easier to create mosaics in APP than Pixinsight (again personal opinion).
I am skeptical about the review of quality of the stacked image for Astro Pixel Processor. I am not saying that the result that you got was better than it was but more that APP provides extensive stacking options. The end result varies a lot depending on the options selected. The default result if you choose automatic is mostly good and I often use this when I stack nightly results. For context I frequently am working on project that run many nights, usually at least 3 or 4 nights on a single subject and I have also done mosaics of large regions of the sky made up of many panels and up to 20 full nights of images with various filters. So I stack each nightly to evaluate overall quality then tweak which lights to include or not then dump the calibrated images for later stacking. When I do my final stacks of calibrated images I usually wind up stacking it several times with various tweaks to the settings. The differences are sometimes subtle but sometimes are significantly better wit a bit of tweaking. So I do not think it is fair to evaluate quality based on default settings alone. One other point is that APP kind of excels at stacking data from different nights the LNC correction and LNC rejection are very useful when shooting on different nights with different gradient sky glows. For example I was recently stacking some narrow band data some taken during the new moon and some taken close to the full moon with fairly extreme gradients. Using these features I was able to stack all of this data together and tweak the settings to come up with fairly good results better I think than many of the other stackers I have tried. In addition to this if you use different camera and optics I am not aware of any stacker that handles this as well as APP. It also creates very good distortion models when stacking with extremely wide angle lenses. For example large milky way mosaics using 14mm lens that sort of thing. I have not seen any other stacking software which does as good a job as this. I do agree that it is a bit slower than Pixinsight stacking and others as you pointed out. I noticed this when I first started using it but personally I decided that I really did not care that much how long it takes to stack. I usually do stacking as a background process while I am working on something else anyways. Even the fastest stackers take more time than I want to hang around and wait for them to complete. Given this it does not matter too much if it takes 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes or whatever, either way you have to kick it off and do something else for a while anyways. So for me how long it takes to stack is much less important than features and end quality. Sometimes it is a bit of a burden for example the large mosaics take a LONG time to process. I am mostly using an ASI 294 mm for those with 1x1 binning which produces 96 MB files, stacking many hundreds of these can take a long time. The longs was the 8 panel mosaic with R, G, B, Ha, SII, and OIII over 19 nights, the final stack for this took many hours I think it was at least 12 hours maybe longer. But I just kicked it off overnight. I guess this is where stacking time might have some importance. But to me it is still much less important, bit it would be nice if it was faster.
Hello Nick. I always used SIril and was puzled by your review, so gave ASTAP a try, just to compare the difference. I'm impressed O_O. I can confirm that the resulting stacked image is much, much better. I would nave never guessed such difference. Thanks a lot!
I don't know anything about astrophotography but just for fun I captured a few 60kb screenshots from this video and ran them through Photoshop. A few minutes with just Levels, Curves and Hue/Sat made a difference. There's a lot more data there. ASTAP was stunning. Would be interesting to professionally process a real image file.
@Jim D - If you're interested enough there are a number of demo videos on UA-cam and more to be found via a search where the OP will provide a set of 30 or more subs that you can download for free and use as test cases.
I've only used Sequator on the handful of astro images I've tried. I thought my camera was crap, or maybe that I was doing something horribly wrong. I hadn't even thought to blame the stacking program. Seeing Affinity really surprised me.
Thanks for the comprehensive video. I brought affinity same as you when it was on sale. I only use it for post processing. Scripts from James R, one of the Affinity dev are quite good. I prefer SIRIL for pre processing and stacking snd even some basic processing. It is by far the best (and blazing fast). But looks like need to get my hands on ASTAP, though using it for offline platesolver in NINA, stacking looks very promising . Thanks for giving the valuable info about the underdog.
Nice review. I think when making my final choice I can ignore the first 2 categories, Cost and OS. Those are nice to know, but I'm more interested in how they compare in performance. For example, I don't really care if any of these programs can run on MacOS or Linux, so for me that's not worth the extra 2 points. So I will subtract the first 2 categories from the total and this is what I come up with: Affinity 15 Astro Pixel 15 ASTAP 16 DSS 17 PixInsight 20 RegisStar 8 Sequator 12 Siril 15 PixInsight is still the clear winner overall but more than I want to pay. For me it looks like DeepSkyStacker is the winner but only due to faster processing time. It might be a push with ASTAP since ASTAP had the 2nd highest Final Result. I will probably try both due to their excellent cost benefit, $0.
Interesting comparison, and I pretty much agree with you. I started with Deep Sky Stacker, then moved to Astro Pixel Processor, and then I just bit the bullet and bought PixInsight - I think it's the best. But Astro Pixel Processor still does mosaics very well. I have never used Astap for stacking, but it is one of my goto plate solvers. The PixInsight UI is most definitely hard to get used to at first, but once I did I can't go back to any other processing software (well, except Photoshop for some final finishing touches that are just easier to accomplish once the image is non-linear). Nice video.
Ah, right sorry, should have been more clear. I meant an automated way of doing those tasks with a GUI. What I would like is if Sirilic siril.org/docs/sirilic/ was packaged with the main installation, and worked well on all of Siril's platforms including MacOS. If they offered that I think it would be a lot more intuitive to newcomers.
@@NebulaPhotos Ah ok, yeah you are right about that part, it is a manual process (still has a cool graph thingy to exclude certain pictures that don't meet your requirements). Havent seen sirilic yet, will take a look at it! Judging from the website it is also avaible for Linux which is great
The video indirectly reminded me that I didn't check for a new version of DSS, so I did, and to my surprise there's now DSS 5.1.3 (as of June 2023), and it actually has a somewhat different interface (not fundamentally so), because it's been ported to Qt, meaning it can eventually be ported to other platforms!
Once you modify a script or two, SiriL is a breeze to operate. One thing I learned how to do is to write a script that uses a synthetic bias--there's a tutorial on it, (as are there other tutorials). This eliminates taking an extra set of bias exposures, and actually eliminates a potential noise source otherwise introduced by the bias shots that can't be removed. Yes, there is a learning curve with SiriL, but for the price, this program does a great job. Also, just want to say I cut my teeth on Sequator--I would recommend it to the absolute beginner owing to its simpicity.
Hello Nico, I really dig your videos, your production values are on point. May I suggest one thing though? Ever think of adding those time stamps throughout your videos? It would help, especially in a video like this with a bunch of different programs being compared. Keep up the good work though, you're killin it.
Ah, thanks for the reminder. I used to always do the timestamps, but have forgotten about them on recent videos. I've added them to this one, and will do my best to add them on future videos, especially the longer ones. Cheers, Nico
Great work! I use ASTAP for its pre-processing algorithm and, of course, for plate-solving, as it is the best choice for Linux-based imaging/pointing software, but I never used it for actual stacking. I'll have to give it another look. I had using Siril for stacking, but am moving to PixInsight if I can get used to the speed penalty. Two things regarding Siril: 1. In Linux (and possibly Mac) it can now use file linking (a UNIX form of aliasing a file rather than copying the whole file) which drastically saves disk space and increases speed significantly. 2. Siril works fairly well without the scripts. You just start at the left side of the program options and do each one (as applicable) from left to right, beginning with Conversion and ending with Stacking. Thank you for including Linux as a component of your evaluations!
Great video - glad you limited the comparison to just stacking. I own both Pixinsight and APP. I have a personal hatred for the Pixinsight UI and love the one or two click processing workflow of APP, but perhaps Ill use PI for stacking only. Ill go insane if I have to use PI for anything else ;)
Agree that ASTAP is underrated! Also arguably the best platesolver and has a great free tool to use as an alternative to CCDInspector when checking for tilt/backfocus!
I use a few of the programs you mention. Affinity is my primary photo-editing program and works very well. Astrophotography stacking is pretty good, but not the best. However I am sure it will get even better. Its user interface is excellent.
Thanks so much for doing this. Amazing job. I must say that although PixInsight is expensive compared to others, you get what you pay for. in my view, weighted batch processing would be worth it if it was a standalone program. If you are on the fence in the year 2022, get PixInsight . It is so much easier to use now than just a year ago. As for speed, naturally since it’s doing so much more, it’s going to be slower. What Astro photographer wouldn’t be willing to wait for a better result. We put in so much time gathering data. thanks again, Rick
Very cool video- I use Astap all the time, but as a plate solver- It is fast as hell! I've heard it's also good for live-stack/EAA applications but I haven't tried that yet. You missed one that is actually a nice option for Mac users, Starry Sky Stacker. It's not free- I think it's about $25 but it's quick and fairly intuitive.
I usually use DSS and/or SIRIL. In the case the photometric color calibration is working, I think SIRIL does better than DSS. But if it doesn't work it creates color issues that I can't handle as beginner. Definetly will give ASTAP a try. Never heard about it within the astrophotography community in Germany.
Thank you; very useful indeed. I am currently using DSS and I'm very happy with it. I removed the OS scores from your totals, as I only need one OS at any time. That puts DSS and PixInsight on level pegging with a score of 20. However, DSS is free while PixInsight costs $ 230 and runs at half the speed of DSS. Now i'm going to look for a similar comparison video for processing software. I currently use StarTools for most of my deep sky work. How does it 'stack up' to the other products available!? Searching for that comparison video...
The thing with the OS score isn't, that you want to use the same program on differend operation systems, but that you need to be able to run the program on your OS. For me, all Windows-based programs are out of the race anyway as I don't run windows, and am happy to run Mac and Linux software. But for Linux support there should be actually 2 points be awarded, as this OS is available for everyone and great for robust and possibly automatic work flows.
I understand, but most people use only one OS, with Windows being the most universally installed. Few of us will install a new OS just to run a special piece of software. I personally feel you could give negative points to products that do not run on Windows.
@@hardakml That is why there is a point per OS supported - the more points, the more likely they run on the OS you are using. And I know that Windows is widely used, but not everyone uses it or could even install it on their computer if they wanted. I am using Mac/Linux. Linux has the advantage to nicely run in a VM, so Linux software is easy to use from Mac and Windows. Also Linux supports every CPU architecture there is.
I sometimes use DSS for registration/calibration and stack the images with image integration with the winsorised sigma clipping etc using the image integration in Pixinsight. This greatly speeds up things and yields nearly the same quality as doing everything in Pixinsight, especially concerning noise
Nice comparison video, Nico! I'm quite impressed that you've covered so many programs for the comparison I'm a heavy user of Siril for my DSO stacking, and I do my stacking all manually, not using the scripts. By doing it manually, you get a lot of tweaking options and features on pre-processing, registration and integration processes, and I suspect many of the other softwares introduced in this video has many tweaking options available too. I totally understand this video is intended for users in the beginner's side who would probably prefer a fast, one-click and intuitive stacking software, and your scores are probably justified. Though I'm quite curious about the stacked results comparison when all the stacking parameters are as closely adjusted as possible if not the same. I think what many of serious astrophotographers out there would like to know that and see if their software of choice is capable of delivering the best results.
There is a macOS stacker that didn’t make the list: Starry Sky Stacker. I was using it as an easier and faster alternative to DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight (though I now have gravitated to PixInsight). Here are my personal and subjective scores for Starry Sky Stacker (trying to use your scale) after doing a half dozen nights in all three tools. Price: 1 ($25) OS: 1 (macOS only) UI/UX: 2 (Clean, but quirky; also the creation of master flats and master darks is not at all obvious; I've had to re-read the instructions and watch videos multiple times) Features: 2 (Just the basics, use bias or dark flats not clear; not many options) Speed: 3 (I find it to be much faster that PixInsight and Deep Sky Stacker; I admittedly haven't quantified the difference recently) Final result: 4 Total: 13 Bottom line opinion: Fine little stacker, but unintuitive in spots and you quickly outgrow it.
For me, I have to drop the cost category, because if something is blatantly better it's worth more. The final image 10, should give it a 2 or 3 in price (value). You get what you pay for. Awesome information.
Nico, I really appreciate your time, consideration and unbiased approach to knowledge sharing. Thank you so much for teaching us and sharing your experience. It is because of you and this amazing community that gave me the confidence to enter this hobby. Stay awesome.
In siril all those tabs that you clicked across is how you stack manually will all the options you want. You add your files you calibrate you files you blink them and select out bad files then register and stack. I don't use the scripts at all I love this program
Great review; although I would have given DSS a 3 instead of a 2 in the speed column - it is twice as fast as PI, and I have heard horror stories on PI forums about the complexity, issues, and the amount of time it takes to get WBPP running (of course once those issues are overcome, then it becomes easier on the next project - just a huge learning curve). Overall you did a fabulous job in reviewing these eight stackers. Bravo!
Thank you for doing this, it is interesting. Though I have to say that in Astro Pixel Processor, unlike what you said at 10:00, you can set all the settings on every tab and just hit Integrate on tab 6. It will do all the steps you've requested to get to the end on its own. ;)
Great video. I now use a combo of SiriL and Affinity. Ideal for OSC images. I never use scripts since SiriL does not know how to automate if using master darks and flats. Just wish there were more UA-cam tutorials on how to really exploit the astronomy toolsets from these systems vs the Big Gorilla of PI…
Biggest issue with Pixinsight, (at least on the version I have, maybe they fixed it in the more recent ones) is that the integration script will not work unless you give it Lights, Darks, Flats and Bias, which is a pain especially if you want to stack DSLRs where using Darks may actually cause problems (and that's true for most of them out there since they cook RAW files in camera) or if you don't have Bias etc... you can still manually do all the integration steps but as I said it's a pain.
Great video, as usual you're content is useful. I would be helpful to know your computer specs (processor, RAM, OS version). Also, what are the recommended specs for each program? As far as your scoring methodology is concerned, OS shouldn't factor into the scoring because it doesn't factor into the capabilities of the software.
Keep exploring at brilliant.org/NebulaPhotos/ Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
I'm not trying to be a jerk I swear to God but there is one you missed that I've been using lately this working great called astrosurface it's at least worth looking at it's really good for planetary stuff as well super easy to use pretty intuitive too but my quality of my images has gone up exponentially using it
Hi, thanks for showing Affinity Photo in this showdown!
Just a clarification, all data is stacked in linear 32-bit unbounded, and stays this way once you apply the stack and move back to the main Photo persona (workspace).
This seems to confuse quite a few people because of the way Photo handles working in 32-bit linear: the actual pixel values remain linear, but a non-destructive gamma view transform is added to the document view so you're seeing gamma corrected pixel values. It does this to avoid the Flatten>Convert and tone map step that is often required in other software (e.g. Photoshop). You can do your entire edit in 32-bit, then simply go to File>Export, knowing that if you export to a gamma-encoded format such as 8-bit JPEG it will look exactly the same.
You can bypass the view transform by going to View>Studio>32-bit Preview and switching from ICC Display Transform to Unmanaged: this shows you the scene-referred linear values. This is only useful for an analysis purpose, however, and you should use ICC Display Transform for actual editing so you don't end up surprised when exporting to an interchange format.
A way to confirm this behaviour is to use the colour picker tool: it will be picking linear values, so a background value will likely be 0.01 for example.
The other behaviour to be aware of is that Photo adds non-destructive Levels and Curves adjustments to the layer stack, for a gamma transform and tone shaping respectively, which presents the user with a more meaningful starting point. You can of course hide or delete these if you wish to tone stretch completely from scratch.
PS for multi-night stacking you would simply use file groups. These allow you to split your data up, as you may likely have separate calibration frames for each night.
Hope the above helps!
I was about to comment and point him to your videos and your macro packs, all of which are incredible. Glad to see you beat me to it. Now we just need him to rescore it appropriately.
Affinity is such an incredible value.
@@davidjones7544 Yes it is, so much value, so massive simple, not too slow, and i'm happy with the files it does produce. Now i just need to strech the photos in to it instead of photoshop
James just saw your video explaining the linear color spaces in Affinity (ua-cam.com/video/cTK-37faCr0/v-deo.html), thanks.
Affinity-> 2:45
App -> 8:04
Astap -> 12:00
Dss -> 15:57
Pix -> 20:08
Registar -> 27:00
Sequator -> 30:40
Siril -> 34:01
I'm going to give your grid layout a 5/5: the way you gave annotations about each score and then the total possible points listed at the bottom of each column made it really easy to follow 😂
So its one or 2 out of 5 or 4?
Correction for APP, if you set everything in those tabs, you can hit "integrate" in the last tab and it'll run everything you selected.
Sure! I think it is mandatory to learn the features of the softwares before publishing a comparison video like that. Otherwise it is not more than "a first impression" comparison.
His first impressions are better due to his experience with all of the other software that he has already used. He spent the money, the time, and the effort to bring us a good review. Unless you can remove all personal bias from a review and boil it down to purely mechanical details, one person's judgment may not match that of another.
This was a great review no matter if he had not used them extensively before producing it.
Also, not sure if he chose LNC degree and other features before integrating which will make a huge difference. Personally I tried PI (WBPP) and APP in stacking many times and APP always giving me a better result so I stocked with it then process my image in PI
I had the same "yell at the screen" moment - but I also agree with Nico with his impression of the UI/UX, because I made the same mistake for the first few months of using it until Diego Colonello pointed out i was doing it the hard way. Now I think it's the easiest software to use - but it does need a slight rethink - but I believe Mabula is working on it.
I also agree that its got way too much junk on teh right hand side that doesn't even need to be made visible until much later in the process.
Curious to know how the "noise" was measured versus subjectively assessed.
@@paulmuller6249 Agree, APP is my fav by far, I love the developers and community but the interface needs an update for sure
One final comment about Sequator, which I use for deep sky as well as for nightscapes, is that it can register stars correctly even in the presence of significant geometric distortion from a lens. This is not something that affects images from telescopes but can certainly affect images from wide-angle lens and even some telephoto lenses when aggressive dithering is used or when shooting untracked images (say, for nightscapes), both of which cause significant changes in where specific stars appear from frame to frame. That is something you did not test. Some of the other programs may also handle that well but some like DSS are known to be poor in that regard.
In regards to your notes on AstroPixelProcessor, noting that you cant do everything and then click one button to start everything... yeah you can. You just configure everything, then hit Integrate in the last tab, and it does everything in order.
Great breakdown.
From this, I think the way to decide which one to choose is to look at the final result score (since that's the most important thing), and then work your way backwards.
For example if PixInsight is too expensive then you look at ASTAP, but if the processing time is too long for you then you go with DSS or Siril, etc.
Thanks Nico. I am just graduating to DSO photography so getting such a comprehensive comparison of Stacking software is greatly appreciated. I was aware of most of the software you covered but ASTAP was new to me and I will investigate further. I am presently working to understand SIRIL for now though and getting a bit of your insight into how it actually works was also very helpful.
Nico, great video. Regarding Affinity and the final result not being linear... By default Affinity applies a curve and levels adjustment to the image (as layers) and you can delete those to return the image to the linear state before exporting out to something like PI.
Also, in APP you mention that you have to work through each "step" one at a time and click the button at the end of each tab to process that step before moving on to the next. This is also not necessary. You can simply set each of the options as you desire and then click the button under the final (integration) tab and it will run through any "unprocessed" tabs in order to get to the final result. I think part of why this is confusing is (as you said) the interface looks like a relic at this point.
@Pawel Kolano they are adjustment layers you can delete on Affinity
Like others have said, really grateful you did a great job of laying out a grid that allowed us to understand the comparisons, and as a Mac user I appreciated knowing what resources were available without having to give them all a try. Keep up the good work.
ASTAP is also a completely offline plate solver that can do a blind search in a couple of minutes or a directed search in seconds. That's what the main page of the program is about. Love it for that, just drop in a snapshot and click solve (to direct it you can either enter RA/Dec in the top left or double click and enter an object to find in the catalogue).
Tremendous work Nico! the amount of effort it undoubtedly took to put this together is nuts, maximum respect man! 🙏
I had serious initial confusion when I switched over to APP for my stacking needs, for a long time I didn't realise that I could load my frames and skip straight to the 'integrate' part, it was only after this was pointed out by a friend that I knew haha! No doubt a major failing of the programs UI that this info isn't made clear to a new user right away as its such a huge usability boost!
Thank you for taking the time to make such an honest run through of all these options mate, again - wonderful work! :-)
Clear skies!
Ha, thanks Luke! Glad I wasn't the only one. The comments here made me think everyone else found it obvious. My guess is by numbering the tabs, a lot of people would assume they had to go through each one, and not just skip straight from load to integrate.
@@NebulaPhotos Now you mention it, I think that's what initially tricked me! - the numbering of the tabs making it seem like it needed to be in sequence, as you say!
It's a wonderful program, but needs a UI overhaul someday for sure,
Clear skies mate!
APP is fab but not much support online - a lot of questions unanswered - which I guess was born out by the issue of thinking you had to go through the steps one at a time.
In some sense APP has the most consistent UI of all (It may look or feel not so beautiful to you though). The left hand tab is for processing. The middle is for visualisation. And the right hand is for creating the final look of the image from the linear one. None of the options on the right hand side affects the FITS files, just the visualizaton, unless you export to a TIFF with the button in the right hand panel. You may call it "stretching" but there is more to it, like saturation or sharpening.
This way you can overstretch your image during processing just to see the faults better, then take back for the final result. Or for color calibration you can stature, then calibrate (because that works on the linear image, not the stretched and saturated one). If you don't like the result you can go back. Not even Siril have that feature.
In APP you don’t really need to click through all of the steps one by one and create all the intermediary files. Just load your source files, set up the params you want and hit Integrate on tab 6). It will do it all and spit out one (or one per filter) integrated final image
APP is excellent. Tons of control over the process when you need it but also great for one click operation too. Hover tips explain all the controls generously, but you don't really need to change much of the settings regularly. Just hit integrate!
I would add that in Siril , you can do the manual steps on the left side, loading in the files and darks and flats, scripts are nice and easy, but full manual stacking is also available right there. The problem is, it's not very intuitive and many people opening up Siril the first time might be lost what to do first.
Thanks Frank, I have done it, but forgot to mention it. I wish they had a more unified GUI for the chained scripts like Sirilic built-in. I think more people would use Siril if they did.
Without watching: my prediction is that DSS will result in the best score for beginners and PixInsight and (maybe SiriL too) will score the best for people who know the entire process and want full control.
Edit: after watching the full video, glad to see my preconceived notions were correct! I am also surprised by astap. Not because it’s so good, but because I’ve never tried using it for stacking (I use astap as a plate solver too). I guess I will need to try it out! Pixinsight is still the best though because if you set up remote connections you can have a different computer preprocessing your data in real time as it comes in. Super important for big telescopes like the one we have at our observatory!
Great video, Nico! Thank you!
You should defiantly look into ASTAP some more. It has a few unique future that I have not found anywhere else. Definitely a sleeper.
In astro pixel processor you can set everything up and click only the integrate button on tab 6. That will do all the previous steps as well.
Anyway, Awesome video as always!
An indepth 8 way comparison? My word, if you keep working this hard on youtube videos you aren't going to get any imaging done :) You mad hatter, although I am interested to see the affinity segment, I've never even really looked into it before.
A big plus for Siril is you can open multiple windows and work on different projects at the same time. I once had 7 versions of Siril open and stacked different projects. On a ssd it is 5x faster than on a hdd.
Great comparison Nico! Thank you for the effort. There is new stacker in ZWO ASIStudio from ZWO (astronomy imaging camera manufacturer) called ASIDeepStack. Fairly basic but works.
Great video! I think siril ui needs a little more love, specially for the great descriptions you get when overing a setting with the mouse and the tutorials on their webpage are pretty good too.
I would agree about Siril. I Love how fast it is and stacks supper quick but after messing with it for 30 hours of the process of 4 days I could not figure out how to make ti work with more complicated Narrowband images.
Great comparison that was fun to follow. A couple of years ago I started with DSS which is very easy to learn. Now I use PI which has a very steep learning curve but is so powerful.
A couple of issues to consider. First high cost of PI needs to put in context that it's a complet and incredible powerful imaging processing program. Second, for all of these programs, the range and quality of online tutorials, free and not, also has an impact on how easy it is to learn to use the programs, especially when you get beyond the basics.
I think where Sequator really shines are those wide Milky Way shots that include the ground - perhaps with quite a bit of light pollution - rather than deep sky astrophotography. It was dead simple to get results for an otherwise complicated scene.
Thanks for the tabular information. It has served me well in my hobby of astronomy. Thanks again. Best regards.
Oh good. I always wanted an answer to this as I have to take thousands of exposures sometimes and it's really time consuming to try multiple programs to see if one gives better results in that particular case.
Looking forward to this!
If anyone is wondering the outro song is Milky Way Express by Lupus Nocte
This is perfect! It's what I needed to see to help me with my decision!
Thanks!
You're welcome, glad you liked it Alberto, and thanks for the donation! - Nico
Hello Nick! Nice vlog, thanks :) just a small correction: sirilic is available also on Linux, and not only on Windows!
Affinity Photo looks really good to me. a bit ritcher nebula colors and less noise with no banding. - just what i see on youtube. 4k and btw. what a great work with this one! really appreciate your work. for us newbies it's such a value! thanks!
With APP, just go direct to Integrate and hit integrate. It runs through all the processes without needing user intervention. Unless there is a problem with the data.
You know what the best thing about being a subscriber? Watching you develop over the years as an astrophotographer, as a producer/director/creator here on youtube. Im proud of you buddy!
One of the most helpful astrophotography vids I’ve seen!
Thanks for the stacking sw comparison, I don't even know there are so many options there available
Regarding Siril, you can do all tHe preprocessing via the UI , with a lot of additional options like stacking only the best xx% based on several metrics… I often used the manual proces to compare what additional improvements can be found to the scripts.
I may be an advanced user of Siril but I use custom scripts to preprocess my images, apply synthetic bias, etc and then a second nearly identical script for additional nights with an index offset to the file name, gather all of the preprocessed images into a working folder then register, drizzle and stack using the UI windows which allows a ton more options such as viewing an analysis and selecting images, change stacking methods and many more. The speed that Siril works is a real asset when I’m stacking 3 nights of 36mp images with a set of flats for each night. Stacking 500 x 144mp images (after drizzle) makes most computers cry and PI to crawl and crash. Siril can munch through the data in about an hour.
Definitely going to try ASTAP.
Thanks for testing these Nico💪
I don't do astrophotography but I found your video fascinating and extremely WELL DONE!
I would redo the Sequator test using "select best pixels: strict", "high dynamic range", and "remove dynamic noises." This is my preferred stacking software since, with these options, it gives good detail while preserving color. DSS and Siril tend to murder color.
I like the video, you did a good, but kind of basic outline of feature. However, there is the continued push towards Pix Insight. You are docking APP for its UI, and yet giving pie a better score. How you weighted Speed was also I thought a bit biased, because what is more important than time. When you are waiting for system to process stack your images. I can stack and remove the noise in far less time than it takes Pi or APP to stack. I do appreciate what you are doing and how well you did present most things. However, the UX UI for Pi, is horrible, and to say they are not, gives me a feeling that someting isn't right in the evaluation, especially since SIRIL is obviously way more intuative, less confusing, faster, and just a great product, and did I mention FREE !! Appreciate yoru work. Much respect. Clear Skies !!
this is one of my favorite Astrophotography channels. thanks for creating and sharing these videos
Thanks for all the hard work! I was die-hard DSS user even after I went to PI because it was easy and what I learned first. Once I got WBPP going...especially the later updates, I never looked back. PI can sort diff exposures and gain so easily...plus assign flats and dark-flats effortlessly it's a no-brainer to use it all the time now!
Small correction: During the ASTAP stack menu section you implied that flat dark frames are the same as bias frames. This is not the case. Dark flats are, well, dark calibration for your flat frames. Just as dark frames calibrate for amp glow of light frames, dark flats calibrate for amp glow for flat frames. Bias frames calibrate for a different sensor anomaly.
If you use a stronger light source, ie sky flats, you can get your exposure time down pretty short and then it will be very close. I typically take flats at around 1/1000s
Discovering that was a pain, given ASTAP rejected all my bias images, and I have no way of creating light flats. I don't know if this was the cause, but I found the outputs from ASTAP to be pretty atrocious.
@@Morgyborgyblob Are you exporting them? The preview ASTAP shows is not great but once exported and stretched in ie Photoshop it gives vastly better results compared to say DSS.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel I opened the files in GIMP, and there were masses of striations, and angular shapes across the images, as soon as I started stretching the histograms. I don't get that with DSS.
@@Morgyborgyblob sigma rejection needs to be adjusted. DSS has a different default setting.
Hi, Nico.
Thanks so much for this excellent evaluation. I've been trying a couple of options and you have certainly helped me consolidate my own choice.
One thought, which may (or may not) help folks decide what is best for them, is to 'weight' each of the criterion according to how important it is to them. For example, one person may consider Cost more important than Features, and someone else, Features more important than Cost. The table you presented, essentially has each of the criteria weighted equally.
Here's an example - the weighted totals are simple each score multiplied by the value in its Importance column and then all added together. I’ve chosen to used weights in the range 1-5, but you could use 1-10 equally well.
In this example, Final Result is weighted the most important (5), Features second (4), Cost and UI/UX in the middle (3 each) and Speed(2) and OS(1) least important). With these, weightings, PixInsight becomes an even more distinct choice, but with different weightings, others may emerge as more favourable to the individual making the choice. Apologies if the table is a little hard to read - it's best done in Excel of course, but I couldn't work out how to copy that in here.
Cost OS UI/UX Features Speed Result Total Weighted-Total
Importance (1-5) 3 1 3 4 2 5
Affinity Photo 2 2 5 2 2 6 19 65
Astro Pixel Processor 1 3 3 5 0 7 19 70
ASTAP 3 3 3 3 1 9 22 80
Deep Sky Stacker 3 1 5 3 2 7 21 76
PixInsight 0 3 4 5 1 10 23 87
Registar 2 1 1 2 2 3 11 37
Sequator 3 1 4 2 4 2 16 48
Siril 3 3 2 2 4 7 21 69
Thanks again for your excellent work, Nico!
Cheers.
Paul
Great comparison. Didn't know about ASTAP either. I will definitely have to check it out. I do use Affinity Photo, and noise is an issue with my pics. Still very new to the hobby, so it may be due to my data collection, etc. Thank you for the showdown.
You will find ASTAP to be a lot better for sure. And much more powerful.
Re:AstroPixelProcessor, although I agree the UI/UX needs a lot of work, earlier steps are auto-run if you don't do it manually.
Nico, thank you for all your videos, and this one comparing pros and cons of different stacking software. I have learned much from you (and Borealis Lite) on how to use Siril. I also have Affinity. I was actually surprised that you gave Siril and Affinity similar ratings on features. I use both, but I mostly use Siril. While I agree with all your other rating comparisons of the two software, I feel that Siril is much better on the initial stage of post-processing. Siril has much better and more flexible background extraction than Affinity, and it also includes photometric calibration, banding software, and a median filter, among many other tools. I agree the later part of processing is not good in Siril. Sometimes, I will use Affinity to stack, but then use Siril for background extraction, etc.
Excellent comparison Nico! Can I suggest/ask for a similar video for the planetary stacking programs like PlanetarySystemStacker, AutoStakkert3, and AstroSurface. I know you don't primarily do planetary/moon/sun imaging but lots of folks that watch your channel do. Thanks again for all your efforts!
It would also be useful to use some of the general purpose apps he reviewed here as reference, like PixInsight, Siril, etc. While stacking planetary is different than stacking deep sky, it would be nice to know if one app is decent at both. I find having too many apps in my image processing process just creates a headache of intermediate data laying about. It's one reason I like Siril, because I can do with it what I previously needed PiPP (iphone mpg4 to avi or tiff conversion) and AutoStakkert!3 for.
In APP you can set all the tabs up for multiple filters and hit integrate - you do not need to do each step individually. Personally I much prefer to do my calibration and stacking in APP and then move to Pixinsight for processing. It is also way easier to create mosaics in APP than Pixinsight (again personal opinion).
Totally agree. APP much easier to use than PI. And does just as good a job.
As always, an amazingly done review, a joy to have access to such content freely. Thank you
Awesome review. Thank you very much for your dedication to helping use beginners.
I am skeptical about the review of quality of the stacked image for Astro Pixel Processor. I am not saying that the result that you got was better than it was but more that APP provides extensive stacking options. The end result varies a lot depending on the options selected. The default result if you choose automatic is mostly good and I often use this when I stack nightly results. For context I frequently am working on project that run many nights, usually at least 3 or 4 nights on a single subject and I have also done mosaics of large regions of the sky made up of many panels and up to 20 full nights of images with various filters. So I stack each nightly to evaluate overall quality then tweak which lights to include or not then dump the calibrated images for later stacking. When I do my final stacks of calibrated images I usually wind up stacking it several times with various tweaks to the settings. The differences are sometimes subtle but sometimes are significantly better wit a bit of tweaking. So I do not think it is fair to evaluate quality based on default settings alone.
One other point is that APP kind of excels at stacking data from different nights the LNC correction and LNC rejection are very useful when shooting on different nights with different gradient sky glows. For example I was recently stacking some narrow band data some taken during the new moon and some taken close to the full moon with fairly extreme gradients. Using these features I was able to stack all of this data together and tweak the settings to come up with fairly good results better I think than many of the other stackers I have tried.
In addition to this if you use different camera and optics I am not aware of any stacker that handles this as well as APP. It also creates very good distortion models when stacking with extremely wide angle lenses. For example large milky way mosaics using 14mm lens that sort of thing. I have not seen any other stacking software which does as good a job as this.
I do agree that it is a bit slower than Pixinsight stacking and others as you pointed out. I noticed this when I first started using it but personally I decided that I really did not care that much how long it takes to stack. I usually do stacking as a background process while I am working on something else anyways. Even the fastest stackers take more time than I want to hang around and wait for them to complete. Given this it does not matter too much if it takes 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes or whatever, either way you have to kick it off and do something else for a while anyways. So for me how long it takes to stack is much less important than features and end quality. Sometimes it is a bit of a burden for example the large mosaics take a LONG time to process. I am mostly using an ASI 294 mm for those with 1x1 binning which produces 96 MB files, stacking many hundreds of these can take a long time. The longs was the 8 panel mosaic with R, G, B, Ha, SII, and OIII over 19 nights, the final stack for this took many hours I think it was at least 12 hours maybe longer. But I just kicked it off overnight. I guess this is where stacking time might have some importance. But to me it is still much less important, bit it would be nice if it was faster.
Well, I didn’t think I’d once see a review saying PixInsight’s UI is as easy as Sequator :)
Hello Nick. I always used SIril and was puzled by your review, so gave ASTAP a try, just to compare the difference. I'm impressed O_O. I can confirm that the resulting stacked image is much, much better. I would nave never guessed such difference. Thanks a lot!
Probably a lot easier to use too.
I don't know anything about astrophotography but just for fun I captured a few 60kb screenshots from this video and ran them through Photoshop. A few minutes with just Levels, Curves and Hue/Sat made a difference. There's a lot more data there. ASTAP was stunning. Would be interesting to professionally process a real image file.
@Jim D - If you're interested enough there are a number of demo videos on UA-cam and more to be found via a search where the OP will provide a set of 30 or more subs that you can download for free and use as test cases.
@@markknecht9416 Thanks
I've only used Sequator on the handful of astro images I've tried. I thought my camera was crap, or maybe that I was doing something horribly wrong. I hadn't even thought to blame the stacking program. Seeing Affinity really surprised me.
Thanks for the comprehensive video. I brought affinity same as you when it was on sale. I only use it for post processing. Scripts from James R, one of the Affinity dev are quite good. I prefer SIRIL for pre processing and stacking snd even some basic processing. It is by far the best (and blazing fast). But looks like need to get my hands on ASTAP, though using it for offline platesolver in NINA, stacking looks very promising . Thanks for giving the valuable info about the underdog.
Thank you so so much for doing this so we don’t have to! You’re a Life & Time saver for many.
Nice review. I think when making my final choice I can ignore the first 2 categories, Cost and OS. Those are nice to know, but I'm more interested in how they compare in performance. For example, I don't really care if any of these programs can run on MacOS or Linux, so for me that's not worth the extra 2 points. So I will subtract the first 2 categories from the total and this is what I come up with:
Affinity 15
Astro Pixel 15
ASTAP 16
DSS 17
PixInsight 20
RegisStar 8
Sequator 12
Siril 15
PixInsight is still the clear winner overall but more than I want to pay. For me it looks like DeepSkyStacker is the winner but only due to faster processing time. It might be a push with ASTAP since ASTAP had the 2nd highest Final Result. I will probably try both due to their excellent cost benefit, $0.
Interesting comparison, and I pretty much agree with you. I started with Deep Sky Stacker, then moved to Astro Pixel Processor, and then I just bit the bullet and bought PixInsight - I think it's the best. But Astro Pixel Processor still does mosaics very well. I have never used Astap for stacking, but it is one of my goto plate solvers. The PixInsight UI is most definitely hard to get used to at first, but once I did I can't go back to any other processing software (well, except Photoshop for some final finishing touches that are just easier to accomplish once the image is non-linear). Nice video.
Quick note about siril: it does have a UI! The entire right tab is dedicated to sequence management and preprocessing, calibration, stacking etc.
Ah, right sorry, should have been more clear. I meant an automated way of doing those tasks with a GUI. What I would like is if Sirilic siril.org/docs/sirilic/ was packaged with the main installation, and worked well on all of Siril's platforms including MacOS. If they offered that I think it would be a lot more intuitive to newcomers.
@@NebulaPhotos Ah ok, yeah you are right about that part, it is a manual process (still has a cool graph thingy to exclude certain pictures that don't meet your requirements). Havent seen sirilic yet, will take a look at it! Judging from the website it is also avaible for Linux which is great
The video indirectly reminded me that I didn't check for a new version of DSS, so I did, and to my surprise there's now DSS 5.1.3 (as of June 2023), and it actually has a somewhat different interface (not fundamentally so), because it's been ported to Qt, meaning it can eventually be ported to other platforms!
Once you modify a script or two, SiriL is a breeze to operate. One thing I learned how to do is to write a script that uses a synthetic bias--there's a tutorial on it, (as are there other tutorials). This eliminates taking an extra set of bias exposures, and actually eliminates a potential noise source otherwise introduced by the bias shots that can't be removed. Yes, there is a learning curve with SiriL, but for the price, this program does a great job. Also, just want to say I cut my teeth on Sequator--I would recommend it to the absolute beginner owing to its simpicity.
Comparison reviews are great
Hello Nico, I really dig your videos, your production values are on point. May I suggest one thing though? Ever think of adding those time stamps throughout your videos? It would help, especially in a video like this with a bunch of different programs being compared. Keep up the good work though, you're killin it.
Ah, thanks for the reminder. I used to always do the timestamps, but have forgotten about them on recent videos. I've added them to this one, and will do my best to add them on future videos, especially the longer ones. Cheers, Nico
Great work! I use ASTAP for its pre-processing algorithm and, of course, for plate-solving, as it is the best choice for Linux-based imaging/pointing software, but I never used it for actual stacking. I'll have to give it another look. I had using Siril for stacking, but am moving to PixInsight if I can get used to the speed penalty. Two things regarding Siril: 1. In Linux (and possibly Mac) it can now use file linking (a UNIX form of aliasing a file rather than copying the whole file) which drastically saves disk space and increases speed significantly. 2. Siril works fairly well without the scripts. You just start at the left side of the program options and do each one (as applicable) from left to right, beginning with Conversion and ending with Stacking. Thank you for including Linux as a component of your evaluations!
Great video - glad you limited the comparison to just stacking. I own both Pixinsight and APP. I have a personal hatred for the Pixinsight UI and love the one or two click processing workflow of APP, but perhaps Ill use PI for stacking only. Ill go insane if I have to use PI for anything else ;)
Agree that ASTAP is underrated! Also arguably the best platesolver and has a great free tool to use as an alternative to CCDInspector when checking for tilt/backfocus!
I use a few of the programs you mention. Affinity is my primary photo-editing program and works very well. Astrophotography stacking is pretty good, but not the best. However I am sure it will get even better. Its user interface is excellent.
Thanks so much for doing this. Amazing job. I must say that although PixInsight is expensive compared to others, you get what you pay for. in my view, weighted batch processing would be worth it if it was a standalone program. If you are on the fence in the year 2022, get PixInsight . It is so much easier to use now than just a year ago. As for speed, naturally since it’s doing so much more, it’s going to be slower. What Astro photographer wouldn’t be willing to wait for a better result. We put in so much time gathering data. thanks again, Rick
AstroArt, very good stacking, easy and fast.
Thanks a lot 🙏
I only tried Deep Sky Stacker some years ago and I think I will continue with that next time I will try some Astro photographing 🙏👌
Give ASTAP a try. Way better.
@@TheNarrowbandChannel Well, I thought about it when watched the video so OK, since I just bought a new computer I can install it too when its time 😀👍
Great Video Nico! very informative, thank you for taking the time, it was so helpful!
The best Astro video online by far, thank you for doing these sir 🙏
Very cool video- I use Astap all the time, but as a plate solver- It is fast as hell! I've heard it's also good for live-stack/EAA applications but I haven't tried that yet. You missed one that is actually a nice option for Mac users, Starry Sky Stacker. It's not free- I think it's about $25 but it's quick and fairly intuitive.
It's just what I was looking for... I'm sure you read our thoughts... Thank you very much and greetings from Spain
Thanks Nico, I have always wanted a comparison like this.
I usually use DSS and/or SIRIL. In the case the photometric color calibration is working, I think SIRIL does better than DSS. But if it doesn't work it creates color issues that I can't handle as beginner. Definetly will give ASTAP a try. Never heard about it within the astrophotography community in Germany.
Thank you; very useful indeed. I am currently using DSS and I'm very happy with it. I removed the OS scores from your totals, as I only need one OS at any time. That puts DSS and PixInsight on level pegging with a score of 20. However, DSS is free while PixInsight costs $ 230 and runs at half the speed of DSS. Now i'm going to look for a similar comparison video for processing software. I currently use StarTools for most of my deep sky work. How does it 'stack up' to the other products available!? Searching for that comparison video...
The thing with the OS score isn't, that you want to use the same program on differend operation systems, but that you need to be able to run the program on your OS. For me, all Windows-based programs are out of the race anyway as I don't run windows, and am happy to run Mac and Linux software. But for Linux support there should be actually 2 points be awarded, as this OS is available for everyone and great for robust and possibly automatic work flows.
I understand, but most people use only one OS, with Windows being the most universally installed. Few of us will install a new OS just to run a special piece of software. I personally feel you could give negative points to products that do not run on Windows.
@@hardakml That is why there is a point per OS supported - the more points, the more likely they run on the OS you are using. And I know that Windows is widely used, but not everyone uses it or could even install it on their computer if they wanted. I am using Mac/Linux. Linux has the advantage to nicely run in a VM, so Linux software is easy to use from Mac and Windows. Also Linux supports every CPU architecture there is.
I sometimes use DSS for registration/calibration and stack the images with image integration with the winsorised sigma clipping etc using the image integration in Pixinsight. This greatly speeds up things and yields nearly the same quality as doing everything in Pixinsight, especially concerning noise
Thanks for this video, I will def. take a look at ASTAP
Hi, great video, Affinity was my first AP tool, for all, and has an easy multi night stacking.
Thanks Nico. Great comparison.
Great video Nico but maybe a little hash on Affinity in my opinion.
Excellent work and video, Nico! Thanks for that. I found a minor mistake in the end results - Siril should add up to 21, not 22. Cheers!
Nice comparison video, Nico!
I'm quite impressed that you've covered so many programs for the comparison
I'm a heavy user of Siril for my DSO stacking, and I do my stacking all manually, not using the scripts.
By doing it manually, you get a lot of tweaking options and features on pre-processing, registration and integration processes, and I suspect many of the other softwares introduced in this video has many tweaking options available too.
I totally understand this video is intended for users in the beginner's side who would probably prefer a fast, one-click and intuitive stacking software, and your scores are probably justified.
Though I'm quite curious about the stacked results comparison when all the stacking parameters are as closely adjusted as possible if not the same.
I think what many of serious astrophotographers out there would like to know that and see if their software of choice is capable of delivering the best results.
Nice video. I thought the comparison and categories were very appropriate.
There is a macOS stacker that didn’t make the list: Starry Sky Stacker. I was using it as an easier and faster alternative to DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight (though I now have gravitated to PixInsight). Here are my personal and subjective scores for Starry Sky Stacker (trying to use your scale) after doing a half dozen nights in all three tools.
Price: 1 ($25)
OS: 1 (macOS only)
UI/UX: 2 (Clean, but quirky; also the creation of master flats and master darks is not at all obvious; I've had to re-read the instructions and watch videos multiple times)
Features: 2 (Just the basics, use bias or dark flats not clear; not many options)
Speed: 3 (I find it to be much faster that PixInsight and Deep Sky Stacker; I admittedly haven't quantified the difference recently)
Final result: 4
Total: 13
Bottom line opinion: Fine little stacker, but unintuitive in spots and you quickly outgrow it.
For me, I have to drop the cost category, because if something is blatantly better it's worth more. The final image 10, should give it a 2 or 3 in price (value). You get what you pay for. Awesome information.
Nico, I really appreciate your time, consideration and unbiased approach to knowledge sharing. Thank you so much for teaching us and sharing your experience. It is because of you and this amazing community that gave me the confidence to enter this hobby. Stay awesome.
In siril all those tabs that you clicked across is how you stack manually will all the options you want. You add your files you calibrate you files you blink them and select out bad files then register and stack. I don't use the scripts at all I love this program
Great review; although I would have given DSS a 3 instead of a 2 in the speed column - it is twice as fast as PI, and I have heard horror stories on PI forums about the complexity, issues, and the amount of time it takes to get WBPP running (of course once those issues are overcome, then it becomes easier on the next project - just a huge learning curve). Overall you did a fabulous job in reviewing these eight stackers. Bravo!
Another great video! Would love a tutorial on ASTAP!
There are only about three channels out there that have done them. But after this video I bet there will be some more.
Thank you for doing this, it is interesting. Though I have to say that in Astro Pixel Processor, unlike what you said at 10:00, you can set all the settings on every tab and just hit Integrate on tab 6. It will do all the steps you've requested to get to the end on its own. ;)
I'm just trying out astrophotography. I'm glad to have stumbled onto this comparison! 👍👍
Great video. I now use a combo of SiriL and Affinity. Ideal for OSC images. I never use scripts since SiriL does not know how to automate if using master darks and flats. Just wish there were more UA-cam tutorials on how to really exploit the astronomy toolsets from these systems vs the Big Gorilla of PI…
Biggest issue with Pixinsight, (at least on the version I have, maybe they fixed it in the more recent ones) is that the integration script will not work unless you give it Lights, Darks, Flats and Bias, which is a pain especially if you want to stack DSLRs where using Darks may actually cause problems (and that's true for most of them out there since they cook RAW files in camera) or if you don't have Bias etc... you can still manually do all the integration steps but as I said it's a pain.
Great video! didnt know about ASTAP and I am going to give it a try.
in APP. you can just press one button and it goes, just choice all your options and hit integrate and it runs through every tab
Great video, as usual you're content is useful. I would be helpful to know your computer specs (processor, RAM, OS version). Also, what are the recommended specs for each program? As far as your scoring methodology is concerned, OS shouldn't factor into the scoring because it doesn't factor into the capabilities of the software.