Promoting Startools?

[midwayexpress]

I'm starting this thread to brain storm some ideas that the community can do the promote the use of StarTools. I have demoed or own a wide variety of different astrophotography processing products as well as Photoshop but I can say that StarTools generates the best results the quickest. Unfortunately, it seems like the general acceptance for StarTools vs. products like PixInsight has remained low.

Some ideas I had:
-Make sure when you post photos you mention that you used StarTools for processing. Always note StarTools as the software you used for processing on Astrobin
-Talk to your dealer about how you used StarTools to generate your images
-Post more threads about how you have had success with StarTools on other astronomy forums
-Produce videos and demos about how to use StarTools to achieve great results

[Amaranthus]

Good idea. I definitely promote it when I post to Astrobin, and when relevant on IceInSpace forum. But I agree that it needs to get more widely know. Those folks battling with PixInsight, Photoshop etc. don't know what they're missing.

[admin]

Thanks guys!

It's just a gut feel, but I don't think ST is doing badly. If there's anything I learned, it's that astrophotographers are a notoriously conservative bunch.
It's indeed a pity that people generally don't understand the Tracking paradigm which is responsible for the superior results you can achieve with ST.

It is my (evidenced) belief that "new-kid-on-the-block" ST has the better processing engine and is more intelligent with how it mines your data for signal vs noise (when it comes to post-processing!).
Software like PI is, of course, more comprehensive in that it also offers pre-processing.

There is a lot of psychology at play with these things. A great many people unfortunately suffer from the 'sunk cost' fallacy, irrationally choosing to believe that having gone through a steep learning curve, somehow makes it worthwhile sticking with a particular software package. The IKEA effect is at play as well; the tendency for people to place a disproportionately high value on images that they put a lot of effort in, regardless of the quality of the end result.

Ultimately though, it is up to people themselves to choose the software that enthuse them the most for the hobby. As opposed to PI, ST is not a hardcore commercial enterprise (so I don't want/need to do a hard sell). All I'd like to achieve with StarTools is to enthuse people for imaging the night skies and the software they use for that is of second importance to me. Then again, it can be little disheartening to see people's images regress because they drank the PI kool-aid...

[Amaranthus]

In a way, the lack of pre-processing in ST turned out to be an intellectual bonus to me. It really forced me to understand exactlywhat I was doing with calibration and stacking, because I had to juggle a number of different free or low-cost programs to get the full results I was after. I now have settled on a systematic (and I think scientific) routine for my files, using a combination of APT (for capture, plus EQMOD, Astrotortilla, CdC, PHD2), Nebulosity (for preparing and applying calibration frames), stacking (DSS), resizing (Nebulosity, to re-fit the mosaic DSS images), DSS again (final channels) and then post-processing (ST, with its glorious tracking and many other features).

I really understand what is going on at each step, and how to get the best out of my images this way. If I'd gone with a 'do it all' package, then I might be treating this process like too much of a black box. At least until I read the HAIP, that is (just finished this awesome book!)...