Open up StarTools?

[jlh]

Hi Ivo,

I love StarTools. However, fewer and fewer forum participants and the stalled development process indicate a decline in interest and users, which is a shame. To turn around that really unfortunate situation, would it help to open up StarTools to allow others to develop and code modules to be included and used? Independent development of such processes seem to be on the ascendancy. Astrophotographers get excited about such things and love to try them out and experiment.

You could retain total control over which new modules might be added for integrity and format. You could also insure the integrity of your module system; e.g., control whether new modules comply with and are included in Tracking and its resulting noise reduction.

Jeff

[happy-kat]

For me it is just the case of the weather just not being clear so no data to process

[Startrek]

I think a case of Startools not being continuously active in the social Astro community. Most Astro content guys push Pixinsight , Photoshop etc…. On YouTube , Astro forums and so on as they are more commonly accepted and used by most who enter the hobby.
I’m sure Ivo started Startools as a real alternative to conventional processing and probably had more time to develop it and test it in the early days. It certainly hasn’t been promoted much these days. I’m assuming Ivo is extremely busy with his business.
Astrobin has a huge following worldwide and folk who use Startools probably get more feedback from Astrobin than this forum. I post to both Startools and Astrobin ( plus my own local forum , which had nearly shutdown a month ago but due to overwhelming response , received funds to keep it alive until 2026 )
If someone put their hand and up formed a Startools YouTube or other content channel and marketed/ advertised it , I’m sure activity in this excellent software would slowly grow
I think generally the Amateur Astro community numbers have slowed in recent years due to rising costs and availability etc … ( it has in our Country ) it’s not a cheap hobby and requires a lot of personal time and dedication
There no quick fix but I commend you for your suggestions and I will continue to support and promote Startools where ever and whenever I can

Clear Skies
Martin

[admin]

Hi Ivo,

I love StarTools. However, fewer and fewer forum participants and the stalled development process indicate a decline in interest and users, which is a shame. To turn around that really unfortunate situation, would it help to open up StarTools to allow others to develop and code modules to be included and used? Independent development of such processes seem to be on the ascendancy. Astrophotographers get excited about such things and love to try them out and experiment.

You could retain total control over which new modules might be added for integrity and format. You could also insure the integrity of your module system; e.g., control whether new modules comply with and are included in Tracking and its resulting noise reduction.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Though StarTools has as of late indeed taken somewhat of a back seat to the job-that-pays the bills (and associated travel), StarTools development is still plodding along (the final leg of 1.9 being multi-language support, which has required a fair bit of effort from other users). New features adds for 1.9 have been frozen unless related to multi-language support. New builds of 1.9 with their latest fixes and efforts have been releasing every month or so.

In general though, I have seen a decline in interest in documentary astrophotography, and instead an embrace of black box AI-based processes and even entire optical trains with built-in processing. It's IMO part a general societal trend towards instant gratification in the pursuit of quick "feel-good wins", rather than a pursuit of truth. The latter requires work, rigor (and as Martin says; some $$$) and a deeper understanding of what is happening to your signal, while the former does not. I have always considered quick gratification fixes a "gateway drug" to keep people interested and see them persevere in the hobby. It can absolutely be a good thing in small dosages. However, we are now at the stage where huge swathes of astrophotographers see this as the end-station, complete with astrophotography awards where no one bats an eyelid at deep-faked detail any more.

As such I am, for example, profoundly disinterested in the direction that PI has gone in to, as I feel that a great many of its 3rd party-contributed scripts and modules are antithetical to careful signal processing. A further complicating factor is that PI allows exactly that, because - like most other software - the onus is on the user to understand (and vouch for) the signal flow. For StarTools it is the software that performs this (for the purpose of signal integrity and fidelity, but also its implicit ease of use), and thus - for StarTools - the onus is on the developer of any new module or script. That considerably reduces the qualified developer pool, while also shutting people out who may have good intentions, but whose work will likely not (yet) pass muster.

Opening up a platform, and moving to managing/"policing" integration and/or platform-related functionality, is fraught with politics and takes a lot of time (more time than actually developing). It's not a panacea and certainly does not suit every project...

Hope that helps at all,

[jlh]

Hi Ivo,

Very good and thanks for that explanation and all of your hard work.

Jeff

[elpajare]

I keep using Startools and I still like it just as much as the first day. I have tried Pixinsight and other programs and ST continues to seem the best for my way of working and for the objects I photographed.
An updated background noise treatment and some detail brushes would be the only thing I find missing.

Thanks for the Ivo program.