My StarTools module-by-module user notes

[jlh]

FWIW, the link below is for my user notes on StarTools' modules. Generally, if I don't write it down I don't remember it; especially since nights available to me for capturing data for processing are far and few between.

This is a compilation of information from other knowledgeable sources and little of my independent work. It has become more detailed than I originally intended; however, since I often run into stumbling blocks, having such detail to fall back on can be helpful at times.

I would appreciate any corrections or other comments any of you really smart StarTools people could give me since this is a work in progress.

Thanks,
Jeff

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9Y ... ue&sd=true

[Carles]

Hi Jeff,

that's great, thanks for sharing

Btw, are you aware of the unofficial manual written by Jochen ?
https://www.startools.org/downloads/uno ... sh-manual-

Cs,

Carles.

[jlh]

Hi Charles,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, I have that manual and have tried to incorporate some of its comprehensive and very good recommendations. I also tried to incorporate some of Guy's very good discussions of the modules as well as other knowledgeable forum posts.

Jeff

[Mike in Rancho]

46 pages, yikes!

These are very thorough notes.

So, I only made it through page 1 so far. Two things perhaps:

1. For OSC Open, I'm not sure middle button is really middle button anymore, since with Help at the end there's 4.

2. The synth L is indeed specially weighted from the RGB channels, but that's because G has better SNR due to 2x pixels, and so I think the weighting is of the SNR which would be the square root, i.e. around 1.4x. So, if in the same format as your notes, it would be like .293xR + .414xG + .293xB.

[jlh]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the comments. These notes were started back with version 1.8 so some things need to be updated like the buttons you mention. Any other needed corrections you see would be much appreciated.

They have ballooned a lot more than I anticipated. I kept adding things that might come in handy from reading ideas on this forum from smart guys like you. I hyperlinked the modules (I don't know if that came through on Google Drive) for easy to jump to a particular module for quick access when I need help during processing.


Jeff

[jlh]

FWIW, here are my updated module-by-module notes for StarTools. It is a work in progress and an exercise on my part to try to understand better the incredible functionality of StarTools. I also want a written form that I can go back and reference for a particular need when processing. I don't get that many nights to image and often need a refresher. It is not error-free and any corrections or comments are appreciated.

I have made it interactive with hyperlinked cross references to more easily see the interrelation between the modules. To me the modules are the underlying beauty of StarTools with their logical building block approach to processing. Again, there is interrelation and alternative branches among the modules, but the basic structure is logical and generally repeatable for all kinds of images. I compare that to other post processing applications like PixInsight that to me quickly become chaotic in their workflows. There are many opinions, often without consistent logic, on workflows, processes, and scripts. Without a logical structure I often overlook or just forget about a processing tool there that might be helpful for a particular image's needs. To me the organizational logic of StarTools allows a more functional and repeatable application of the various processing techniques to call upon when need arises.

I do not mean to say that StarTools is superior to PixInsight. In my opinion there are many things StarTools can learn from PixInsight. For example, it seems generally accepted that AI based noise reduction is superior to the old multi-scale transform approach. AI may also be superior for background extraction and be a valuable contribution for deconvolution. Most astrophotographers seem to think so. There are continuing advancements in the various AI-based applications (including now GraXpert, SetiAstro Cosmic Clarity, DeepSNR and others) and I do not think they can be dismissed any more as creating image details that are not supported by the data. As with most other computational programs, you ignore AI at your peril.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KBH ... ue&sd=true

[happy-kat]

Thank you for sharing, I am quite rusty so will have a read