M1 Native Support

@vincent-mod I may have not seen the comment, but would you suggest to uninstall V1.83 on Mac M1 before Installing V2 beta?

I would yes, though I've not had issues with that in the past myself. Just to be sure, I'm advising an uninstall first.

@andrecajolais There is no need to do that. When you run the macOS installer, you will be asked if you want to replace the current version or keep both. In both cases APP 2.0.0-beta1 will be installed in a clean directory so if you choose to replace the old version then macOS will remove that one  for you before installing the new version.

@wvreeven Many thanks Wouter !!!

Run time results ...

Antares Region, 240 images (Canon 6D, CR2 files), Default APP settings, Using previous created master Dark, Flat, Dark Flat.

MacBook Pro, M1 Max (8P/2E CPUs,  24 GPUs), 32 GB

2.0.0.Beta1: 47 min 0 sec

1.083.2:       89 min 10 sec

Posted by: @bstott_98

Run time results ...

 

Antares Region, 240 images (Canon 6D, CR2 files), Default APP settings, Using previous created master Dark, Flat, Dark Flat.

MacBook Pro, M1 Max (8P/2E CPUs,  24 GPUs), 32 GB

2.0.0.Beta1: 47 min 0 sec

1.083.2:       89 min 10 sec

Excellent, so almost 2x faster now 🙂  thanks for sharing Bret @bstott_98

Mac Studio Ultra 64bg RAM

179 32mb lights, 60 flats, 1 MB, MD, and BPM. So in addition to calibration, flat masters were created.

1.083.2: 12 min 01 sec

2.0.0.Beta1: 3 min 22 sec

So performance scales quite nicely to more cores. Also, the Application name is all lowercase in the beta.

Posted by: @lead_weight

Mac Studio Ultra 64bg RAM

179 32mb lights, 60 flats, 1 MB, MD, and BPM. So in addition to calibration, flat masters were created.

1.083.2: 12 min 01 sec

2.0.0.Beta1: 3 min 22 sec

 

So performance scales quite nicely to more cores. Also, the Application name is all lowercase in the beta.

Wow Andrew @lead_weight, that is 4x faster ! Awesome, scales much better now with a strong computer 🍾 🍺  !!

Thanks for sharing your benchmark !

Yes, the lower case application name has to do with having modernized our whole development platform. The lower case and version number is following conventions here.

Mabula

I am seeing similar results. Changing the color model on a 1.4gb image went from 46.6 seconds in the latest stable version to about 19.8 seconds in the 2.0 Beta.

The scrolling and zooming performance is even more impressive.

APP is running so fast on my M1 iMac that is leaves a vapor trail 😉 

I'm feeling dumb but if the new version of APP remembers your working directory (which normally would be welcome), how would you go about switching to a new directory/project ?

@jonathankimmitt if you click on the exhibited working directory it should produce a pop up allowing you to go up in the directory structure. I usually go up to “/” and then down via "Volumes" to where I want to be. It took me a little while to see that. More recently or tougher projects I’ve made an astrotemp sub directory in my home area which happens to be on an NVME ssd which helps. (edited having just started APP and realising I said it wrong first time).

@lead_weight this looks very promising! Very envious of your Ultra.

do you have any feel as to how these numbers compare to what you would get on eg a 16 core Threadripper? I’m increasingly doing projects with many short exposures and about to get a new compute box. My heart says to get an Ultra but my head wants to know if I will do as well for less money doing an RDP from my 6 core MacBook Pro to a windows box. Pains me to say that having had Macs since 1985!

I think a beast of a PC will do the same or better, it's just that the M1 type of processors do this very energy efficiently, which is very nice for processing while not being blasted by noise and in laptops. 🙂 But, I also agree, it's expensive.

The PC has the edge in that software has been optimised for it for years, however when the new extensions of the M1 processor are fully exploited the pendulum will swing back the other way.

I am seeing similar speed improvements :-), however, what I am noticing is that the TOOLS tab processes will crash when you try to exit the procedure. APP beta 2 will freeze the app requiring a force quit. So far it has done that for TOOLS>combine RGB, remove light pollution (either on individual channels or combined channels) star reducer, calibrate star colors.

The Procedure will run correctly, and you can manipulate data at will, but when you try to "cancel" or "Ok & Save" out of the procedure, APP hangs. I am wondering if this may be a window focus issue, since there is now three windows to contend with?

I am running an 13" M1 MacBookPro 2020 (16GB memory and plenty of HD space.) on Monterey 12.3.1...I use two monitors

As to the 3 windows: Could there be an option under CFG to go back to the classic combined windows? I like to resize a single window on my large external monitor, now 3 windows need to be resized. Or, alternatively, an option to remember window placement/size?  

Thanks

Christine

@christinez Thanks for reporting this Christine. The issue has been added to our list and we will look into this asap.

The speed increase makes an incredible difference in the usability of APP. And I'm getting used to the window behavior pretty fast. As I understand the Release Notes, the new window arrangement makes a large part of the speed increase. Being pragmatic, I will take the speed increase and put up with the sometimes "unusual" window behavior. 

With regards to sizing and placement on the screen, the old layout keeping the image viewer central was nice. We could get back to that perhaps by splitting the Console into its own window. I find the Console to be the least important window. If it could be moved and resized separately I could once again have the image viewer in the central portion of the screen.

And maybe you don't stop at the Console window. In general, more windows are better because the user can move and resize them to get the work environment they prefer. As long as we keep the speed!

Hi Jeff...:-)

I find the Console/MetaData windows to be useful, but I get what you are saying, it would be great to get it out of the way once the normalization, registration and integration functions complete. I personally wouldn't mind if all the level, curve and stretching tools on the right were collapsable due to the fact that I think many of us use some other image software for that purpose. I know I don't use them at all because there is no way (that I know of) to undo an adjustment if you don't like it.

I kinda like the left side tabs and tools as they are, it would be better if the tabs didn't cycle through as they do. Kinda plays with muscle memory. But that is minor, and I am used to it now.

I like the histogram window in the upper right....I wish the level, and curve adjustment tools in the lower right had an undo. I don't use them at all, because of this reason. Instead, integrations just go to PIX or Affinity for final post processing.  I wouldn't mind if that part was collapsable since I doubt many of us use it all.

No complaints so far. I did a simple test run and then just carried out remove lightpollution on the finished image, everything worked wonderfully and quickly in my example.
The first thing I noticed was that the fonts were displayed in the right resolution, and I find the arrangement of the windows OK for me too.

@christinez On the Console window, I could have said that better.

It is useful, but if it was a separate window I would likely make it like the Frame List panel - sort and wide. I would place it bottom most on the screen, below Frame List. As you say, each window has its own Day in the Sun.

Come to think of it, if the Tabs and Histogram "sides" were also separated it would make five (5) moveable and resizable windows. A customizable Studio, like Affinity Photo. Everyone could arrange workspace to their needs then.

...But Mabula, please don't do anything that sacrifices the speed 😉 

Initial tests of Beta release are looking great!

Macbook Pro M1 Max, 32GB, 24GPU

Multiple runs all on battery, fans came on during integration, but could barely hear them.  My previous intel I7 MacBook would have not finished without plugging in and the fans would have been roaring the entire time.

Images: 51 Canon Rp RAW frames, ~49MBytes each.

10 threads, 24GB memory given to APP for V1.083.2

10 threads, 28GB memory allocated by APP for V2.00beta1

V1.083.2 standard settings took 14:34 to process.

    Analyze Stars: 5:32

    Normalize: 0:58

    Integrate 8:04

V2.00 Beta1 standard settings took 10:23 to process.

    Analyze Stars: 1:52

    Normalize: 0:43

    Integrate: 7:48

With larger datasets I'm sure the difference will increase.

I also need to start figuring out a way I can justify a M1/M2 Ultra Duo 😀 

Brent

Just testing the Apple-M1 beta, appreciate the bong that sounds after a long compute, just one slight problem, if registration fails on one or more items, it stops at a dialog with no bong, so it doesn't get your attention. It would be better if it just carried on, automatically deselecting the failed items, if that's possible, and/or have a different alert sound when it needs attention due to an error. No idea if this behaviour is specific to this version

Yes, good point, I've put it on the list to see if we can change that behavior.

@vmsguy I am glad I found your post.  I wasn't sure I could believe my eyes...

Running 1.0.83.2 on MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2019), 2.4 GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9 32GB, I stacked a small batch of lights with pre-generated master frames in 3m 34s.

Running the same version on M1, I was disappointed -- 4m 4s.  But then I noticed the 2.0 Beta 2 download.

Beta 2 finished the job in 1m 56s!  That's 2.1x faster... I am blown away.  I still can't believe it.

I really need to test the same beta on Intel vs beta on M1, but I think most of this increase came from adding at least some native M1 support in APP.

APP dev team, great job!

Thanks for the kind words!

I for one am really appreciating the speed increases on an M1...I have a couple of data sets that took close to 16 hours of analysis, registration, normalization, and integration...now these are finishing many hours quicker, often in the same evening! Sorry no benchmarks, I am not that technically minded enough to do that...I am just truly amazed at the ability to handle GB's of data as gracefully as it does. I am sure some of you may laugh at my procedures, I am not a tutorial type of person, and prefer to understand at a fundamental level what is happening and why certain settings are what they are...I amaze at the what is really going on in the background here.

I do use PixInsight, but find APP to be a significantly better tool on integration and RBG combining. This is one fundamental tool that has taken amateur astrophotography an evolutionary step forward.

To folks who find this thread and are on the fence about "is it worth it?" Let me say this:

1) Is APP an advanced piece of software with a steep learning curve? Yes and No

   To truly understand it? yes...but to get up and running on your first data sets? absolutely not: the default settings will generally give you great results...you will then slowly go back and adjust settings to experiment and as you learn their functions. Or watch some of the tutorials...which is what I never did...lol Compared to PixInsight, hands down easier to use, and easier to get repeatable results.

2) Is it worth the money? Absolutely yes!

Compared to PixInsight, which is also a very powerful, (and does a bit more for post processing), the pre-processing routines are rather obtuse and complicated. APP hands down is the better app here.

There certainly are free options, but I would place APP anb PixInsight at the top, and for me, APP is my first goto tool in the pre-processing & Post-processing stage.   

3) I find the pre-processing routines to be easy to follow, very extensible and customizable, but at the same time, very forgiving. 

4) I find the post-processing routines, especially the Light Pollution removal tool, the Star Reducer/Removal, and the Star Calibration tools to be superior to other tools available. While I sometimes use the Vignetting tool, my main setup has great illumination to the corners, and I get great flat corrections, so this is a limited use tool for me, if at all. 

My only suggestion would be for the tool tips to suggest the best locations and sizes to make the rectangles. It does suggest how many, but not where, what to avoid, what to include and optimal placements. 

5) I find the Batch processing tools to be super easy to use...Which is what they should be...they are all one trick ponies, but they do what they advertise. 

6) I find the combine RGB and HSL selection tools to be so laughably easy, customizable, yet so powerfully fast and efficient and accurate to really obviate the need to use other channel combination tools that are available (Pix, Photoshop, Gimp, Affinity etc...) APP hands down, is the superior tool

7) Lastly, I use all of the software mentioned here, I have full licenses to them. I will continue to keep them and use them, however, APP is my main processing engine and will continue to be so. It is the backbone of my processing. I am super excited over the speed increases given to the M1!! 

8) PS: the developers are a small team, they are open to and responsive to requests and issues. I think that is evident, from just viewing this thread alone, but easily so with just a casual glance at the forums in general.

Thanks to Mabula, Vincent and Wouter for their efforts to bring their magic to astrophotography. 🙂

I find APP to be intuitive to use, compared to PI anyway. The one thing that seems to be missing is being able to save your file list and commands/settings as a script that can be replayed later?on a different dataset.

@christinez Thanks for the kind words as well! We love to hear that people are indeed enjoying it and also on how to improve on it. But, kind words always make our day. 🙂

@jonathankimmitt Saving of your workflow settings is going to be implemented yes, I think it will be there for APP 2.0 stable.