BlurXTerminator's New ML5 Update - Worth the $50?
The new BlurXTerminator ML5 update is finally here, and it comes with some pretty interesting improvements.
Looking at the comparisons on the RC-Astro website, ML5 gives us better star shapes, improved handling of bright stars and diffraction spikes, more detail in deep-sky objects, and improvements for lunar images. One of the things that caught my attention the most is the claim that ML5 can also reduce some of the artifacts we've seen with previous versions, like the annoying "lighthouse" effect around some stars.
But there's one important catch: ML5 is not a free upgrade for everyone.
If you purchased BlurXTerminator more than a year ago, you may need to pay $49.95 to upgrade.
So the real question is: is BlurXTerminator ML5 worth the price if you already have ML4?
I decided to test it on several of my own images to find out.
How to Try BlurXTerminator ML5 for Free
Before spending the $50, I highly recommend testing ML5 on your own images.
You can activate the trial from your RC-Astro account. Once the trial is active, restart PixInsight (you may have to go to Resources > Check for Updates first), and you should see ML5 as an available version inside BlurXTerminator.
For my comparison, I tested three versions of each image:
The original image with no BlurXTerminator
The same image with ML4 applied
The same image with ML5 applied
I also kept the default settings for both ML4 and ML5 to make the comparison as straightforward as possible.
BlurXTerminator ML4 Vs. ML5 Test 1: A Globular Cluster
My first test was M13, the famous globular cluster in Hercules.
I chose this image because it was taken with a Newtonian telescope that produced diffraction spikes around bright stars.
The difference between ML4 and ML5 was immediately noticeable.
One of the brightest stars in the image has several faint diffractions surrounding it. With ML4, those are still very visible. With ML5, most of them are very reduced. The stars definitely look cleaner.
There is also a small improvement in the core of M13, although I wouldn't consider it a dramatic difference. The individual stars appear slightly easier to distinguish, but the biggest improvement on this image is definitely the handling of the diffraction spikes.
I also checked a small galaxy in the field, and there wasn't much of a difference between ML4 and ML5.
Verdict: A noticeable improvement for diffraction spikes, a moderate improvement for the globular cluster stars, but not a major improvement to the other parts of the image overall.
BlurXTerminator ML4 Vs. ML5 Test 2: A Nebula
Next, I tested ML5 on a nebula that was already a fairly clean image.
This is important because I didn't want to test only terrible images and then claim that ML5 was soooo much better. I wanted to see what happens when you start with good data.
And honestly, the difference here was subtle.
The darker structures in the nebula look slightly crisper with ML5, and some of the bright stars appear cleaner and rounder. But overall, there isn't a night-and-day difference.
If this were the only image I had tested, I would probably say that ML5 isn't worth $50 for me.
However, that's also why it's important to test different types of images. The improvements seem to become much more obvious when you have problematic stars or optical artifacts. And that's what we'll see next.
Learn Everything About Astrophotography
Want to learn all aspects of astrophotography in the most efficient way possible?
The Galactic Course includes a LIFETIME membership that gives you unlimited access to all current and upcoming astrophotography content. Step into an ever-growing realm of knowledge and learn at your own pace. Make life-long friends and connections with other members, and get tips from instructors that truly care about your journey and progress under the night sky.
BlurXTerminator ML4 Vs. ML5 Test 3: An Older Image Taken 10+ Years Ago
For my next test, I chose a very old image of M104 taken with my first telescope, more than 10 years ago.
This image lacks a lot of detail overall, and also has several very bright stars, including an asterism: The Jaws.
The galaxy itself appears to have slightly more detail, although this isn't a huge difference.
Once again, ML5 does a better job cleaning up the stars. The most obvious improvement is around the bright stars. Areas that look messy with ML4 become much cleaner and more controlled with ML5.
So the pattern is pretty clear here: if your telescope produces diffraction spikes, ML5 is already a very good upgrade! Look at the difference below, with the stars from the Jaws asterism:
BlurXTerminator ML4 Vs. ML5 Test 4: Severe Star Distortion and Tilt
Let's use an image with a ton of issues for this last and ultimate test!
This particular image was taken with a major optical problem. The stars in the corners are severely elongated because of issues with both tilt and back focus.
Without BlurXTerminator, the corners look terrible (which I show you in the video!). ML4 already does an impressive job fixing most of these stars. In fact, almost all of the stars in the corners become nicely rounded.
But a few of the brighter stars still show obvious artifacts. And they're UGLY!
Here, ML5 impressed me! One particular bright star, which had the characteristic "lighthouse" type artifact, is now almost perfect with ML5.
There are also stars that still had obvious trails behind them with ML4 that become much more rounded and clean with ML5. The result is surprisingly good considering how bad the original stars were.
Obviously, BlurXTerminator isn't actually fixing your telescope's tilt or back-focus problem. The optical problem is still there. But it does such a good job of correcting the appearance of the stars after the fact that it's almost like magic.
So, Is BlurXTerminator ML5 Worth the $50 Upgrade?
After testing ML5 on my own images, my answer is:
You can't get an answer by looking at other people's images! You HAVE to try it yourself. It will depend on your equipment and your images.
If you have a telescope that produces diffraction spikes, I think ML5 is a very worthwhile upgrade. The improvement over ML4 can be quite obvious, especially around bright stars. If you regularly deal with tilt, back-focus issues, or problematic bright stars, ML5 is for sure a big improvement.
For images that already have clean, round stars, the difference can be much harder to see. The improvements to deep-sky detail are there, but at least in my tests, they weren't nearly as dramatic as the improvements to problematic stars.
And that's important because your experience may be completely different from mine.
What you should do right now:
Before paying the $50 upgrade fee, use the free trial and test ML5 on your own images.
Pick a few different types of images:
An image with bright stars
An image with diffraction spikes
An image with bad corner stars
An image with optical issues
A clean image with good data
Then compare ML4 and ML5. You'll directly see if ML55 makes a huge difference to your images, or if the improvements are too small to justify the cost.
For me personally, based on these tests, I'm leaning toward upgrading. Don't upgrade just because a new version is available. Test it on your own data first.
Make sure to follow Galactic Hunter on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to stay up to date with everything!
Clear Skies,
Antoine Grelin
Galactic Hunter
GALACTIC HUNTER BOOKS
Comments