Why galaxy appearance is 'cartoon-like' using PixInsight? - Forums

Topic starter

14 hours ago

I’m only about 1.5 years into the hobby and use Siril and GIMP to process images.

I notice a huge variation in how astrophotographers and the software they use present final results of seemingly similar objects. Sometimes the only similarity is the outline shape, star location plus a few shadows and vague colour resemblances. Artistic interpretation aside, I guess it is skill level, software tools chosen, how aggressively they are employed. Is it AI creeping in to provide more options?

Since I have been imaging galaxies lately, I thought I’d put the question out to the community to gain some insight.

I can offer two images of the same galaxy as examples:

📷 Screenshot 2026-06-02 190658.pngThis image is my own of the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy, processed using Siril & GIMP. Somewhat ‘soft’ focus due to a few issues.

📷 Screenshot 2026-06-02 191100.pngThis second image is processed by someone using PixInsight + BlurXterminator + NoiseXTerminator + StarXTerminator, . Lots more granular detail but more ‘cartoonish’ in its presentation in my amateur mind.

I’m not wanting to say one is better than the other, but notice the difference?!

I wonder is this a thing or just personal preference? Realism vs artistic presentation?

Well written Respectful Engaging

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

13 hours ago

Resolution is vastly different and so are the results, not even in the same league or even planet. While I deeply dislike this pushing of bluish tints in spiral galaxies to the extreme and beyond, it must be said that the blue is there and so is the red. It is your business to bring them out. Stereotypical (and boring to bits), yes, cartoonish, no.

Well written Concise Engaging

Interactive Sky

6 hours ago

Hello Wayne,

I think the second image looks different from yours and appears more "cartoon-like" not because of PixInsight itself, but probably because of the different equipment, integration time, and processing choices.

Looking at the second image, it also seems more saturated, and I think the imager may have used selective processing techniques to enhance certain structures and colors.

So, in my opinion, those factors are the most likely reasons why the image has a more "cartoon-like" appearance.

Clear skies!

Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive

Tony Gondola

Frequent contributor

Exemplary contributor

5 hours ago

The lower image was clearly taken with a much larger aperture. That not only increases the resolution, star sizes etc. It was also likely done with a mono camera. Those things can make it easier to bring out the color that’s there. How much you bring it out is a processing decision and with the tools available in PI and other software it’s easy to get carried away. Just look at all the pictures of galaxies with crazy neon red Ha. It doesn’t have to be done that way but it seems to be the style. You just need to follow your own road.

Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive

bigCatAstro

4 hours ago

I don’t mind either one, it’s all to taste and context. I think both versions are lovely in their own ways.

Well written Respectful

Wayne Elley

Topic starter

2 hours ago

Thanks for the replies.

I'm not sure why it says ‘unlike’ when I tap ‘like’ on replies?

I was confused as to what my images should be aiming for so feedback is useful. I couldn't think of a word other than ‘cartoon-like’ , perhaps ‘neon-like’ would have been better….

Yes I have sometimes felt I'm on another planet with processing as I've struggled on in the dark, so-to-speak, despite the Earthman avatar.

But yes, at the end of it you have to follow your own emphasis and preference.

Norman Hey

2 hours ago

Image #1 could use: BlurXterminator to improve star profiles and non-stellar detail.

Colour calibration seems off, hence saturation and hues will be less than optimal. PI’s SpectrophotometricColorCalibration allows calibration according to many criteria and here clearly one would want to at least see how it looks using both an AverageSpiralGalaxy and the actual galactic structure class of the target as White References.

Other detail and contrast enhancement tools such as LocalHistogramEqualization and MultiscaleMedianTransform could used to further enhance both aspects.

Other software such as PhotoShop or Affinity may be of further use.

Image #2 seems to have crept over the line in my opinion on the sharpening front as well as on the saturation/colour enhancement. Looks ‘way too detailed for me unless it comes from a very large aperture setup in a very good location…

No idea how the two compare in terms of total integration time, selective subframe scoring and inclusion, and a host of other important variables.

Helpful