Equipment: SCT C14 - for sale * TSAPO65Q * ASI120MM * Atik 314L+ * and more
WWW: My Astro website
"Normal" people worry me! - If you want to think "outside the square" you really need to get out of your box! A kleptomaniacal plethora of gear: Custom-cooled (my designs) C11&14, Orion Optics (UK) VX16 16" F4 newt waiting for obs, ED127 triplet, NEQ6Pro, HEQ5Pro, ancient AstroOptics EQ mount super-customised with microsteppers, goto etc, ASI120MM, ASI120MC, Flea3 (retired - accepting offers!) Toucam 840k, modded Canon 50d + F4L etc,etc & lots of other homebrew equipment.....
Quote:Piotr keeps "rolling out" the ASI's "rolling shutter" and I keep "rolling it back to him"
Quote:In principle increasing the gain will not improve the signal/noise ratio, since with an histogram of 60% the noise due to the digitization should be smaller than that associated to the readout.
Quote:Quote:Piotr keeps "rolling out" the ASI's "rolling shutter" and I keep "rolling it back to him" Piotr has every right to bring up the point. I know you Darryl well enough by now to know you would agree with that! However I think it would be more useful to address it a little more thoroughly.I only have a guess that a planet would really have to be moving at an incredible speed about the frame to generate distorted elements from a rolling shutter. At the frame rates you and others have been using it does'nt sound likely especially in any seeing condition even halfway decent - but I would like to hear what others think.This kind of thing could be addressed experimentally, mathematically treated or modeled. Anyone? I only suggest this because it would be nice to have some basis which Sam and others could address on their web pages so we don't have the question come up over and over again - like other frequently asked questions, myths and speculations do on this and other forums. Glenn