Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

ASI1600MC Cooled - Testing and Initial Impressions

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#26 ippiu

ippiu

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Italy

Posted 08 April 2016 - 01:49 PM

Thanks don.

So it is as i thought: that is the 1600 sensor is the same as olympus em5 mk2 and for my experience it needs minutes of exposure, not seconds like EAA specifically sensor camera (atik, ultrastar, asi224, etc)..

 

Bad news, for me..



#27 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:27 PM

 

?

Did I miss something?

Can somebody cite the source of the revelation that the 1600 sensor is the the same as the olympus?

 

http://www.cloudynig...-2#entry7138792

 

http://www.cloudynig...-2#entry7139223


Edited by DonBoy, 08 April 2016 - 03:48 PM.

  • t_image likes this

#28 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:28 PM

Sorry Hiten didn't mean to put Ippiu response here but in the other ASI1600 thread.

 

http://www.cloudynig...g/#entry7133530


Edited by DonBoy, 08 April 2016 - 03:32 PM.


#29 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10332
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 06:24 PM

Oly E-M1 is using Panasonic MN34231 (cousin of MN34230)  see

http://chipworks.for...E-M1_Pri-Camera

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello



#30 Rich_B

Rich_B

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2016

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:34 PM

is the Oly E-M1 sensor different from the E-PL5 , 6, 7 ?



#31 Rich_B

Rich_B

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2016

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:35 PM

how is this 16 megapixel sensor going to be used for EAA? too many pixels . This is AP .



#32 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10332
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:55 PM

At one point (in the past? or still now) Panny/Oly had to use a better SONY EXMOR IMX109 in their m43 mirrorless.

Examples are E-M5, E-PM2, E-PL5, etc.

Interesting enough, still called these as using vMaiovicon.  Just marketing.

 

Then Panny semiconductor began to catch up (assuming it licensed some technologies such as column-parallel) and began to use MN34230/MN34231 (and others.)

Now back to using the real vMaiovicon (with infused S' technologies.)

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 08 April 2016 - 08:06 PM.


#33 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 08 April 2016 - 08:59 PM

how is this 16 megapixel sensor going to be used for EAA? too many pixels . This is AP .

 

Your point is an interesting/valid one, but I'd note that with a rather modest F/7 and then binning rather aggressively Astrojedi was getting some pretty good results on some targets with just 10 second exposures.  For me that fits into the EAA/NRTV mode.

 

I'm personally finding it to be a pretty interesting camera.  I'm mostly into using cameras in NRTV mode for public events.  I figure that with the mounting options and short FFD the ASI1600 has I could probably haul my XX12g (F/4.9 so much faster than Astrojedi used) along with the camera, the computer, and a nice HD screen to the site and then probably using 2x2 binning I should be able to blow people's minds!

 

I could do similar work using my NP101is with its focal reducer and at it should do very nicely with those F/4.3 optics and I'd probably bin it 2x2 just to make things fit on the screen pretty well.  Similarly with the Comet Hunter.

 

And at home I could use it with my my optics in a more typical imaging mode and without binning.

 

I think that if I get the thing that it would serve me pretty nicely for both NRTV and more conventional imaging.

 

Not, however, my ideal camera.  But then, I've yet to see my ideal camera hit the market. . .


  • StarMike8SE likes this

#34 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:07 PM

I did a bit more searching on what appears to be the sensor in that ASI1600 and am increasingly bummed out about the IR filter situation.

 

Based on the conventional wisdom that the sensor is the MN34230/MN34231 I found that there is an "on-chip filter" that they brag about:  http://www.semicon.p...MN34230PL_E.pdf

 

I am not entirely sure what this filter is, but I suspect the IR-cut filter for the color sensor is manufactured on the chip and is thus not removable.  If the IR-cut filter is manufactured onto the sensor this might explain why the color camera comes with the IR filter but the mono is available without the thing.

 

But again, I don't have anything definitive about this and am hoping others with greater skills/knowledge can nail it all down.



#35 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10332
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:19 PM

I would not want to say A7s in its video (movie mode) output is EAA deep-sky ready (longest possible continuous shooting is 1/4 sec) even when ISO can be boosted very high....

Its HDMI out in 1920x1080 FHD mode is already 2M pixels per frame.  <-- The alternative is continuous shots with exposure time of each frame with your heart desire

 

Similar camera with 4K HD will be 8.3M pixels/frame.  This can be easily interpolated by a 12M or 16M image sensor.

 

I'd say the technology is readily (or about ready) in out hands.  When the overall sensor area is large, the pixel pitch can still be quite large for more photons to be collected.

 

Comparing that with the old video camera such as a fine resolution video cam CCD, the total pixel count is 300K to 500K, I would call that a progress.

 

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 08 April 2016 - 09:46 PM.


#36 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10332
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:29 PM

"On chip filter"  <-- ask their marketing to answer.  Can mean anything.



#37 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19223
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:32 PM

What the heck does the number of pixels have to do with whether or not it's suitable for EAA? Is too nice an image no longer EAA?

 

It's simplistic but ... 

 

Is the sensor and camera sensitive enough to reproduce fainter DSOs in a reasonable amount of time? "Reasonable" is defined by each of us and our own requirements.

 

Can the image be downloaded to stay within that "reasonable" amount of time?

 

Is there software to live display those download images?

 

Bonus points for - manual control over gain, live histogram adjustments, live stacking, saving still images and/or video streams, etc.

 

Congratulations you're doing EAA.


Edited by mclewis1, 08 April 2016 - 09:34 PM.

  • StarMike8SE likes this

#38 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 09 April 2016 - 07:34 AM

In defense of Rich_B?

 

While I would not state things as he did, it might be worth noting that the ASI1600 does have some glaring issues which make it problematic for many folk trying to do EAA.  While I believe that with my optics mix the camera would work pretty well for some NRTV use not everyone has the same mix of optics and having someone point out that it isn't a conventional NRTV camera has value.

 

So despite the fact that I may very well end up buying an ASI1600 and use it in an NRTV mode as well as for more conventional imaging, let me go into naysayer mode in order to give the skeptical viewpoint from the perspective of someone who should include the caveat that he has never used the camera:

 

  1. The camera is arguably a better choice for conventional imaging.  I've not been able to find a QE rating which I am sure is correct and that may mean that it has a relatively low QE and thus may not be a great choice for doing what a lot of people do in NRTV - try to see really dim DSOs.  Adding an IR-cut filter which may not be removable (OSC camera) and getting a good look at those dim DSOs may be even more difficult.
  2. A lot of us have invested in systems optimized for use with small sensors.  I've gotten the impression that F/10 SCTs are especially popular with those of us in the NRTV crowd and then people have gotten aggressive focal reducers in order to get a lot of light onto a very small area suited to those small sensors - you get the ASI1600 and your current NRTV rig just isn't going to work.
  3. So far what I've generally seen from the camera has been NRTV-type imaging of relatively bright objects or quite long exposures which fit better into the conventional imaging mode - and I haven't been able to view those long exposures in a large enough format to tell just how good the final image really is.  The binning in NRTV mode has been sufficiently aggressive that the stars appear pixellated much as I see in under-sampling from the NRTV rigs using relatively large pixels.
  4. You have to use a computer.  The folk in it may not talk a lot about it, but there is still a significant subset of NRTV folk who don't use a computer.  They don't want to add the complexity for a variety of reasons.  The ASI1600 has to be tethered to a computer.  In a certain purist sense it can be proper to consider any camera which requires a computer to not be a NRTV camera since it is the camera/computer/software combo which presents the image to a monitor rather than just the camera.  And yup, I own a Proc-Amp and a couple of other analog processing units so I understand this point of view.  An analog NTSC/PAL camera can be used with or without a computer and that ability to operate sans computer is essential to some while effectively irrelevant to others.

So for NRTV purposes as currently presented it is not clear to me that the ASI1600 is a very good camera for NRTV purposes for very many of us.  I think it would do a pretty good job for me because I have an optics mix which would work pretty well and because I actually liked the mode of use with the MC Universe where I could be imaging and doing a form of NRTV at the same time.  For my previous primary NRTV-only use (public viewing without a computer) the ASI1600 is really not usable.

 

But again, I am not trying to say that the ASI1600 is not a good camera or that it cannot do NRTV.  I still consider it very possible that I will purchase one myself as I think it would serve me quite well - especially since I have a C11 for which I hope to some day get a Hyperstar.  And I would use it in a sort of NRTV mode although it would not cause me to discard the analog camera.


Edited by OleCuss, 09 April 2016 - 09:27 AM.

  • TheRock likes this

#39 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19223
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 09 April 2016 - 07:36 AM

I get that some people here's subset EAA 'religion' has a belief that EAA only is about faint DSOs and solar/lunar/planetary be (sent to h -e double hockey sticks) .......... But just maybe it may be a cheap option for a mono 1080HD at 60fps for some nice solar/lunar work at high res? or 4K at 30fps!

How much are those Point Grey cameras again, at what resolution? at what framerates?..........................................

I think you're reading too much into that DSO comment. I default to faint DSO in the "what is EAA" discussion not to exclude anything else but because it really becomes a good yardstick for any camera and I think solar system imaging is so well established as part of EAA that there's no issue about it. Every since anyone has put a webcam in a scope, pointed it at the moon and called the kids or significant other over and said "hey, look at this" they've been doing EAA. I don't think I could imagine an EAA setup that couldn't be used on solar system objects to some degree.

 

 

Well said Mark, maybe you are a EAA unitarian universalist after all 

Say what? (had to look that one up)   :lol:  



#40 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4117
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 11 April 2016 - 10:07 AM

Spent another couple of hours with the camera last night... Ran it at f4 with my Meade 3.3 and suffered horrible vignetting. But the camera started to show some nice sensitivity.

 

I feel that HS is a must with this camera and should be excellent for large diffuse nebulae and starfields.

 

My C11 Hyperstar is on its way so will test it out soon enough.



#41 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 11 April 2016 - 11:15 AM

 

I feel that HS is a must with this camera and should be excellent for large diffuse nebulae and starfields.

Hiten,

 

Does this mean that the camera is unusable at f4 foe EAA or NLI?  Or the exposure times are longer than reasonable and thus the HS?  Does f4 allow you you to be competitive with say a Canon T3i under similar circumstances?   The reason I'm asking these questions are my hopes that a f4 Newtonian Astrograph (with coma corrector if needed) would yield a flat field and from a economy stand point would be a less expensive way of providing optic speed and a large flat field imaging circle. There are many who are using DSLR's at f6.3 and with f4 & f5 Newtonians and doing short exposure EAA with AT.  A cooled camera that could compete with the results from DSLR's would be highly desirable at least from my point of view.  


Edited by DonBoy, 11 April 2016 - 11:19 AM.

  • Relativist likes this

#42 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4117
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 11 April 2016 - 11:41 AM

Don,

 

Valid questions. The point I was making about usability was primarily related to vignetting and coma given the sensor size.

 

I think at a similar F Ratio it will be competitive with a high end DSLR maybe slightly more sensitive. On a subjective basis I think the QE is not more than 60% but that is typically what you see in larger sensors (most DSLRs are in the 50-60% range with slightly higher read noise).

 

I think if one already has a 6" or 8" Celestron SCT then buying a Hyperstar is a better solution and better value per field stop of speed. The coma correctors I have used in the past for Newts have cost more than the scope (I think this camera will need a coma corrector on a Newt).

 

Hiten



#43 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 11 April 2016 - 12:29 PM

Good to hear that it was not the sensitivity that is missing but flat field issues of vignetting and coma.  The 8" Newts that I was thinking about come with coma correctors and are reasonably priced (Bresser and Explore Scientific 8" at f3.9 $499 & $799 respectively).


  • Joe Bruessow likes this

#44 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4117
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 11 April 2016 - 12:40 PM

That ES 8" Carbon Fiber Newt does look very interesting. Although at 22lbs it is ~10lbs heavier than the 8" SCT. So would push a smaller mount like the AVX to its limit for imaging. But price perf look good.

 

Although note that a HS at F2 is still almost ~3.5x faster than that Newt. So a 30s exposure on a F2 HS is equal to 1 min 35s on the F3.9 Newt.


Edited by Astrojedi, 11 April 2016 - 02:22 PM.

  • StarMike8SE likes this

#45 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 11 April 2016 - 03:16 PM

That ES 8" Carbon Fiber Newt does look very interesting. Although at 22lbs it is ~10lbs heavier than the 8" SCT. So would push a smaller mount like the AVX to its limit for imaging. But price perf look good.

Although note that a HS at F2 is still almost ~3.5x faster than that Newt. So a 30s exposure on a F2 HS is equal to 1 min 35s on the F3.9 Newt.


Will HS fully illuminate the sensor? If so I suspect a newt could be reduced somewhat as well. That said its always a good idea to match the sensor and optics.

#46 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19223
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 11 April 2016 - 03:51 PM

GSO/AT 6" f4 imaging Newtonian - $300

GSO/AT coma corrector - $135

T thread adapters and spacers - ~$50

CG5/Vixen compatible dovetail bar - $30

 

All in just around $500, and could be carried easily on an AVX class of mount. I wonder if the little 6" Newtonian could also be carried on an Evolution mount?

 

To that little Newtonian setup I'd love to see how some of the 2" .5x, .7x, or .8x focal reducers would fair as well. Even with a mild .7x reducer the final f ratio would be a nice fast f3.



#47 StarMike8SE

StarMike8SE

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 11 April 2016 - 06:06 PM

Don,

 

Valid questions. The point I was making about usability was primarily related to vignetting and coma given the sensor size.

 

I think at a similar F Ratio it will be competitive with a high end DSLR maybe slightly more sensitive. On a subjective basis I think the QE is not more than 60% but that is typically what you see in larger sensors (most DSLRs are in the 50-60% range with slightly higher read noise).

 

I think if one already has a 6" or 8" Celestron SCT then buying a Hyperstar is a better solution and better value per field stop of speed. The coma correctors I have used in the past for Newts have cost more than the scope (I think this camera will need a coma corrector on a Newt).

 

Hiten

I agree, after even using the Optec F3.3 reducer, it will only work well with sensors up to 11mm.  The 1600 is 22mm I think, so F3.3 in an SCT would most likely not work, but with a larger sensor you may not need as much FR.  And the HS would be great with it


Edited by StarMike8SE, 11 April 2016 - 06:06 PM.


#48 TimP

TimP

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 11 April 2016 - 07:01 PM

I would like to see how thyis camera does with the Astrolive software.



#49 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5985
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 11 April 2016 - 07:24 PM

Wondering how this would work with my RASA 

Spent another couple of hours with the camera last night... Ran it at f4 with my Meade 3.3 and suffered horrible vignetting. But the camera started to show some nice sensitivity.

 

I feel that HS is a must with this camera and should be excellent for large diffuse nebulae and starfields.

 

My C11 Hyperstar is on its way so will test it out soon enough.



#50 Alex Parker

Alex Parker

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 11 April 2016 - 07:39 PM

GSO/AT 6" f4 imaging Newtonian - $300

GSO/AT coma corrector - $135

T thread adapters and spacers - ~$50

CG5/Vixen compatible dovetail bar - $30

 

All in just around $500, and could be carried easily on an AVX class of mount. I wonder if the little 6" Newtonian could also be carried on an Evolution mount?

 

To that little Newtonian setup I'd love to see how some of the 2" .5x, .7x, or .8x focal reducers would fair as well. Even with a mild .7x reducer the final f ratio would be a nice fast f3.

You do tend to end up getting what you pay for, however.  I wonder how long one would be willing to put up with the focuser, the figure of the optics, the ease of colimation, quality of mirror supports, etc on a $300 GSO Newt.  

 

Also, adding even mild FR to an f4 Newt is likely to overwhelm the corrected and well-illuminated image that the GSO coma corrector can provide.  You would just end up with dim, comatic borders to your image.  There are f3 imaging newts out there, but they cost eight times the total you've hit on above...


Edited by Alex Parker, 11 April 2016 - 07:44 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics