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

Has the $1200 large chipped ASI 1600 made existing modestly priced CCDs obsolete?

  • Please log in to reply
372 replies to this topic

#176 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 12:45 AM



So my 2 cents, both technologies will result in same image quality, the main difference is that thanks to low read noise one can build another system that makes such camera's shine. Typically big fast dobs or hyperstar, you will be able to do unguided imagining and beat seeing partly thanks to LI technique, there are few people out there doing this look at;

 

http://www.astrokraai.nl

and though with a EMCCD;

http://junior-ccd.fn-f.de

 

And there are a few more, but the point is, on your current equipment probably a ccd will be better, but on a very fast system and the use of lucky imaging, one can get crazy detail (which you also can get with ccd but you need butter smooth stack so you can do deconvolution without introducing noise, hence many more hours of capture) Another benefit of the technique is that you get to the next level of averaging frames that makes the stacks crazy smooth. I did get a stack taken with a 30cm newton and the asi 178 ... the detail and low noise for just 3 hours is just amazing ... And no guiding needed and even in windy conditions you can go out and enjoy imaging.

These images are nowhere near what CCDs can do. They are OK but it's always going to be with a caveat like "oh it's not bad for a dslr" or something like that. 

 

Here is M27 with a CCD. And I am just an average processor.

get.jpg


Edited by tolgagumus, 07 May 2016 - 12:50 AM.


#177 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 07 May 2016 - 01:29 AM

These images are nowhere near what CCDs can do. They are OK but it's always going to be with a caveat like "oh it's not bad for a dslr" or something like that. 

 

Here is M27 with a CCD. And I am just an average processor.

get.jpg

 

 

You just don't understand the point, you just looked at the welcome page M27 RGB, and try to compare it with over 20K of equipment NB image ...

 

 

Look at the galaxies in RGB and maybe you will understand ... that low cost mounts or just an EQ platform with a low-cost webcam beats an expensive equipment, you will always find a better image somewhere ... 

 

 

Which M51 has more detail ...

 

http://www.astrokraa...php?id=250&cd=7

 

or

 

http://www.astrobin.com/240530/None/

 

Hmmm ... price of the dob + webcam ... peanuts ...


Edited by vdb, 07 May 2016 - 01:35 AM.

  • gregj888 likes this

#178 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:00 AM

 

These images are nowhere near what CCDs can do. They are OK but it's always going to be with a caveat like "oh it's not bad for a dslr" or something like that. 

 

Here is M27 with a CCD. And I am just an average processor.

get.jpg

 

 

You just don't understand the point, you just looked at the welcome page M27 RGB, and try to compare it with over 20K of equipment NB image ...

 

 

Look at the galaxies in RGB and maybe you will understand ... that low cost mounts or just an EQ platform with a low-cost webcam beats an expensive equipment, you will always find a better image somewhere ... 

 

 

Which M51 has more detail ...

 

http://www.astrokraa...php?id=250&cd=7

 

or

 

http://www.astrobin.com/240530/None/

 

Hmmm ... price of the dob + webcam ... peanuts ...

 

I am not sure if I like those egg shaped stars. But the question before us is can you replace the CCD with these CMOS cameras? If they can only do RGB short exposure imaging, the answer is no. We will find out.  I am not interested in this lucky imaging. How do you do narrowband with 1 2 second exposures?



#179 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:17 AM

I am not sure if I like those egg shaped stars. But the question before us is can you replace the CCD with these CMOS cameras? If they can only do RGB short exposure imaging, the answer is no. We will find out.  I am not interested in this lucky imaging. How do you do narrowband with 1 2 second exposures?

 

 

 

 

 

That's because the EQ platform was not well aligned and it was just a test, also imaging conditions where so bad we "traditional" imagers would go to bed ...

 

Because of the low read noise one could do NB imaging with short subs, not one second but 30s to 1min would probably be enough, again not on My ODK or RC, but on a fast system, it would. And at a fraction of the cost, more detail ... but I can understand that we, who have spend huge amounts of money are in denial ...

 

Just for reference, I don't have this kind of setup, I'm in the traditional camp ;-)

ODK's, RC, Tec, Tak and QSI, Nikon D810A etc ... but I see where this new kind of imaging has potential and will complement/surpass the traditional way we have been doing imaging.

 

So yeah if you want to split hairs over star shape be my guest, if that's all you can say then I take the image amazed you ;-)

 

 

As mentioned I have an L stack of a real AP imagers using this technique and even from an LP site he easily beats me at my remote dark site ... 


Edited by vdb, 07 May 2016 - 02:20 AM.


#180 Junior-CCD

Junior-CCD

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Oldenburg, Germany

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:23 AM

Hi!

 

These images are nowhere near what CCDs can do. They are OK but it's always going to be with a caveat like "oh it's not bad for a dslr" or something like that. 

 

Here is M27 with a CCD. And I am just an average processor.

get.jpg

 

 

I already commented to this topic in other threads. If you say "These images are nowhere near what CCD can do", you ignore fundamental rules of imaging. For comparing cameras you need images taken with similar optics under similar conditions and - above all - similar total integration time. It is just useless to compare my M27 images (none of them exceeding 1.5 hours integration time) with your 16.5 hours NB image.

 

My opinion to the whole discussion: as long as you have an imaging site with mostly moderate to good seeing, relatively stable weather conditions and do not want to use extensively large focal lengths, you can stick to CCD and long exposures.

 

For my place (suburb near coast at sea level) it is useless to try long exposures. Any image taken with > 1 meter focal length will be blurred by bad seeing because sea wind is always causing turbulences and most evenings you are restricted to 5 minute exposures anyway because you keep losing your guide star due to clouds. And gathering 16 hours integration time for me is just a dream. Here I need about 3 months to do this.

 

CS, Carsten


  • nmoushon, Jon Rista and dapalmer like this

#181 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:28 AM

 

I am not sure if I like those egg shaped stars. But the question before us is can you replace the CCD with these CMOS cameras? If they can only do RGB short exposure imaging, the answer is no. We will find out.  I am not interested in this lucky imaging. How do you do narrowband with 1 2 second exposures?

 

 

 

 

 

That's because the EQ platform was not well aligned and it was just a test, also imaging conditions where so bad we "traditional" imagers would go to bed ...

 

Because of the low read noise one could do NB imaging with short subs, not one second but 30s to 1min would probably be enough, again not on My ODK or RC, but on a fast system, it would. And at a fraction of the cost, more detail ... but I can understand that we, who have spend huge amounts of money are in denial ...

 

Just for reference, I don't have this kind of setup, I'm in the traditional camp ;-)

ODK's, RC, Tec, Tak and QSI, Nikon D810A etc ... but I see where this new kind of imaging has potential and will complement/surpass the traditional way we have been doing imaging.

 

So yeah if you want to split hairs over star shape be my guest, if that's all you can say then I take the image amazed you ;-)

 

 

As mentioned I have an L stack of a real AP imagers using this technique and even from an LP site he easily beats me at my remote dark site ... 

 

I didn't realize this is your website. Well like I said before, it's not bad for what it is. Until I see results I am skeptical. I am not in denial. I am sorry. I didn't mean to insult you. However star shape means everything to me. So yes I don't want stars like that. 



#182 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:34 AM

Hi!

 

These images are nowhere near what CCDs can do. They are OK but it's always going to be with a caveat like "oh it's not bad for a dslr" or something like that. 

 

Here is M27 with a CCD. And I am just an average processor.

get.jpg

 

 

I already commented to this topic in other threads. If you say "These images are nowhere near what CCD can do", you ignore fundamental rules of imaging. For comparing cameras you need images taken with similar optics under similar conditions and - above all - similar total integration time. It is just useless to compare my M27 images (none of them exceeding 1.5 hours integration time) with your 16.5 hours NB image.

 

My opinion to the whole discussion: as long as you have an imaging site with mostly moderate to good seeing, relatively stable weather conditions and do not want to use extensively large focal lengths, you can stick to CCD and long exposures.

 

For my place (suburb near coast at sea level) it is useless to try long exposures. Any image taken with > 1 meter focal length will be blurred by bad seeing because sea wind is always causing turbulences and most evenings you are restricted to 5 minute exposures anyway because you keep losing your guide star due to clouds. And gathering 16 hours integration time for me is just a dream. Here I need about 3 months to do this.

 

CS, Carsten

I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost? 



#183 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:37 AM

You do realise that star shapes has nothing to do with this discussion 

 

I didn't realize this is your website. Well like I said before, it's not bad for what it is. Until I see results I am skeptical. I am not in denial. I am sorry. I didn't mean to insult you. However star shape means everything to me. So yes I don't want stars like that. 

 

 

 

 

It's not my site, but I follow other forums where the conditions of the images taken where discussed.

Star shape has nothing to do with this technique. 

I'll repeat myself, this technique and price point will result in similar and in some cases better results then traditional ccd imaging.

 

Both will complement, and back to the original statement of the post, no it will not replace, but will re ignite a stagnant development for years and will gives us more choice and ultimately better tools to make better images, so cheap CMOS camera's will help us in our hobby to capture better pictures with cheaper equipment. 



#184 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:42 AM

I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost? 

 

 

 

 

I don't know, probably a lot I leave that to CS, but the point is the new badge of CMOS camera's has almost the same read noise as that EMCCD ... and costs about 1/3 of a ccd ... 

 

The calculations made on page 6 demonstrate they both are on par, but the price of the complete setup is dramatically lower with the CMOS camera ...  and the advantages the low read noise gives it an extra edge ...



#185 Junior-CCD

Junior-CCD

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Oldenburg, Germany

Posted 07 May 2016 - 03:01 AM

Hi!

 

I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost? 

 

You can get second hand EMCCDs for 4.000 to 5.000 EUR, so comparable to your QSI. But this doens't matter because the small frame EMCCDs are not produced any more. That's the reason why everyone who is interested to use shorter exposures is looking for alternatives. So far, the ASI 1600 seems to be the only reasonable alternative.

 

But I, too, would be skeptical until I have seen the first ASI 1600 results with a reasonable long integration time, let say more than 5 hours.

 

CS, Carsten


Edited by Junior-CCD, 07 May 2016 - 03:05 AM.


#186 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 03:07 AM

Hi!

 

I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost? 

 

You can get second hand EMCCDs for 4.000 to 5.000 EUR, so comparable to your QSI. But this doens't matter because the small frame EMCCDs are not produced any more. That's the reason why everyone who is interested to use shorter exposures is looking for alternatives. So far, the ASI 1600 seems to be the only reasonable alternative.

 

CS, Carsten

I got my QSI used as well for half of what you are talking about. Guys this is not a forum to discuss different methods of image processing. We are talking about CMOS vs CCD. We don't know anything about the 1600 camera. So let's not jump to conclusions here. I have one in hand and will be testing. So until than I am done arguing about how it seems to be. 



#187 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 07 May 2016 - 03:13 AM

The 1600 is not really new, it fits in the complete lineup of new CMOS and those have already produced magnificent images ...

 

Another ASI user beating the crap out of most CCD imagers;

http://www.astrobin....users/Thirteen/



#188 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 07 May 2016 - 06:15 AM

So.... did you order one yet, Josh? 

:lol:

 

I've had my eye on the 178 for quite a while due to the pixel size.  Right now, I'd like to do some lucky imaging for the core of some of my images like that Cat's Eye and some of the galaxies.  I still am thrilled with the performance of my QSI 690 and the specs are still beating out even the 1600.  I wouldn't go away from it for the full picture and fainter stuff. However, the lucky imaging or high speed imaging isn't ideal for the CCD because of download time.  Also, I feel like I can get down to a better scale with smaller pixels for these high detailed regions.  Also, a color camera seems to make sense for this because I'm only talking about imaging very bright regions of images.  I'm still most concerned about calibration and stacking.  I'm not sure anyone is calibrating these subs and understanding how to stack most effectively yet.  Maybe it just doesn't matter because of any noise or issue like that would completely disappear in the high snr regions I'd be blending in.



#189 TheRock

TheRock

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Bergen County, NJ

Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:27 AM

Perhaps folks can elaborate for us less experienced imagers: What indicator(s) in the spec sheet shows a more competent ability to do more/shorter subs as opposed to the fewer/longer subs?


Edited by TheRock, 07 May 2016 - 12:48 PM.


#190 Goofi

Goofi

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 8,137
  • Joined: 03 May 2013
  • Loc: Coastal Southern California

Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:45 AM

 

I am not sure if I like those egg shaped stars. But the question before us is can you replace the CCD with these CMOS cameras? If they can only do RGB short exposure imaging, the answer is no. We will find out.  I am not interested in this lucky imaging. How do you do narrowband with 1 2 second exposures?

 

 

 

 

 

That's because the EQ platform was not well aligned and it was just a test, also imaging conditions where so bad we "traditional" imagers would go to bed ...

 

Because of the low read noise one could do NB imaging with short subs, not one second but 30s to 1min would probably be enough, again not on My ODK or RC, but on a fast system, it would. And at a fraction of the cost, more detail ... but I can understand that we, who have spend huge amounts of money are in denial ...

 

Just for reference, I don't have this kind of setup, I'm in the traditional camp ;-)

ODK's, RC, Tec, Tak and QSI, Nikon D810A etc ... but I see where this new kind of imaging has potential and will complement/surpass the traditional way we have been doing imaging.

 

So yeah if you want to split hairs over star shape be my guest, if that's all you can say then I take the image amazed you ;-)

 

 

As mentioned I have an L stack of a real AP imagers using this technique and even from an LP site he easily beats me at my remote dark site ... 

 

 

I get frustrated when someone points to an image as proof of their point, and then explains away all the problems with the image they used.  

 

As for equipment, this topic started with the question:  Can anyone come up with reasons to recommend 8300s or 694s to new imagers any more?  So we're talking about new imagers.  I started with an AT65EDQ and an AVX; I used them for my first few years of imaging without problems (well, the mount some  ;) ).  Is Hyperstar really a good way to enter this hobby?  Cost of the scope is more, cost of the Hyperstar lens a lot more, you still need a mount, and one capable of handling your SCT - my AVX would ruin about 1/3 of your subs if you put even an 8" hyperstar on it!

 

I have no problem with CMOS technology; I get that they are coming, and they will change the way we do imaging. I don't think we're there yet, and I think claiming future potential for CMOS against real CCDs today answers the original question.  Today, and any day, I start by asking the person entering the hobby - What do you want to image?  If they say solar system targets, CMOS is probably the way to go; if they say DSOs, I'd steer them to a CCD.


  • jdupton likes this

#191 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,158
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Milford, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:49 AM


So.... did you order one yet, Josh?
:lol:


I've had my eye on the 178 for quite a while due to the pixel size. Right now, I'd like to do some lucky imaging for the core of some of my images like that Cat's Eye and some of the galaxies. I still am thrilled with the performance of my QSI 690 and the specs are still beating out even the 1600. I wouldn't go away from it for the full picture and fainter stuff. However, the lucky imaging or high speed imaging isn't ideal for the CCD because of download time. Also, I feel like I can get down to a better scale with smaller pixels for these high detailed regions. Also, a color camera seems to make sense for this because I'm only talking about imaging very bright regions of images. I'm still most concerned about calibration and stacking. I'm not sure anyone is calibrating these subs and understanding how to stack most effectively yet. Maybe it just doesn't matter because of any noise or issue like that would completely disappear in the high snr regions I'd be blending in.

Very close, very close.

#192 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,158
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Milford, Michigan

Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:51 AM


The 1600 is not really new, it fits in the complete lineup of new CMOS and those have already produced magnificent images ...

Another ASI user beating the crap out of most CCD imagers;
http://www.astrobin....users/Thirteen/


Now that's funny! Beating the crap outta who? His planetary images are magnificent, but that's about where it ends. The tech will get there, but right now it's not ready for prime time for astroimaging. Technology, no matter how great, cannot change the laws of physics and light. Can they change the efficiency of how many photons are converted to electrons? sure, but faint detail with short exposures is no where close. There are many chips which much greater efficiency currently, but most of us can't afford them.

Aww come on, I didn't ask for this.

#193 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,034
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 07 May 2016 - 08:01 AM

ASI1600MM is a value proposition.   $ for $ you are getting more for what you are paying than any other CCD in the sub $2000 price range.  Moreover, there is some hope and anticipation that with expert tutelage that ASI1600MM users could produce images rivaling the cost of established CCDs in the next cost bucket of $2-4k.   This second point still needs to be proven out and we shall see...

So for CMOS vs. CCD  I think its simple to say that $ for $ value the ASI1600MM seems to be a winner in the sub $4k range and most definitely in the sub $2k range where it really shines.   Although not central to the discussion vs. CCDs, the other benefit is that the ASI1600MM can also be a very excellent solar and planetary camera, with its USB3 and fast FPS.  So you are getting that as a freebie.  Lastly, the short subs and low read noise also make this ASI1600MM a great wide FOV camera for EAA.   So honestly, you are getting a 3:1  here.  Yes, you guys are all focused on the very high-end of CCD imaging and narrowband and whatnot... but there is alot more the ASI1600MM can do.  

Al


  • Jon Rista and bigeastro like this

#194 FirstC8

FirstC8

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,118
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2016

Posted 07 May 2016 - 08:02 AM

Hi!


I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost?

You can get second hand EMCCDs for 4.000 to 5.000 EUR, so comparable to your QSI. But this doens't matter because the small frame EMCCDs are not produced any more. That's the reason why everyone who is interested to use shorter exposures is looking for alternatives. So far, the ASI 1600 seems to be the only reasonable alternative.

But I, too, would be skeptical until I have seen the first ASI 1600 results with a reasonable long integration time, let say more than 5 hours.

CS, Carsten
I don't think the 1600 is at the same level of a small EMCCD. There are sCMOS cameras available and at the EMCCD level. Maybe a few used ones will emerge at a reachable price.

I hope those are the next line of chips ZWO and/or QHY alike will start to entertain. The problem I see is, they seem convinced larger chip sizes are prerequisite, which makes them less affordable, or could delay their entry to the ameture market.

Edited by FirstC8, 07 May 2016 - 08:05 AM.


#195 RafaelP

RafaelP

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2012
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 07 May 2016 - 08:42 AM

Perhaps my question got lost in all the discussion...
How would the 1600 compare to the ICX694? I know they are set at different price points...The 1600 has lower read noise but also a lower QE. The ICX694 has better QE, can be binned in hardware, and is 16 bit; but has higher read noise and smaller FOV.

How does this effect narrow band, as that will be my primary mode of usage. Any other thoughts?

Edited by RafaelP, 07 May 2016 - 08:42 AM.


#196 Goofi

Goofi

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 8,137
  • Joined: 03 May 2013
  • Loc: Coastal Southern California

Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:43 AM

Perhaps my question got lost in all the discussion...
How would the 1600 compare to the ICX694? I know they are set at different price points...The 1600 has lower read noise but also a lower QE. The ICX694 has better QE, can be binned in hardware, and is 16 bit; but has higher read noise and smaller FOV.

How does this effect narrow band, as that will be my primary mode of usage. Any other thoughts?

 

I still think the Sony 694 sensor is the best reasonably priced sensor for narrowband today.  

 

With narrowband, you're more likely to be interested in faint detail and so you need the extra bits/dynamic range, as well as being more likely to "go deep."  Theoretically, you can take 2 hour subs with a 694 before dark current becomes an issue; the chip makes it easy to take 1 hour subs all night long. The 694 is fantastically sensitive in Oiii, and still strong in Ha/Sii.  It's biggest drawback is its size - you'll either want multiple scopes in order to have a range of fields of view ... or learn to do mosaics. 

 

(Aside:  Sony, come on - crank out an APS-C sized 694!!!! )

 

One day I can see CMOS being a better sensor for narrowband, but we're not there yet.


  • bilgebay likes this

#197 gregj888

gregj888

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,463
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:47 AM

 

Hi!

I shoot from 15 miles outside of NYC. so please don't tell me about LP, bad weather and seeing conditions. And you guys tell me my equipment is expensive. How much did that EMCCD camera cost?

You can get second hand EMCCDs for 4.000 to 5.000 EUR, so comparable to your QSI. But this doens't matter because the small frame EMCCDs are not produced any more. That's the reason why everyone who is interested to use shorter exposures is looking for alternatives. So far, the ASI 1600 seems to be the only reasonable alternative.

But I, too, would be skeptical until I have seen the first ASI 1600 results with a reasonable long integration time, let say more than 5 hours.

CS, Carsten
I don't think the 1600 is at the same level of a small EMCCD. There are sCMOS cameras available and at the EMCCD level. Maybe a few used ones will emerge at a reachable price.

 

 

In the hands of a seasoned EMCCD user, actually 2 seasoned EMCCD users, the ASI290m prototype is in fact giving the low end EMCCD's a run for their capabilities.  $400 vs $15000, easier to use and results have in some cases been better.  If you want to look at a market at risk...

 

We do very narrow fields with the airy disk spread across 3-5 pixels (speckle imaging) and are getting to the Dawes limits with double stars.  Speckle is only good with a handful of stars in the field, but "triple correlation" is more general purpose and has better data extraction capabilities.  So these techniques are not limited to fast systems, I'll use my ASI290 at f/10 - f/20 depending on the target for doubles and at f/4.2 for some other imaging.  We prefer monochrome cameras, ADCs and filters to OSC and generally work in only 1 filter band.

 

Note too, as FWHM >1" you'll want an ADC... which can be built into a corrector/reducer...  We don't have the combined units yet.

 

So think 50ms exposures and like Adaptive Optics, there's a 6-10x gain by putting all the photons in a few pixels (increased resolution) , losses in the frames that are thrown out, some additional noise from the stacking, but it's swamped by other sources in most if not all cases.  Lucky is one technique, but the newer (more compute intensive) techniques like triple correlation will do even more...  Are we there yet? not on large frame CMOS chips but the ASI1600 is a first and apparently good step. We also don't have the software support to make this easy.   JMHO, we'll have to see.



#198 groz

groz

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007
  • Loc: Campbell River, BC

Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:49 AM

Interesting discussion, but, I think one of the points everybody seems to gloss over, which is NOT something to gloss, is the 12 bit data.

 

Our application for the telescopes is precision photometry, ie measuring exoplanet transits.  The things that matter, low read noise, and deep wells, we are making millimag measurements.  That can be accomplished with a 20K well depth, but, not if your 20K gets mapped into 12 bits, ie a range of 0 to 4096.  It takes 14 bits to describe a 20K well depth correctly, and if you truncate to 12, it just means you are throwing away the bottom two bits, which is where the majority of your noise (and faint signals) will lie.  If you crank up the gain to make the output describe your electron capture in a roughly 1:1 ratio, now you are only using 4K of the 20K available well depth.  In both cases, you cannot take advantage of the 20K well depth to make a precise measurement.

 

And this I believe is the reason you dont see traditional astro camera makers stampeding to base a camera on the 12 bit chips, they are hamstrung out of the gate.  The well depth spec looks decent, but, the 12 bits output means you cannot make full use of the 14 bits of data available in the wells.

 

But for a beginning imager I can see the appeal, a camera that hides the majority of the noise by not even sending it down the digital path would indeed make life easier in terms of calibrations etc.  But for somebody that fully understands proper calibration for doing precise data manipulation, the 12 bit data is a complete and total show stopper, no need to even read farther down the spec sheet.


Edited by groz, 07 May 2016 - 10:51 AM.

  • giorgio_ne likes this

#199 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:52 AM


The 1600 is not really new, it fits in the complete lineup of new CMOS and those have already produced magnificent images ...

Another ASI user beating the crap out of most CCD imagers;
http://www.astrobin....users/Thirteen/

Now that's funny! Beating the crap outta who? His planetary images are magnificent, but that's about where it ends. The tech will get there, but right now it's not ready for prime time for astroimaging. Technology, no matter how great, cannot change the laws of physics and light. Can they change the efficiency of how many photons are converted to electrons? sure, but faint detail with short exposures is no where close. There are many chips which much greater efficiency currently, but most of us can't afford them.
Aww come on, I didn't ask for this.

Come on Mike?!?! He's not selling these or pushing them on anyone. Just sharing his work and helping others out. Doesn't seem to be a need to put down his images which many people are very impressed by. Just unnecessary.
  • William Mc likes this

#200 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20,173
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 07 May 2016 - 11:06 AM

We're drifting into the bad place again.  Could people self censor emotion and emotionally laden words, please?

 

Focusing on information.  Ppeople involved with this discussion should also look at this thread.  Dim detail, some narrowband,  Amp glow seems to have not been a barrier.

 

http://www.cloudynig...asi1600mm-cool/

 

Mandatory disclaimers.  Not saying the camera is anything other than, perhaps, the best entry level choice.  Still need more examples, that is a very early camera, production models are just shipping now..


Edited by bobzeq25, 07 May 2016 - 11:11 AM.

  • bigeastro likes this


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