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

First Light with ASI290MC

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#26 TonyStar

TonyStar

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Joined: 25 May 2013

Posted 19 May 2016 - 11:56 AM

it is our mistake, sorry

 

Well that seemed obvious from the beginning, thanks for acknowledging and correcting the issue, Sam. 

I now realize it is pretty straightforward to replace the window...so not a big issue for those who received the first batch, besides they can't really image in the IR right now.


  • wenjha likes this

#27 Nocturnal

Nocturnal

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,850
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2005
  • Loc: CT, USA

Posted 19 May 2016 - 12:43 PM

Glad the IR remote trick was useful. Sam is a great vendor to work with as evidenced yet again here. Products are great and if there is an issue the response is immediate.


  • wenjha likes this

#28 dhammy

dhammy

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,024
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Puerto Rico

Posted 19 May 2016 - 04:16 PM

Yes Sam is a great vendor and I've always found him extremely helpful whenever I've had questions on getting the best out of the ASI224MC I own. I'm glad you got it sorted out. I'm looking forward to the continual development of planetary cameras to see how good they will become :)


  • wenjha likes this

#29 mfarrell

mfarrell

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Northern California

Posted 19 May 2016 - 10:06 PM

Yes Sam is a great vendor and I've always found him extremely helpful whenever I've had questions on getting the best out of the ASI224MC I own. I'm glad you got it sorted out. I'm looking forward to the continual development of planetary cameras to see how good they will become :)

 

Yes, when I contacted Sam he acknowledged the issue, offered to send me the AR window and asked for my address!  That is the kind of vendor response that makes us come back for more.  Thanks Sam. :waytogo:


  • wenjha and dhammy like this

#30 vipermax

vipermax

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2016

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:57 PM

Thanks for this nice review. I got my ASI290MC yesterday, didn't try yet apart from simply pointing at Venus an try some capture. I have been using a NexImage, so I am new on both the ASI and FireCapture. Now, it must be something wrong with my settings, capture seems "pixelated"...any idea what's the reason for that? I am sure I am doing something wrong...but not sure what. Thanks for your help! 



#31 Gvs

Gvs

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 19 May 2011
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 05 March 2017 - 06:48 AM

Try reducing your gain.

#32 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,273
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:08 AM

To pick this back up, all other things being equal, which is the preferred camera for lunar and planetary work?

 

Jeff



#33 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,572
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:47 AM

Well, if you want detailed planetary pictures, get a mono camera. I read that a mono camera is more sensitive to details than a color camera. IF you want color pictures, you use the RGB method with a filter wheel and combine the images in Registax 6.

 

If you can't be bothered with the extra image capturing in RGB and subsequent processing, then get a OSC-One Shot Color camera. The caveat is that you lose resolution and clarity in favor of easy color capture.

 

I own the ASI224MC OSC camera. It is nice and does make for some pretty colorful pics, but I am going to order the ASI120MM-S (USB3.0) version of that camera which is Monochrome.

 

I have seen some nice mono pics of Jupiter and the detail is striking. Although the OSC is nice too. I like easy with the OSC, but i also want detail, so I am stepping into the Mono ring and see what I can come up with.

 

I am considering the ASI290MM.



#34 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:18 PM

For me I use the ASI290mm for Solar and Lunar and the ASI224 for Planetary.  The 290 would be better for Planetary if you were to use with LRGB filters.  If you don't want to do LRGB and prefer one camera then the compromise would be the 224 and it's less expensive and it's a good time to buy for many vendors have the ZWO line at 15% off.



#35 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,572
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:42 PM

DonBoy, what do you use for your deepsky pics?



#36 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 19 March 2017 - 02:51 PM

DonBoy, what do you use for your deepsky pics?

Hi David,

 

I don't do traditional AP but EAA imaging for broadcast on https://www.nightskiesnetwork.com/.  I'm currently using an ASI071, ASI1600MC-C, and Atik414 for EAA DSO imaging.  On and around full moon nights I do NB & WB Ha with the ASI290mm.   I have in the past done a lot of ASI224 DSO EAA imaging for broadcast.

 

I have images in albums by camera in Flickr if you care to look:

 

https://www.flickr.c...5399@N04/albums

 

I'm currently testing the ASI071MC-Cool for EAA broadcasting.

 

https://www.cloudyni...a/#entry7673546


Edited by DonBoy, 19 March 2017 - 02:55 PM.


#37 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,273
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:41 PM

Let me clarify.  For color cameras, which is preferred, the ASI224MC or the ASI290MC?

 

And maybe why.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff



#38 Gvs

Gvs

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 19 May 2011
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:50 PM

The ASI290mc over the  224 because of the extra  megapixels and  range of operation and the newer sensor.  The 224 is a tad more sensitive in low light. 


Edited by Gvs, 19 March 2017 - 09:51 PM.


#39 moonwatching ferret

moonwatching ferret

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3,484
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2016
  • Loc: sebastian fl

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:12 PM

I am a bit confused as usual. did you use an ir cut filter with the 290 or a luminescence filter. I bought the asi 290mc color as well I use the ir cut mine came with the anti reflection filter pre installed. should i use a luminescence filter?


Edited by moonwatching ferret, 19 March 2017 - 10:13 PM.


#40 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:10 AM

Let me clarify.  For color cameras, which is preferred, the ASI224MC or the ASI290MC?

 

And maybe why.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

It depends on your scope system.

 

Ideally, you want a system f = 5* pixel size (in um).

 

So if you have a C8 (f/10) with a 2x barlow (=f/20), you would want a camera with a pixel size of about 4.

The 224 has 3.75u pixels, the 290 has 2.90u pixels, so based on this the 224 might be a better fit.



#41 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:15 AM

I am a bit confused as usual. did you use an ir cut filter with the 290 or a luminescence filter.

They are the same thing. 


Edited by George Bailey, 20 March 2017 - 09:16 AM.


#42 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:40 AM

 

Let me clarify.  For color cameras, which is preferred, the ASI224MC or the ASI290MC?

 

And maybe why.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

It depends on your scope system.

 

Ideally, you want a system f = 5* pixel size (in um).

 

So if you have a C8 (f/10) with a 2x barlow (=f/20), you would want a camera with a pixel size of about 4.

The 224 has 3.75u pixels, the 290 has 2.90u pixels, so based on this the 224 might be a better fit.

 

But there's more to it than just pixel size right? What about read noise and low-light sensitivity? How do the 290 and 224 compare in this regard (ideally, what's the difference at different gain settings?)



#43 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:09 PM

The 290 has less read noise (1.0e vs 1.5e for 224) and better gain, but would lead to greater oversampling with my f/20 system.

 

I guess you must decide which has the greater impact on your images.

 

ZWO has graphs on their website that might help you decide: https://astronomy-im...cts-comparison/


Edited by George Bailey, 20 March 2017 - 12:31 PM.

  • Maryland Mike and Lacaille like this

#44 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,273
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 21 March 2017 - 11:04 AM

 

Let me clarify.  For color cameras, which is preferred, the ASI224MC or the ASI290MC?

 

And maybe why.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

It depends on your scope system.

 

Ideally, you want a system f = 5* pixel size (in um).

 

So if you have a C8 (f/10) with a 2x barlow (=f/20), you would want a camera with a pixel size of about 4.

The 224 has 3.75u pixels, the 290 has 2.90u pixels, so based on this the 224 might be a better fit.

 

Ok, I'll bite.  Where did this criteria come from and what is the down side of going to a larger multiplier than 5?   You mentioned greater over-sampling.  What is that and what are the pit-falls of having that too large?

 

All help is appreciated!

 

Jeff


  • CrazyPanda likes this

#45 SwissCheese

SwissCheese

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2015

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:20 PM

 

 

Let me clarify.  For color cameras, which is preferred, the ASI224MC or the ASI290MC?

 

And maybe why.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeff

It depends on your scope system.

 

Ideally, you want a system f = 5* pixel size (in um).

 

So if you have a C8 (f/10) with a 2x barlow (=f/20), you would want a camera with a pixel size of about 4.

The 224 has 3.75u pixels, the 290 has 2.90u pixels, so based on this the 224 might be a better fit.

 

Ok, I'll bite.  Where did this criteria come from and what is the down side of going to a larger multiplier than 5?   You mentioned greater over-sampling.  What is that and what are the pit-falls of having that too large?

 

All help is appreciated!

 

Jeff

 

 

It comes from sampling theory: if you do not want to undersample, you need a pixel spacing no larger than half the resolution (Nyquist-Shannon theorem).

 

So we need to solve the following:

- angular sampling < angular resolution / 2

- angular resolution = 1.22 * wavelength / diameter (it's one of several definitions of the resolution)

- angular sampling = pixel size / focal length

- focal length = f * diameter

 

When you solve the whole thing, you get: f > (pixel size * 2) / (1.22 * wavelength)

 

Using for example the shortest visible wavelength (~390 nm), this yields f > 4.2 * pixel size (in um)

 

In practice, you could use whatever f value above this lower limit. However, the more you magnify, the lower the signal intensity. So you will need a larger gain (and then get higher noise) or longer exposure time (and the risk to have blurring due to atmospheric effects / vibrations ...).

 

In summary, 5 times the pixel size in um is close to the "ideal" value, and for bright targets having a higher factor is not a problem.

 

 

Edit:

 

Using color cameras complicates the calculation due to the Bayer matrix... It's probably better to use slightly larger f values in that case.


Edited by SwissCheese, 21 March 2017 - 01:51 PM.

  • dswtan, George Bailey and Lacaille like this

#46 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:46 PM

https://www.cloudyni...w/#entry5317455



#47 CrazyPanda

CrazyPanda

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,558
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2012

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:40 PM

So to be clear, oversampling is when you are not recording any extra detail from the target due to the angular resolution limits of the instrument? That is, you're using more pixels to record the same level of detail than you need (with the problem being that this "dilutes" the light and requires more gain & noise to compensate?)



#48 SwissCheese

SwissCheese

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2015

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:28 PM

So to be clear, oversampling is when you are not recording any extra detail from the target due to the angular resolution limits of the instrument? That is, you're using more pixels to record the same level of detail than you need (with the problem being that this "dilutes" the light and requires more gain & noise to compensate?)

Yes, exactly smile.gif



#49 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,572
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:05 PM

The 290 has less read noise (1.0e vs 1.5e for 224) and better gain, but would lead to greater oversampling with my f/20 system.

 

I guess you must decide which has the greater impact on your images.

 

ZWO has graphs on their website that might help you decide: https://astronomy-im...cts-comparison/

 

What got me to buy the 224 is that the read noise of between .75e and 1.5e and the QE was 75%. I was told by Sam that the 224 was the best camera to buy based on its sensitivity readings. I also had a budget at that time and din't want to spend too much on a OSC camera. I may buy the 290 in the future but unsure if I want Mono or COlor. I will be buying the 120-S mono camera in a few weeks and an ADC as well.



#50 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,572
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:09 PM

I also read that a mono camera negates the atmospheric dispersion and does not make the images ungainly after capture. So the Mono would be best for planetary imaging for a B&W image. However, you could also throw in LRGB filters too.




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