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

RisingTech - cheap IMX224, IMX290, ICX829 alternatives

  • Please log in to reply
307 replies to this topic

#26 nic35

nic35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2007

Posted 02 January 2017 - 01:56 PM

Here's a few first light shots with the Rising Tesch IMX224.

 

My first time with a USB camera, and so still  climbing the learning curve with the camera and Sharpcap.

 

All images were taken with a SV70ED (F6) on an SLT mount in a red zone.  Temperatures were in the low 30's (F).  I used Sharpcap 2.9  with the drivers as supplied with the camera (ToupcamAstro)

 

Stack_15.jpg

 

M42, Stack of 16 4s subs.  Optolong UHC filter.  This is before I figured out how to properly subtract a dark frame.

 

m42_0002.jpg

 

M42, 8 second capture.  No FR, no UHC filter. 

 

m82_Stack_23.jpg

 

M82, stack of 23 8s subs.  No FR, darks subtracted. No UHC filter.

 

dark Histogram.jpg

 

An average of 20 2 second dark frames, with histogram stretched to show lower end of scale (0 to 12).  Mean of 2.4, Median value of 2, Standard deviation of 0.64.

 

I hope this is useful.  Let me know if you want any more specific info.

 

j


Edited by nic35, 02 January 2017 - 01:58 PM.

  • OleCuss, alphatripleplus, Abhat and 2 others like this

#27 CharlesC

CharlesC

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3375
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 02 January 2017 - 02:12 PM

You may be an EAA pioneer!  Initial M42 shot looks very promising.  If it works as well as IMX224 competitors, the RisingTech cost of $168 will almost cut entry level price in half! 

 

Your Meade 6" may help bring in fainter objects, and of course, longer exposures.

I'm very interested in how your progress with this RisingTech IMX224 camera improves!

Keep us posted!


  • nic35 and Chevelle72 like this

#28 Chevelle72

Chevelle72

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 05 January 2017 - 08:25 PM

Wow! It looks like the only real difference is that this camera is limited to USB 2 and  the equivalent cameras offered by ZWO etc. are now USB 3. I don't know how much difference that makes in terms of actual camera frame rate transfer potential. The price however is fantastic and your initial images are great! Very promising and could be another big win for EAA.

 

Thanks for being the pioneer with these.


Edited by Chevelle72, 05 January 2017 - 11:28 PM.


#29 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 06 January 2017 - 07:16 AM

High frame rate == shorter exposure.

 

(Very) short exposure time is not in the domain of astro deep space viewing/observation/imaging.

 

In another word, USB 3.0 or 3.1 mostly is a useless gimick, unless you are in solar system imaging using the lucky image approach.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


  • Chevelle72 likes this

#30 alphatripleplus

alphatripleplus

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 67768
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 22 January 2017 - 09:37 PM

Looks like RisingTech has just listed an IMX290 based colour astronomical camera (as opposed to Microscope camera) on their Aliexpress website storefront  for $225. https://www.aliexpre...2789033251.html. Maximum exposure is 1000 sec, and other specs look similar to  their other astro cameras. Might be very interesting if they are going to sell a mono IMX290 in that same price area, but we might have to wait a bit as they are closed from Jan 20 to Feb 9.


  • CharlesC likes this

#31 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 23 January 2017 - 07:40 AM

, , ,  but we might have to wait a bit as they are closed from Jan 20 to Feb 9.

Yep, it's Chinese New Year, and they celebrate for about 2 weeks, like we do with our Christmas   :grin:



#32 nother

nother

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Hamburg, Germany

Posted 24 January 2017 - 05:07 AM

Looks like RisingTech has just listed an IMX290 based colour astronomical camera (as opposed to Microscope camera) on their Aliexpress website storefront  for $225. https://www.aliexpre...2789033251.html. Maximum exposure is 1000 sec, and other specs look similar to  their other astro cameras. Might be very interesting if they are going to sell a mono IMX290 in that same price area, but we might have to wait a bit as they are closed from Jan 20 to Feb 9.

That's a ridiculous price. It's 212€ for Europe where the ASI290MC costs 396€ and the "only" difference is USB3.0 vs. 2.0, what only plays a role for planetary video captures.

I would say, that's worth waiting. 



#33 AstroGal

AstroGal

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 22 February 2017 - 07:32 AM

Looks like RisingTech has just listed an IMX290 based colour astronomical camera (as opposed to Microscope camera) on their Aliexpress website storefront  for $225. https://www.aliexpre...2789033251.html. Maximum exposure is 1000 sec, and other specs look similar to  their other astro cameras. Might be very interesting if they are going to sell a mono IMX290 in that same price area, but we might have to wait a bit as they are closed from Jan 20 to Feb 9.

 Well, Rising Tech is back from their vacay. Has anyone contacted Eddie about whether Rising Tech has any plans to sell a mono IMX 290 camera ? Let us know if you've heard anything. If no one has, I'll email Eddie in a day or two. I'll point out that there seems to be a bit of interest, in this forum at least, for a IMX 290 mono alternative to QHY and ZWO. 


Edited by AstroGal, 22 February 2017 - 11:14 AM.


#34 nic35

nic35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2007

Posted 22 February 2017 - 07:41 AM

About 10 days ago I asked about the mono camera. Here's the reply

 

Actually we have plan make Mono one under IMX290, we are purchase Mono sensor now, I think we can produce this mono camera in near future
So if we finish it, I will let you know

Regards
Eddie

 

Another email cant hurt. 

 

John


  • alphatripleplus and AstroGal like this

#35 alphatripleplus

alphatripleplus

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 67768
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2017 - 07:57 AM

I'm curious too, so I just shot RisingTech an e-mail after reading John's post!  (I also tried to put a link to this thread in the email so they know there is some interest here.)


Edited by alphatripleplus, 22 February 2017 - 08:00 AM.


#36 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 18678
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 22 February 2017 - 09:11 AM

A GPCMOS based camera with a mono IMX290 sensor could be a good alternative to ones with the ARO sensors. It would give you all the benefits of the older camera (flexible video camera use - autoguider, collimation, planetary imaging, etc.), and would improve the DSO imaging options because of the lower noise levels.

 

The key of course is to keep the cost down ... it won't be as cheap as the ARO sensor based models but if there isn't a huge increase a camera like this would appeal to a lot of folks.



#37 AstroGal

AstroGal

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:36 AM

I didn't realize that the only way to contact Rising Tech is through the Alie website since RT doesn't have their own website. I'm not quite ready to register with Alie yet, so does anyone have a direct e-mail address for Eddie at Rising Tech as I may have some questions for him? Thanks guys.



#38 alphatripleplus

alphatripleplus

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 67768
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2017 - 11:00 AM

I just got a reply from Eddie at RisingTech (Wow that was fast). I contacted him via the AlieExpress storefront messaging system after registering with Alie. He indicated that a mono IMX290 is under development as John indicated, and if they complete it, the AlieExpress storefront will be updated with the new camera. I guess we will have to wait and see. :)



#39 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3794
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 22 February 2017 - 11:28 AM

I just got a reply from Eddie at RisingTech (Wow that was fast). I contacted him via the AlieExpress storefront messaging system after registering with Alie. He indicated that a mono IMX290 is under development as John indicated, and if they complete it, the AlieExpress storefront will be updated with the new camera. I guess we will have to wait and see. :)

Good to hear. Try to encourage Eddie to join CN. Will be very beneficial for him and everyone buying/contemplating buying RT products.



#40 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2988
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:48 PM

Has anyone used the RT existing 224/290 as auto guiders? What do you select in PHD as the compatible driver? Is it the Altair driver set? Do these cams also have built in st4 ports and cabkes?

Al

#41 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:23 PM

Probably ask the vendor if/when hardware based "special low amp-glow" circuit can be implemented.



#42 alphatripleplus

alphatripleplus

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 67768
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:27 PM

Probably ask the vendor if/when hardware based "special low amp-glow" circuit can be implemented.

For the IMX290 I doubt this would be a concern...., but for the IMX224 that is a good question.



#43 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:34 PM

For me, it will always be a concern.

(refer to post #2)


Edited by ccs_hello, 22 February 2017 - 05:41 PM.


#44 nic35

nic35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2007

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:17 PM

Has anyone used the RT existing 224/290 as auto guiders? What do you select in PHD as the compatible driver? Is it the Altair driver set? Do these cams also have built in st4 ports and cabkes?

Al

I havent used it that way, but the 224 (and I presume the color 290 and the future mono290) comes wi t h an ASCOM ST4 program.  It has an ST4 port and ships with a cable.

 

It is a rebranded touptek set, which may ormay not be the same as Altair.  

 

J


Edited by nic35, 22 February 2017 - 06:19 PM.


#45 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 18678
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:49 PM

For all those concerned about amp glow with these cameras ... before you pass judgement ask yourself one question. Have you seen any appreciable amp glow in actual operation when the DFC function is used ?



#46 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:07 PM

Again, this is just my 2 cents...

 

If I am going to spend two to three hundred dollars to buy a CMOS image head, which is basically a

self-contained image system SoC (system on chip),  <-- **1 image sensor

with a USB2 (or USB 3) protocol encapsulation engine chip (popular CY7C68013 for USB2 or CYUSB3014 for USB3) <-- **2 USB chip

with a nice Aluminum case, 4-channel opto-isolation (**3)  for ST-4 port, PCB, cable, etc. together with software (seems to be just the same for a few of them),

I'd interested in knowing what I am getting?

 

**1 costs less than $10 in small quantity (type 1/2.8") or $20 (type 1/2") 

**2 is $10 - $15

 

This is how easy it is.

 

If I am buying a purpose-built astro imager, I would love to see the niche.

IMO, the niche is to "bend" the CMOS image sensor originally designed for continuous output (the movie mode) to make it behave as a still-capture mode to eliminate the artifacts (mainly dark current.)

If viewer read earlier "Z" ver 1.3 story

At least, I feel it's on the money that the microscope camera guys have not yet figured out.

 

Regarding "Dark Frame Subtraction (or correction)" or other marking terms, it is using software attempting to correct/undo the imperfect/less-ideal incoming images.

It is near realtime post processing and the processing has its limits (you can't really recover what the information that isn't there in the first place.)

 

P.S. I can understand many might had felt that I am nick-picking, almost like the "AP" folks.

       I definitely appreciate EAA's good enough (quality) philosophy, especially if the result can be displayed in near realtime.

       My main point is: if you are spending big bucks, why not ask the right question for your own sake?

 

PS 2, I am not trying to start a debate, just sharing the information people might have overlooked.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


  • Rickster, barbarosa and OleCuss like this

#47 Robrj

Robrj

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2015
  • Loc: Escondido, CA

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:33 PM

Has anyone used the RT existing 224/290 as auto guiders? What do you select in PHD as the compatible driver? Is it the Altair driver set? Do these cams also have built in st4 ports and cabkes?

Al

I've used the ZWO ASI185MC with PHD2. If the ASCOM driver is installed, it should just show up in the settings along with the mount. You just connect to the camera and the mount. I don't use the ST4 port.

Edited by Robrj, 22 February 2017 - 10:34 PM.


#48 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2279
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 23 February 2017 - 07:12 AM

I'm not an expert on this kind of thing, but it seems to me that dark subtraction of amp glow would at least decrease dynamic range in some cases.  I'd also think it would be more of an issue for NRTV.

 

At a minimum it would be an issue if you have over-saturation in an area/target of import imaged by an area of the sensor affected by amp-glow.  The dark subtraction is not going to be able to fully resolve the problem.

 

It is always better to start with better subs before you start the processing.  Not always affordable to take that approach, but it is better.



#49 alphatripleplus

alphatripleplus

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 67768
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 23 February 2017 - 09:59 AM

 

I just got a reply from Eddie at RisingTech (Wow that was fast). I contacted him via the AlieExpress storefront messaging system after registering with Alie. He indicated that a mono IMX290 is under development as John indicated, and if they complete it, the AlieExpress storefront will be updated with the new camera. I guess we will have to wait and see. :)

Good to hear. Try to encourage Eddie to join CN. Will be very beneficial for him and everyone buying/contemplating buying RT products.

 

Good idea. I just got a second reply from Eddie at Rising Tech; he has the link to this thread, and I also suggested he join CN as a vendor.

 

He updated me to say that he confirmed with his  development department manager that they still are working on the IMX 290 mono, and they expect development to be finished  in a month. So look for it in their AlieExpress store sometime after that. Hopefully, he will also consider registering on CN and put up an announcement in the vendor forum.



#50 nic35

nic35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 817
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2007

Posted 23 February 2017 - 10:31 AM

This is a long one. And might go on for several posts to cater to photo size limits

 

Some time back there was a call for "hard" data on the relative performance of the less expensive 224 cameras versus the more expensive ones.  

 

So far, thanks to Ken James, we have a sample of one of each camera.  I'm pushing a colleague of mine to finish up his efforts on doing the same with his ZWO, at which time I'll add info from mine, and we'll have a sample of 2 of each cameras.  We'd still be lacking info on camera to camera variability from the vendors  (AKA QA/QC), but at least it is a start.

 

They seem to show ( and the preliminary statistics of the images confirm ) that at the shorter exposures, the RT camera may be less noisy than the ZWO camera.  Only a little, but it is there visually and in the stats.

On the other hand, at 30 seconds, with any level of gain applied, there is a clear difference, with the ZWO camera being "cleaner".  

 

I've got almost no clue how these cameras actually work.  But it might be that whatever ZWO does to clean up the image runs constantly, and thus induces some very low level of constant thermal glow.  But the RT camera doesn't run this fix, and thus you don't see the noise associated with the fix. Only when you apply some level of gain at longer exposures does the RT image start to degrade.

 

Here's the program Ken ran, followed by the images.  The side by side comparison images are the most informative and so are the only ones shown here.  If you are dying to see the individual frames, PM me and I'll send them along.  Ken advises that the ZWO was purchased in the past month, and so likely reflects the newer version of that camera.

 

Ken did separate comparison images of:

ZWO ASI224
8 seconds - zero gain
8 seconds - quarter gain
8 seconds - half gain
30 seconds - zero gain
30 seconds - quarter gain
30 seconds - half gain

 

Rising Tech 224
8 seconds - zero gain
8 seconds - quarter gain
8 seconds - half gain
30 seconds - zero gain
30 seconds - quarter gain
30 seconds - half gain

 

and combination frames of:
8 seconds - zero gain
8 seconds - quarter gain
8 seconds - half gain
30 seconds - zero gain
30 seconds - quarter gain
30 seconds - half gain

 

Dark Frame captures were carried out with the ZWO ASI224 in SharpCap and the Rising Tech 224 in RisingSky.
All Dark Frame captures are single frame, with matching settings in both softwares in Brightness, Contrast, Hue, Saturation etc.

 

Both cameras were placed into an ED80 Refractor to take advantage of the Heatsink properties of a Focuser Barrel, no extra glass added (Focal Reducers or filters), and the temperature only wavered by 0.5 degree from the Ambient of 17 degrees Celsius throughout the testing time of 1 hour.

 

The results show not a lot of difference (if any) at 8 seconds at all 3 gain settings.
There was little difference at 30 seconds with no gain.
BUT! the difference became noticeable at 30 seconds once gain was raised to quarter and half.

 

msg-15563-0-49473300-1487259066.jpg

 

msg-15563-0-67311700-1487259047.jpg

 

msg-15563-0-87557200-1487259027.jpg

 

30 second images in the next post in this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • ccs_hello and DuiA1 like 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