592 replies to this topic

[Stargazer3236]

What is the final consensus of the 294 Pro? I read in another post that the resolution is not that great and something about grainy or noisy images.

[jimthompson]

What is the final consensus of the 294 Pro? I read in another post that the resolution is not that great and something about grainy or noisy images.

Hi David,

 

Where did you read that the resolution was not great and the images are grainy?  If anything I find my ASI294 gives some of the smoothest low noise images I have seen from a CMOS camera.  I am very happy with it.  You can see some of my recent captures from the camera at the links below.

 

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmjREUAG

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmjxscpf

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcMTxkh

 

Cheers,

 

Jim T.

[nic35]

Jim

 

There was a comment in Dave's post in the IMX385 topic that mentioned some concerns about artifacts and cooling with the 294.  I did not look at the ZWO forum, but the OP of the issue here on CN seems to have decided the camera its good. Seehttps://www.cloudyni... purple asi294

 

See post 117 in that topic for his bottom line

 

FWIW, these concerns originally arose with respect to 5 minute subs and 7 hours of integration. Hardly EAA

 

Dave - I'm mixing topics here - The resolution on the 1600 is better than that of the 294 because the pixel sizes are different - the 1600 being 3.8 um, while the 296 is 4.63 um.  So, in theory, you can see finer detail in the 1600.  If your seeing allows it.

 

 

John

Edited by nic35, 04 June 2018 - 08:01 PM.

[gun4hire]

A 294 will be my next major purchase....I would have one today......but my boat "needed" a new Humminbird Helix MEGA depth/fish finder. Blasphemy I know on an astronomy forum.

 

From the countless threads, pictures and knowledgeable opinions that I trust...the 294 is my first choice for a future camera and the 1600 would be next in that 1k+ price. (unless the NEW best camera gets released soon!!!)

 

 

gun...who got SKUNKED today using the new "fish finder"......

Edited by gun4hire, 04 June 2018 - 08:37 PM.

[Destrehan Dave]

Got my ASI294MCP on Monday.

Took it out for a first light with out cooling using an 8SE on a CEM60 unguided mount.

These photos were taken from a white zone using 10 minute integration.

All I can state is that the camera performs admirably.

Great images!

Does 10 minute integration mean

10 x 1 minute; 5 x 2 minute ? Other ?

Thanks

D D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wargrafix]

Looking at buying one. Specs look good!

[pyrasanth]

NGC 7000 North American Nebula. Stack of 8x15s exposures. Same setup as above. There was a light layer of clouds due to which the image is pretty bright and the vignetting more obvious.

 

Click for full size.

 

NGC7000 Stack_8frames_120s.jpg

Where is that giant halo from on the very bright star in the bottom right? It looks rather...well.....not nice. Is it from the filter you used or the glass on the CMOS Sensor?

[pyrasanth]

Hi David,

 

Where did you read that the resolution was not great and the images are grainy?  If anything I find my ASI294 gives some of the smoothest low noise images I have seen from a CMOS camera.  I am very happy with it.  You can see some of my recent captures from the camera at the links below.

 

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmjREUAG

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmjxscpf

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcMTxkh

 

Cheers,

 

Jim T.

I would like to see some images that have been through a full workflow. The samples posted in this thread are mostly single frames or very small numbers of frame integrations so I don't think they show the true capabilities of the camera. There is nothing I have seen in these samples that makes me feel that the camera is anything other than another CMOS camera offered by the multitude of vendors. I will have a look at your links so I can inspect closely.

Edited by pyrasanth, 01 October 2018 - 02:47 PM.

[pyrasanth]

I had a look at the links and  these don't show me what I need to see. I always use calibration & remove the inherent green cast that is found on a lot of CMOS & CCD images which hides a lot of detail. Sorry but none of the images I've seen do anything for me and would not convince me to move away or parallel my existing CMOS camera.

[jimthompson]

Hi Pyrasanth,

 

The images you can find on my Flickr site reflect how I am using the camera, which is primarily for observing (EAA) and not imaging.  If you are looking for examples of a "full workflow" different than presented here, maybe you will have better luck in one of the imaging groups.  Based on my experience of using various CCD and CMOS based cameras, ones using the IMX294 sensor seem to provide superior performance in the form of lower noise and thus better SNR.  My perspective though is when using the camera for EAA and not imaging as I already mentioned.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jim T.

[jimthompson]

I had a look at the links and  these don't show me what I need to see. I always use calibration & remove the inherent green cast that is found on a lot of CMOS & CCD images which hides a lot of detail. Sorry but none of the images I've seen do anything for me and would not convince me to move away or parallel my existing CMOS camera.

That's cool.  I'm glad you have a clear understanding of what you're looking for.  Still, I do recommend you ask the same questions in the astrophotography groups since it sounds like that is more what you are looking for.

 

Regards,

 

Jim T.

[pyrasanth]

Hi Pyrasanth,

 

The images you can find on my Flickr site reflect how I am using the camera, which is primarily for observing (EAA) and not imaging.  If you are looking for examples of a "full workflow" different than presented here, maybe you will have better luck in one of the imaging groups.  Based on my experience of using various CCD and CMOS based cameras, ones using the IMX294 sensor seem to provide superior performance in the form of lower noise and thus better SNR.  My perspective though is when using the camera for EAA and not imaging as I already mentioned.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jim T.

I understand the EAA perspective so I suppose in one sense it is very much warts and all. I don't know if the Atik infinity post processes its images but the sample of images I've seen have from that camera in an EAA environment are just as good as the samples you've shown so its a difficult one to call. I guess only extensive testing under all conditions will give the answer. Really needs to be a side by side comparison on the same night with a number of cameras being tested to see the live result. A single camera is difficult to judge.

[jimthompson]

I understand the EAA perspective so I suppose in one sense it is very much warts and all. I don't know if the Atik infinity post processes its images but the sample of images I've seen have from that camera in an EAA environment are just as good as the samples you've shown so its a difficult one to call. I guess only extensive testing under all conditions will give the answer. Really needs to be a side by side comparison on the same night with a number of cameras being tested to see the live result. A single camera is difficult to judge.

I would argue that even a back-to-back test of more than two cameras is not reliable.  Viewing conditions change too much over the course of an evening to be able to give fair quantitative comparisons between multiple cameras.  In my opinion the only way to fairly compare multiple cameras is through a representative bench test.  I have been working on such a test for a while now, but as you might imagine making any serious progress on such a project is difficult when one is only doing it in their spare time.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jim T.

[pyrasanth]

That's cool.  I'm glad you have a clear understanding of what you're looking for.  Still, I do recommend you ask the same questions in the astrophotography groups since it sounds like that is more what you are looking for.

 

Regards,

 

Jim T.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying anything against EAA but if you capture an image file then you've moved away from EAA and back into the realms of imaging. So if you present an image then you may as well present it well. Astronomy objects are not green by there nature and they don't have vignetting what you capture on your presentation image is pretty well coloured by the capture environment and not what the object truly looks like.

[pyrasanth]

I would argue that even a back-to-back test of more than two cameras is not reliable.  Viewing conditions change too much over the course of an evening to be able to give fair quantitative comparisons between multiple cameras.  In my opinion the only way to fairly compare multiple cameras is through a representative bench test.  I have been working on such a test for a while now, but as you might imagine making any serious progress on such a project is difficult when one is only doing it in their spare time.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jim T.

I did see a side by side comparison on YouTube of three EAA cameras being tested- so it has been shown. I think they tested the infinity, Horizon & a ZWO (model escapes me)

Edited by pyrasanth, 01 October 2018 - 03:15 PM.

[jimthompson]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying anything against EAA but if you capture an image file then you've moved away from EAA and back into the realms of imaging. So if you present an image then you may as well present it well. Astronomy objects are not green by there nature and they don't have vignetting what you capture on your presentation image is pretty well coloured by the capture environment and not what the object truly looks like.

Heh heh, the discussion of colour is a slippery one since colour does not exist in nature, it is a construct of the human brain.  The "true" colour of deepsky objects is only a representation of consensus amongst astronomers, both professional and amateur.  This means there can tend to be a lot of wiggle room where the personal preferences of the person processing the image can enter into the final product.  For me, when I am observing using a camera, I am willing to accept degradation in the image due to vignetting, coma, slightly off white balance, warm pixels, etc.  because I have an understanding of what it is I am looking at and can appreciate the inherent beauty of it.  I also don't tend to have a lot of time, so there's that aspect as well.

 

cheers,

 

Jim T.

[jimthompson]

I did see a side by side comparison on YouTube of three EAA cameras being tested- so it has been shown. I think they tested the infinity, Horizon & a ZWO (model escapes me)

Do you have the link for that video?  I would be curious to see how they did the test.  If it was three cameras simultaneously on three identical scopes then it would be a very useful comparison.  Otherwise testing one camera at a time, only qualitative observations could be drawn from the test.

 

cheers,

 

Jim T.

[A. Viegas]

Not really sure what pyrasanth is kevetching about. The 294 series of cameras have now been out for over a year and there are many examples of people using this camera both for EAA both short sub and long sub stacking and many people using it as a dedicated AP camera. You can go on Astrobin and see many examples of this camera used in AP setting like this:

https://www.astrobin...67240/B/?nc=all

And there are countless examples of live stacking from many members here on CN

So what is the question exactly and what is the comparison? I have 7 CMOS imagers including 224/ 290/ 174/ 178/ 183 the 294 and the 1600 series. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish and what kind of scope do you have and how much effort do you want to expend and what types of objects are you trying to capture... get the idea?? There is a best camera for a particular scope, for a particular target and for a particular use (AP,EAA,Planetary, solar, lunar...)


Al