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

ASI385 beta test and first light

  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#1 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:27 PM

Clear nights have been rare here. Last evening was clear so took the opportunity to test drive the ASI385 camera. Overall sensitivity seems to be on par with the 224 so it is excellent.

 

After using the 294 the FoV seems small but I think it will work well for smaller objects. Nonetheless I set it up with the C8 hyperstar for an evening of very enjoyable EAA.

 

 

 

Here are some of the captures:

 

All captures from my red/white LP zone backyard. C8 @ F2 (hyperstar), Astronomik CLS filter, ASI385MC Cool.

 

Horsehead 29x15s:

HH Stack_29frames_435s.jpg

 

 

M42 13 x 7.5s:

M42 Stack_13frames_97s.jpg

 

Flame Neb. 16x15s:

Flame Stack_16frames_240s.jpg

 

 


  • Ptarmigan, Starman27, CharlesC and 16 others like this

#2 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:31 PM

Flaming Star Nebula: 23x15s

Flaming star Stack_23frames_345s.jpg

 

M81 Bodes: 12 x 15s

M81 Stack_12frames_180s.jpg


Edited by Astrojedi, 12 January 2018 - 02:32 PM.

  • Ptarmigan, Starman27, rml63 and 12 others like this

#3 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:00 PM

Clear nights have been rare here. Last evening was clear so took the opportunity to test drive the ASI385 camera. Overall sensitivity seems to be on par with the 224 so it is excellent.

 

After using the 294 the FoV seems small but I think it will work well for smaller objects. Nonetheless I set it up with the C8 hyperstar for an evening of very enjoyable EAA.

 

 

 

Here are some of the captures:

 

All captures from my red/white LP zone backyard. C8 @ F2 (hyperstar), Astronomik CLS filter, ASI385MC Cool.

 

Horsehead 29x15s:

attachicon.gifHH Stack_29frames_435s.jpg

 

 

M42 13 x 7.5s:

attachicon.gifM42 Stack_13frames_97s.jpg

 

Flame Neb. 16x15s:

attachicon.gifFlame Stack_16frames_240s.jpg

Really nice images Pat! Wow, that is a very small fov considering you are using f/2 hyper.

 

Steve



#4 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:01 PM

Flaming Star Nebula: 23x15s

attachicon.gifFlaming star Stack_23frames_345s.jpg

 

M81 Bodes: 12 x 15s

attachicon.gifM81 Stack_12frames_180s.jpg

Looks like it will make a great camera for the galaxy season. Nice image of m81.

 

Steve



#5 neaptide

neaptide

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,211
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2015
  • Loc: NY

Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:33 PM

Really nice Horsehead with 15 second exposures!!!  



#6 Alien Observatory

Alien Observatory

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,272
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2015

Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:46 PM

 

Clear nights have been rare here. Last evening was clear so took the opportunity to test drive the ASI385 camera. Overall sensitivity seems to be on par with the 224 so it is excellent.

 

After using the 294 the FoV seems small but I think it will work well for smaller objects. Nonetheless I set it up with the C8 hyperstar for an evening of very enjoyable EAA.

 

 

 

Here are some of the captures:

 

All captures from my red/white LP zone backyard. C8 @ F2 (hyperstar), Astronomik CLS filter, ASI385MC Cool.

 

Horsehead 29x15s:

attachicon.gifHH Stack_29frames_435s.jpg

 

 

M42 13 x 7.5s:

attachicon.gifM42 Stack_13frames_97s.jpg

 

Flame Neb. 16x15s:

attachicon.gifFlame Stack_16frames_240s.jpg

Really nice images Pat! Wow, that is a very small fov considering you are using f/2 hyper.

 

Steve

 

Steve, Sorry for any confusion, this Thread is by Astro Jedi, not me.   But very good images to compare with my 9.25 v.s. an 8.0 (Hyperstar on both)...Pat Utahsmile.gif 



#7 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 12 January 2018 - 03:58 PM

 

 

Clear nights have been rare here. Last evening was clear so took the opportunity to test drive the ASI385 camera. Overall sensitivity seems to be on par with the 224 so it is excellent.

 

After using the 294 the FoV seems small but I think it will work well for smaller objects. Nonetheless I set it up with the C8 hyperstar for an evening of very enjoyable EAA.

 

 

 

Here are some of the captures:

 

All captures from my red/white LP zone backyard. C8 @ F2 (hyperstar), Astronomik CLS filter, ASI385MC Cool.

 

Horsehead 29x15s:

attachicon.gifHH Stack_29frames_435s.jpg

 

 

M42 13 x 7.5s:

attachicon.gifM42 Stack_13frames_97s.jpg

 

Flame Neb. 16x15s:

attachicon.gifFlame Stack_16frames_240s.jpg

Really nice images Pat! Wow, that is a very small fov considering you are using f/2 hyper.

 

Steve

 

Steve, Sorry for any confusion, this Thread is by Astro Jedi, not me.   But very good images to compare with my 9.25 v.s. an 8.0 (Hyperstar on both)...Pat Utahsmile.gif 

 

Thank you, Pat and that was my mistake. Very nice images Astrojedi!

 

Steve



#8 arkosg

arkosg

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2014
  • Loc: Nanaimo, BC

Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:52 PM

Great shots!  How do you think the FOV and sensitivity compares to, say, a Lodestar X2C?

 

Cheers,

 

- Greg A

 

Flaming Star Nebula: 23x15s

attachicon.gifFlaming star Stack_23frames_345s.jpg

 

M81 Bodes: 12 x 15s

attachicon.gifM81 Stack_12frames_180s.jpg



#9 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:11 PM

 

Great shots!  How do you think the FOV and sensitivity compares to, say, a Lodestar X2C?

 

Cheers,

 

- Greg A

 

Flaming Star Nebula: 23x15s

attachicon.gifFlaming star Stack_23frames_345s.jpg

 

M81 Bodes: 12 x 15s

attachicon.gifM81 Stack_12frames_180s.jpg

 

The Lodestar X2C is also very sensitive. The aspect ratio is very different though.

 

I prefer the 224/385 sensors for a few reasons. 1) better color from the RGB matrix 2) better resolution due to the smaller pixels 3) You can use shorter sub exposures due to the significantly lower read noise.

 

If you want further discussion on this topic please start a new thread. Thx.


Edited by Astrojedi, 14 January 2018 - 07:01 PM.

  • coolergw likes this

#10 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:18 PM

Some more captures. Same setup as above.

 

M33 27x15s

M33 Stack_27frames_405s.jpg


  • Ptarmigan, Starman27, S1mas and 9 others like this

#11 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:26 PM

M45: 22x15s

 

M45 Stack_22frames_330s.jpg


  • Starman27, rml63, roelb and 5 others like this

#12 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:27 PM

M45 161 x 15s ! (I left stacking on while we were having dinner. Came back to see SharpCap had stacked 160 frames.

 

M45 Stack_161frames_2415s.jpg


  • Ptarmigan, Starman27, rml63 and 6 others like this

#13 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:38 PM

Some open clusters in Auriga. Notice the beautiful star colors. I did not use an IR cut filter (which would have improved the star colors even more). Just an Astronomik CLS LP filter as noted in the opening post.

 

Edit: Click on images for full size. Looks much better.

 

M37: 8 x 7.5s

M37 Stack_8frames_60s.jpg

 

NGC1907: 8 x 7.5s (This OC is right next to M38. It fits in the same FoV as M38 using a 23mm 82deg EP in my 14". They form a beautiful pair of clusters, N1907 of course being much smaller but just as intriguing.)

NGC1907 OC Stack_8frames_60s.jpg

 

M35 and NGC2158: 14 x 7.5s (Another beautiful OC pair in Auriga. I love the contrast in colors)

M35 NGC2158 OC Stack_14frames_105s.jpg


Edited by Astrojedi, 14 January 2018 - 12:43 PM.

  • Ptarmigan, Starman27, rml63 and 7 others like this

#14 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 23 January 2018 - 03:00 PM

Some more DSOs using the ASI385MC-Cool.

 

The camera performs quite well and its leading edge sensitivity makes it an excellent EAA cam as well as a planetary imager. It does suffer from amp glow like the 224. Not sure if it has ZWO's anti amp glow tech in it. But still for EAA the performance is excellent.

 

All captures using a C8 at F4.7 , ASI385MC-Cool, Astronomik CLS filter. From a red/white LP zone.

 

*Click for full size*

 

Intergalactic Wanderer (GC) 30x8s

Intergalactic wanderer Stack_30frames_240s.jpg

 

M82 25x12s

M82 Stack_25frames_300s.jpg

 

UFO Galaxy 21x12s

UFO Glx x1 bin Stack_21frames_252s.jpg


Edited by Astrojedi, 23 January 2018 - 03:01 PM.

  • Starman27, rob961, rml63 and 7 others like this

#15 will w

will w

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,287
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2006
  • Loc: oxpatch,ms

Posted 23 January 2018 - 03:30 PM

What will this camera do without all this stacking? will w


  • Dragon Man likes this

#16 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 23 January 2018 - 05:41 PM

It is the most sensitive color CMOS sensor on the market. So it can observe pretty much anything you want to even with single exposures. If you want a video camera type experience I would recommend using x2 bin.

 

But honestly I prefer to use stacking as results are much better.



#17 roelb

roelb

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,730
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Belgium, Antwerp

Posted 23 January 2018 - 05:58 PM

How do this camera compare to the ASI293Pro?

#18 will w

will w

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,287
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2006
  • Loc: oxpatch,ms

Posted 23 January 2018 - 08:09 PM

Hiten, Can you take some of there pictures again ? Only using the exposure time 1 to 60 seconds no binning,no stacking. Can you take some screen shots too? You have some good shots here.I would like to some shots of what the camera can do by its self no stacking or binning. For me i think is a very good test to show what the camera can do all by its self. will w


  • Dragon Man likes this

#19 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 23 January 2018 - 09:40 PM

I will see if I can take some. Although given my EAA setup I will be limited to less than 30s which is why I use stacking.

 

Single exposures are really not a very good way to evaluate these sensors based on newer technologies for a couple of reasons:

 

1) These are raw sensors, unlike video cameras they don’t have DSPs which perform noise reduction, sharpening etc. so it is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

2) Given the incredibly low read noise you want to use these cameras at the highest possible analog gain to maximize SNR and build dynamic range in software via stacking. With single exposures are you are seriously limiting the potential of the technology.

 

Also not sure why you don’t want me to bin. Binning reduces shot noise which is what you want for single exposures.  



#20 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,405
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 23 January 2018 - 11:47 PM

It is the most sensitive color CMOS sensor on the market. So it can observe pretty much anything you want to even with single exposures. If you want a video camera type experience I would recommend using x2 bin.

 

But honestly I prefer to use stacking as results are much better.

But not all of us are fans of stacking.

To show how sensitive a camera is, just like Will, I would also like to see single frame results so we know what the 'camera' can do, not what the 'software' can do.

 

Stacking any camera will improve it's Astrophotography abilities.

 

But single frames tell the truth.

 

If you can find the time can you please show us single frame results so we can see how good the 'Camera' is.

'Without' 2x Bin, and 'with' if you think it improves the result. Preferably low to medium Gain, not high.


  • will w likes this

#21 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,405
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 24 January 2018 - 12:00 AM

I will see if I can take some. Although given my EAA setup I will be limited to less than 30s which is why I use stacking.

 

Single exposures are really not a very good way to evaluate these sensors based on newer technologies for a couple of reasons:

 

1) These are raw sensors, unlike video cameras they don’t have DSPs which perform noise reduction, sharpening etc. so it is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

2) Given the incredibly low read noise you want to use these cameras at the highest possible analog gain to maximize SNR and build dynamic range in software via stacking. With single exposures are you are seriously limiting the potential of the technology.

 

Also not sure why you don’t want me to bin. Binning reduces shot noise which is what you want for single exposures.  

Hmmm, just read this post after I posted mine.

 

If this camera is that bad at single frames, without stacking or Binning, then it isn't much good for near-Live 'Video Astronomy' style of observing which is what I prefer to do.

 

To me, all these moves towards longer frames stacked constantly, is Astrophotography. Yes, it's an old argument that rears its head from time to time, but it's also correct. That's why it keeps coming up.

This is supposed to be about 'Near-Live'.

So it appears, from your comments quoted above, that I won't be bothering with getting the 385.


  • will w and jimthompson like this

#22 selfo

selfo

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 263
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Boulder CO

Posted 24 January 2018 - 12:07 AM

Hiten

Thank you for your post of the 385.  I like the fact that the FOV is smaller than the ASI 294.  Seems to me it might be more suitable than the ASI294 for smaller objects.  Perhaps I should be starting another topic here but given your experience with both cameras I would be curious about a comparison of the 2 cameras with a smaller object.  Using the ROI function on the ASI 294 to approximate the object framed in a fov similar to the asi385 how would the images from both cameras compare.?  I would expect the ASI 294 to outperform the ASI 385 but would using ROI on the ASI 294 cause a degradation of the image such that it might not be as pleasing as the image from the ASI385?  

 

In theory using ROI on a widefield camera such as the 294 should not effect the quality of the image.  Right?

 

Cheers

Stewart


Edited by selfo, 24 January 2018 - 12:20 AM.

  • will w likes this

#23 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:23 AM

 

I will see if I can take some. Although given my EAA setup I will be limited to less than 30s which is why I use stacking.

 

Single exposures are really not a very good way to evaluate these sensors based on newer technologies for a couple of reasons:

 

1) These are raw sensors, unlike video cameras they don’t have DSPs which perform noise reduction, sharpening etc. so it is an apples to oranges comparison.

 

2) Given the incredibly low read noise you want to use these cameras at the highest possible analog gain to maximize SNR and build dynamic range in software via stacking. With single exposures are you are seriously limiting the potential of the technology.

 

Also not sure why you don’t want me to bin. Binning reduces shot noise which is what you want for single exposures.  

Hmmm, just read this post after I posted mine.

 

If this camera is that bad at single frames, without stacking or Binning, then it isn't much good for near-Live 'Video Astronomy' style of observing which is what I prefer to do.

 

To me, all these moves towards longer frames stacked constantly, is Astrophotography. Yes, it's an old argument that rears its head from time to time, but it's also correct. That's why it keeps coming up.

This is supposed to be about 'Near-Live'.

So it appears, from your comments quoted above, that I won't be bothering with getting the 385.

 

Ken,

 

That is fine. Each to his own. Just because you prefer a particular style of observing does not mean it is the only way to do ‘video astronomy’ or ‘near-live’ observing. This is not astrophotography by any stretch of the imagination.

 

But ironically even the so called ‘video cameras’ stack and heavily process the image internally. The only difference here is the user interface.

 

Honestly, I never liked the images produced by ‘single frame’ video cameras. Just personal preference. They just trade sensitivity for resolution and quality of image. In my view there is nothing wrong in wanting better image quality for live observing. I like to move forward with technology.

 

Finally, not sure where I said this camera was bad at single frames. The point I was making is that it is a waste trying to make new technology behave like old technology. We need to learn to use new technology and tools and also keep an open mind to what is ‘video astronomy’

 

Also what is wrong with binning? Even with binning resolution is better than some video cameras... smaller pixels in newer CMOS cameras provide significant flexibility for different styles of observing... in your view using binning makes the camera no good for observing... hmm...strange thinking1.gif


Edited by Astrojedi, 24 January 2018 - 02:29 AM.


#24 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:31 AM

Hiten

Thank you for your post of the 385.  I like the fact that the FOV is smaller than the ASI 294.  Seems to me it might be more suitable than the ASI294 for smaller objects.  Perhaps I should be starting another topic here but given your experience with both cameras I would be curious about a comparison of the 2 cameras with a smaller object.  Using the ROI function on the ASI 294 to approximate the object framed in a fov similar to the asi385 how would the images from both cameras compare.?  I would expect the ASI 294 to outperform the ASI 385 but would using ROI on the ASI 294 cause a degradation of the image such that it might not be as pleasing as the image from the ASI385?  

 

In theory using ROI on a widefield camera such as the 294 should not effect the quality of the image.  Right?

 

Cheers

Stewart

Thanks Stewart. Yes, using ROI has no impact on image quality. You are just using a smaller portion of the sensor.


Edited by Astrojedi, 24 January 2018 - 02:31 AM.


#25 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5,348
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:35 AM

How do this camera compare to the ASI293Pro?

Did you mean ASI294Pro? If so, I would say sensitivity is similar. The biggest difference is sensor size. There are some smaller differences as well. The 294 has higher dark current but less amp glow. But really you would choose one over the other either for cost and/or sensor size.


  • roelb 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