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

Full Frame Mono Camera Coming Soon - QHY600 (IMX455)

  • Please log in to reply
689 replies to this topic

#276 lukepower_2

lukepower_2

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2019

Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:11 AM

Ok guys i uploaded all the data, feel free to analyze and test. The flats were taken indoors with a shirt over the sensor so they are far from perfect.

 

The session ran smoothly so I can't complain about driver issues. I do see some horizontal banding from time to time though, dunno from where it comes.. It is most prominent in the flats.


Edited by lukepower_2, 06 September 2019 - 09:14 AM.


#277 lukepower_2

lukepower_2

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2019

Posted 06 September 2019 - 09:24 AM

Alright, I dropped some frames casually into Pixinsight and Ran Basic CCD parameters:

Screenshot_5.jpg

 

Seems that the readout noise is lower than the diagrams would anticipate. 


Edited by lukepower_2, 06 September 2019 - 09:25 AM.

  • AIP likes this

#278 FredOS

FredOS

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2017

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:09 PM

The gain calculation is odd at 0.074. Is that correct ?


  • lukepower_2 likes this

#279 lukepower_2

lukepower_2

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2019

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:21 PM

No clue :)

#280 deepanshu29

deepanshu29

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017

Posted 06 September 2019 - 12:49 PM

4 seconds sounds about right. Again, once I get my new computer I will test everything with USB 3.

As for darks and bias, I will later on connect the stack and take some, and upload them for you guys to check them out. Any particular request?

I see some black lines (no data) at the edge on some of your dark frames that you have shared. I have seen this before with my QHY163M and they went away when I changed the USB Hub. My 163M is very sensitive to the USB cable / hub I use. Now I have it directly connected to my NUC on USB3 port, no black lines since then. 

 

I expect same from QHY600M. Try USB3.



#281 motab

motab

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 11 September 2019 - 08:23 AM

Looks really promising. Comparable sensor size to 16200, better QE and comparable or better dynamic range. Price is fairly attractive too. Some light subs and first lights would be nice since calib frames and specs don't tell the whole story and no doubt there will be some mechanical, driver and cooling issues to work out. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some version of this camera eventually becomes an astro workhorse. 



#282 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:50 PM

Actually the IMX455 is a whole lot larger than a 16200. The 16200 is 4500x3600p and 27x21.6mm with a pixel size of 6um. The IMX455 is 36x24mm a pixel size almost half that of the 16200 at 3.76um and a resolution of 9600x6400. That is twice the resolution. If this chip pans out, it will probably kill the 16200 as a amature astro camera based chip.


  • kingjamez, ArkabPriorSol and psandelle like this

#283 lukepower_2

lukepower_2

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2019

Posted 11 September 2019 - 01:57 PM

ALright, small update from me: As it turns out, the filter wheel was defective so QHY sent a replacement. 60 hours (!) after the remote support session, and about 36 hours (!!) after shipment notification via DHL, the new filter wheel arrived. A quick test, and yes it works.

So well, now I am waiting for both my new computer (USB 3) and the adapters from PreciseParts to connect everything with the Veloce and do some test shots. Can't wait. Who wants to bet it's gonna be cloudy the exact day the adapters arrive?


  • kingjamez, psandelle, cfosterstars and 1 other like this

#284 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,784
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 11 September 2019 - 04:27 PM

ALright, small update from me: As it turns out, the filter wheel was defective so QHY sent a replacement. 60 hours (!) after the remote support session, and about 36 hours (!!) after shipment notification via DHL, the new filter wheel arrived. A quick test, and yes it works.

So well, now I am waiting for both my new computer (USB 3) and the adapters from PreciseParts to connect everything with the Veloce and do some test shots. Can't wait. Who wants to bet it's gonna be cloudy the exact day the adapters arrive?

My I suggest some sort of preemptive sacrifice? Maybe you can find a few old eyepieces you can drop on the concrete? 


  • psandelle, leviathan, dragracingdan and 1 other like this

#285 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,994
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 11 September 2019 - 10:36 PM

Actually the IMX455 is a whole lot larger than a 16200. The 16200 is 4500x3600p and 27x21.6mm with a pixel size of 6um. The IMX455 is 36x24mm a pixel size almost half that of the 16200 at 3.76um and a resolution of 9600x6400. That is twice the resolution. If this chip pans out, it will probably kill the 16200 as a amature astro camera based chip.

I respectfully disagree with this notion. The KAF-16200 is 34.6mm diagonal. Many scopes that amateurs use have 40mm or less in terms of available imaging circle. To fill the full frame 36x24 chip the cost of the optics will be much higher, while the chip is more expensive. 

 

People do realize this right? A $5000 CMOS camera (just the camera) vs a $4500 all in one 16200 solution on the market (camera, wheel, OAG).

 

Now go price OAG's with aperture enough for that chip, wheels for the filters... then come back and we can chat. flowerred.gif


  • sparkyht, Gene3 and deepanshu29 like this

#286 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 12 September 2019 - 12:57 AM

I respectfully disagree with this notion. The KAF-16200 is 34.6mm diagonal. Many scopes that amateurs use have 40mm or less in terms of available imaging circle. To fill the full frame 36x24 chip the cost of the optics will be much higher, while the chip is more expensive. 

 

People do realize this right? A $5000 CMOS camera (just the camera) vs a $4500 all in one 16200 solution on the market (camera, wheel, OAG).

 

Now go price OAG's with aperture enough for that chip, wheels for the filters... then come back and we can chat. flowerred.gif

I went for the OSC version of the QHY600, CMOS OSC with a nice filter like the D1 and why not a filterwheel for dual NB use. I really considered the 16200 but the fact you always need to have at leat R/G/B made me decide against the 16200 ... On my dual setup I have one OSC widefield and one Mono narrow field. I always need to push myself for the mono though there are much more targets for, the risk of running a color band short is in many cases a deal braker ... Ah well to each their own.

/Yves


  • psandelle likes this

#287 TxStars

TxStars

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,025
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:07 AM

I'm still waiting for a 55mm circular chip ..laugh.gif

One can only dream...


  • Jon Rista likes this

#288 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:50 AM

I respectfully disagree with this notion. The KAF-16200 is 34.6mm diagonal. Many scopes that amateurs use have 40mm or less in terms of available imaging circle. To fill the full frame 36x24 chip the cost of the optics will be much higher, while the chip is more expensive. 

 

People do realize this right? A $5000 CMOS camera (just the camera) vs a $4500 all in one 16200 solution on the market (camera, wheel, OAG).

 

Now go price OAG's with aperture enough for that chip, wheels for the filters... then come back and we can chat. flowerred.gif

Oh yeah, I get your point and I have been teetering over the buy button for a G3-16200mkii at the Moravian site for about 7months while this camera has been in open development. As far as the imaging circle goes, I have one scope with a big enough circle to manage that FF CMOS monster and one that is close, but probably better suited for an APS-H size sensor. I am speculating at this juncture as I have not seen a Light sub yet. But for me, the upside of the potential new tech in this chip kind of spells the end of an era for CCD cameras. Bit depth is no longer a deficit, well capacity is greatly improved, the much smaller pixel size can be a substantial advantage for smaller wider field refractors. Noise Noise Noise, substantial advantage to the CMOS. Super fast downloads. I contend that this chip may actually prompt telescope designers to cater to its potential and we may see a spike in optics that offer a much larger imaging circle at lower prices. 

 

As far as cost goes, here is something that I don't think I have read much (if any) about in this thread, and I am not sure we all realize it either. CMOS subs are always much shorter in duration, and with this, the need for mounts that can track near perfectly for 20-30 mins is essentially gone. Think closer to 60s-8mins max. I am currently working on an image with NB subs of 180s for Sii and last night they were 90s for Oiii. I am sure at a dark site and with a new moon I could go longer, but I would say I am currently seriously over mounted for the task. I don't even bother to plug the OAG in. A lower cost mount would easily offset any increase in outlay for a new FW and OAG if one were to start anew. I won't be getting rid of my mount, but I am not convinced that such accuracy is mandatory any longer if the IMX455 and other new Sony chips actually deliver. 


  • motab likes this

#289 motab

motab

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 119
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 12 September 2019 - 01:55 AM

I respectfully disagree with this notion. The KAF-16200 is 34.6mm diagonal. Many scopes that amateurs use have 40mm or less in terms of available imaging circle. To fill the full frame 36x24 chip the cost of the optics will be much higher, while the chip is more expensive. 

 

People do realize this right? A $5000 CMOS camera (just the camera) vs a $4500 all in one 16200 solution on the market (camera, wheel, OAG).

 

Now go price OAG's with aperture enough for that chip, wheels for the filters... then come back and we can chat. flowerred.gif

I think suffice it to say that the IMX455-based cameras are a welcome addition to what's out there and choice and competition are good. At those prices, it's not insane to simple crop to whatever the useful imaging circle of your OTA is. I really look forward to some first lights to see exactly how the noise shows up and whether the higher QE and high QE deeper into near infrared has a measurable effect on image quality. 


  • Jon Rista likes this

#290 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 12 September 2019 - 07:38 AM

You go from 36mm to 43mm diagonal with the 16200 to IMX455. You also get the advantage of higher QE for shorter exposures and fast downloads with USB3 with the IMX455. The diagonal increase will be really good on longer focal length scopes that can illuminate it fully. I use Telescopius (formerly DSO-Browser) or astronomy.tools to check framing. The IMX455 increase is impressive. But, still not as large as the 16803.

 

It is the EFW and filters that will delay my interest. That will be a big expense. I already have a OSC 36x24 sensor camera - ASI094MC. That is the same sensor dimensions as the IMX455. I would like the IMX455 mono for larger field narrow band.

 

When I do decide to upgrade, I will probably need to sell my 16200 and/or ASI094mc to offset costs. There will probably be many others doing the same. That means there will be good deals on many quality used cameras before long - imo.

 

Randall


  • ArkabPriorSol, Jon Rista and motab like this

#291 ManuelJ

ManuelJ

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 12 September 2019 - 07:50 AM

Oh yeah, I get your point and I have been teetering over the buy button for a G3-16200mkii at the Moravian site for about 7months while this camera has been in open development. As far as the imaging circle goes, I have one scope with a big enough circle to manage that FF CMOS monster and one that is close, but probably better suited for an APS-H size sensor. I am speculating at this juncture as I have not seen a Light sub yet. But for me, the upside of the potential new tech in this chip kind of spells the end of an era for CCD cameras. Bit depth is no longer a deficit, well capacity is greatly improved, the much smaller pixel size can be a substantial advantage for smaller wider field refractors. Noise Noise Noise, substantial advantage to the CMOS. Super fast downloads. I contend that this chip may actually prompt telescope designers to cater to its potential and we may see a spike in optics that offer a much larger imaging circle at lower prices. 

 

As far as cost goes, here is something that I don't think I have read much (if any) about in this thread, and I am not sure we all realize it either. CMOS subs are always much shorter in duration, and with this, the need for mounts that can track near perfectly for 20-30 mins is essentially gone. Think closer to 60s-8mins max. I am currently working on an image with NB subs of 180s for Sii and last night they were 90s for Oiii. I am sure at a dark site and with a new moon I could go longer, but I would say I am currently seriously over mounted for the task. I don't even bother to plug the OAG in. A lower cost mount would easily offset any increase in outlay for a new FW and OAG if one were to start anew. I won't be getting rid of my mount, but I am not convinced that such accuracy is mandatory any longer if the IMX455 and other new Sony chips actually deliver. 

 

Yes, you can save some bucks in the mount to buy a supercomputer for your tons of data.


  • rockstarbill and ezwheels like this

#292 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:07 AM

When you use on-camera binning, you reduce the file sizes accordingly. With my ASI1600mm, file size goes from about 32m to only around 3m with 3x3 binning. That is a 9 times decrease. Of course, that is when I use a long focal length scope. With the small pixels of most CMOS cameras, at least 2x2 binning will make sense on many scopes - a 4 times decrease in file size.

 

Randall


Edited by rms40, 12 September 2019 - 08:17 AM.


#293 cabfl

cabfl

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2018

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:30 AM

Oh yeah, I get your point and I have been teetering over the buy button for a G3-16200mkii at the Moravian site for about 7months while this camera has been in open development. As far as the imaging circle goes, I have one scope with a big enough circle to manage that FF CMOS monster and one that is close, but probably better suited for an APS-H size sensor. I am speculating at this juncture as I have not seen a Light sub yet. But for me, the upside of the potential new tech in this chip kind of spells the end of an era for CCD cameras. Bit depth is no longer a deficit, well capacity is greatly improved, the much smaller pixel size can be a substantial advantage for smaller wider field refractors. Noise Noise Noise, substantial advantage to the CMOS. Super fast downloads. I contend that this chip may actually prompt telescope designers to cater to its potential and we may see a spike in optics that offer a much larger imaging circle at lower prices. 

 

As far as cost goes, here is something that I don't think I have read much (if any) about in this thread, and I am not sure we all realize it either. CMOS subs are always much shorter in duration, and with this, the need for mounts that can track near perfectly for 20-30 mins is essentially gone. Think closer to 60s-8mins max. I am currently working on an image with NB subs of 180s for Sii and last night they were 90s for Oiii. I am sure at a dark site and with a new moon I could go longer, but I would say I am currently seriously over mounted for the task. I don't even bother to plug the OAG in. A lower cost mount would easily offset any increase in outlay for a new FW and OAG if one were to start anew. I won't be getting rid of my mount, but I am not convinced that such accuracy is mandatory any longer if the IMX455 and other new Sony chips actually deliver. 

The Kaf-16200 sensor has a dynamic range of 69db = 11.5 bits.

 

The IMX455 sensor (QHY600/ASI6200) has a dynamic range of 13.6 bits.


Edited by cabfl, 12 September 2019 - 08:31 AM.


#294 cabfl

cabfl

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2018

Posted 12 September 2019 - 08:32 AM

QHY600 Dark at -20ºC with the new SDK

 

ae337e6e5c27f5903f387e0b2b9298e0o.jpg



#295 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:20 AM

The Kaf-16200 sensor has a dynamic range of 69db = 11.5 bits.

 

The IMX455 sensor (QHY600/ASI6200) has a dynamic range of 13.6 bits.

Even better. I was not inaccurate in saying it was no longer a deficit, but I definitely could have been more accurate.grin.gif



#296 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,994
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:26 AM

The Kaf-16200 sensor has a dynamic range of 69db = 11.5 bits.

The IMX455 sensor (QHY600/ASI6200) has a dynamic range of 13.6 bits.


The FLI 16200 has 77db (12.9 stops) of dynamic range. But yes, the new CMOS chip looks to be a good performer.

#297 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 12 September 2019 - 09:36 AM

Yes, you can save some bucks in the mount to buy a supercomputer for your tons of data.

True, but I already use a CMOS and that is all I have used, so the speed of the processing computer is just part of what I know. Within a couple of years most new folks to the hobby, due to the cost of the entry level CMOS cameras will most likely only have had the opportunity to use CMOS and this CPU requirement will just be part of the normal toolkit for amateur astronomers. Binning 2x2 can reduce the file size if desired. Then you can still have a similar resolution and file size as the 16200 but can take 1min subs and have no worry of losing a 30min one due to the gazillion micro-satellites we are planning on sending up.

 

I am not yet claiming this camera is going to be better than the 16803 or 16200, just that if it does turn out to be a viable option, it will change the way the hobby progresses and potentially obviate them. I suspect if FLI, Atik, SBIG and SX do not have a IMX455 chip on their test benches yet, they will need to soon. 


Edited by ezwheels, 12 September 2019 - 01:52 PM.

  • psandelle likes this

#298 cabfl

cabfl

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2018

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:05 AM

https://www.onsemi.c...KAF-16200-D.PDF

 

According to this reference it has 69db.

 

But OK, 77db - 12.9bits vs 13.6bits.


Edited by cabfl, 12 September 2019 - 10:21 AM.


#299 FredOS

FredOS

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 175
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2017

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:23 AM

Bill,
Do you know if the AP130 GTX and Quad works with a 43mm diagonal ? It seems that with the FLI16200 we are close to the limit. There is the option of replacing the Quad with the Prime Focus Field Flattener but I don’t know how good it is (and you have a slower system except if you bin).

#300 ManuelJ

ManuelJ

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,526
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 12 September 2019 - 10:56 AM

Bill,
Do you know if the AP130 GTX and Quad works with a 43mm diagonal ? It seems that with the FLI16200 we are close to the limit. There is the option of replacing the Quad with the Prime Focus Field Flattener but I don’t know how good it is (and you have a slower system except if you bin).


Check out my latest photos.


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