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

Quark Chromosphere vs Prominence?

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 05 April 2019 - 11:15 AM

Quark Chromosphere vs Prominence model.

I have the chromosphere, with the solar minimum and most of the "action" being on the limb, how much brighter and obvious are the proms when imaging with the Prominence model?

 

Is anyone using both?


  • gnowellsct likes this

#2 Spikey131

Spikey131

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,140
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2017

Posted 05 April 2019 - 12:15 PM

I never looked through a prominence version.  Like you, I have a chromosphere unit.

 

There are multiple posts on this, the concensus being that the chromosphere is a better all around H alpha filter.

 

Like you, I would be curious to here from someone who uses both.



#3 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 05 April 2019 - 12:39 PM

That is what I have always heard and what Daystar told me, that the C is better all around but the Prom filter is better for simply proms

 

with the solar minimum and smaller proms I wonder if it would get better results?  Valery in Solarchat has both and says the Prom is pretty good (at least that is what I think he said).

 

So many proms now are really faint.

 

I do mostly solar due to Bortle 7.5-8 skies



#4 MalVeauX

MalVeauX

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,905
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 05 April 2019 - 01:35 PM

Quark Chromosphere vs Prominence model.

I have the chromosphere, with the solar minimum and most of the "action" being on the limb, how much brighter and obvious are the proms when imaging with the Prominence model?

 

Is anyone using both?

Hi Ben,

 

Just use a faster focal-ratio with your Chromosphere model, it will widen the bandpass to be less narrow (just under >1A), just like the Prominence model. Same thing. Try around F15~20 instead of F30, and play around with tuning for optimal contrast for your copy. No need to buy the Prominence model. waytogo.gif

 

Very best,


  • highfnum, jwestervelt and BinoGuy like this

#5 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 05 April 2019 - 02:29 PM

Hi Ben,

 

Just use a faster focal-ratio with your Chromosphere model, it will widen the bandpass to be less narrow (just under >1A), just like the Prominence model. Same thing. Try around F15~20 instead of F30, and play around with tuning for optimal contrast for your copy. No need to buy the Prominence model. waytogo.gif

 

Very best,

 

Marty

      I will try that with my ST80, gives an awful wide view but is about f/21, will zoom in when processing or even try my ASI120, I always shoot with the ASI174.  Also I will try cranking the tuning counter clockwise to the blue side, 9 pm position as well.



#6 ValeryD

ValeryD

    Vendor (Aries)

  • ****-
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,993
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Kherson, Ukraine.

Posted 05 April 2019 - 09:42 PM

Using Chromosphere model with faster F/D of the feeding scope is not the same as to use an etalon with wider bandwidth.  The latter has higher transmission % and wider bandwidth = much brigher images and faint prominences look better. 

 

One of the Chromosphere model I have had in hands (now it is at the local University students works)  was so narrow and so dim,  that I barely see even bright prominences even with F/22 at the etalon, while surface details were very contrasty at F/30.

 

I really consider to buy a Prominence model of about 0,6A for prominences imaging and visual observing.

 

Jim,  you are on the right track if you like to do prominences observing with a Prominence model.

However,  Quarks are known for significant variations in their transmission and bandwidth - so, you need to take a look through your sample before buying it. 

 

 

Valery


  • Terra Nova likes this

#7 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 06 April 2019 - 06:05 AM

Valery

   Thank you for your response.  I think I am going to add a Prominence model to go along with my Chromosphere model.



#8 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 06 April 2019 - 07:35 AM

Most places won't let you look through a Quark before buying and won't "cherry pick", also being in southeast New England the nearest dealer is 4-5 hours away in New York, so unless I can get a dealer that will let me order 2 or more and return the rest I am out of luck.

 

had been toying with the idea of a Prom model due to the solar minimum, to get more prom detail,

 

but now am wondering if I would be better off getting a 150mm refractor to go with the Chromo.  I currently mostly use my Celestron XLT 102 f/6.3 ( approx 650mm long) or sometimes my Skywatcher ED 100 f/9.

 

I was thinking that more aperature with the Skywatcher ED150 f/8 (1200mm long) might give me results I would be happy with.

 

Thoughts?



#9 MalVeauX

MalVeauX

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,905
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 06 April 2019 - 08:04 AM



Most places won't let you look through a Quark before buying and won't "cherry pick", also being in southeast New England the nearest dealer is 4-5 hours away in New York, so unless I can get a dealer that will let me order 2 or more and return the rest I am out of luck.

 

had been toying with the idea of a Prom model due to the solar minimum, to get more prom detail,

 

but now am wondering if I would be better off getting a 150mm refractor to go with the Chromo.  I currently mostly use my Celestron XLT 102 f/6.3 ( approx 650mm long) or sometimes my Skywatcher ED 100 f/9.

 

I was thinking that more aperature with the Skywatcher ED150 f/8 (1200mm long) might give me results I would be happy with.

 

Thoughts?

Hi Ben,

 

If your seeing can really support a larger aperture, it could be worth while moving up in aperture. During the minimum, features are all diminished. But there's literally always something to see and image in HA with enough aperture. Even a bare limb and just fields of spicules/fibrils. However, I do not recommend using a 150mm aperture without a front mounted ERF of some kind. The tube currents wreck local seeing. I imaged extensively with a 150mm F8 refractor and without a front mounted ERF, my Quark would heat up and go off-band, and also the tube-seeing was poor due to turbulent air inside it. Once I put an ERF on the front, those issues went away and it was smooth sailing. I would always take a larger aperture, if supported, over a new Quark with wider bandpass. You can image prominences with the Chromosphere model no problem.

 

Here's some recent solar minimum examples of AR's & Prominences from a 150mm F8 achromat (Celestron CR150HD) with a Quark Chromosphere and ASI174MM with a front mounted ERF:

 

33249733298_c1e7a5c919_c.jpg

 

39942474973_5097f2da4c_c.jpg

 

46851623501_2a951de43d_c.jpg

 

39714765813_3c6efb0302_c.jpg

 

32207235348_3285146532_c.jpg

 

44624932445_aeb536a701_c.jpg

 

44624881385_55c86f71fb_c.jpg

 

Here's the cheap achromat. I used a 2nd hand Daystar yellow glass ERF (full 150mm aperture). It worked great. If I were to re-do it, I would get a tri-band (393nm, 430nm & 656nm) D-ERF from ValeryD (he makes them) instead though (I did this for my 8 inch and it's fantastic, but if I were staying 6 inch I would get a much better D-ERF for the long run with it the same way; that way I can image several wavelengths without changing anything with the OTA and DERF; I do this exact thing now but with a C8 Edge & 200mm tri-band D-ERF as I moved to this from a 150mm F8 refractor setup you see below):

 

31536753818_d6d9ee0139_c.jpg

 

Very best,


Edited by MalVeauX, 06 April 2019 - 08:08 AM.

  • dswtan and MAURITS like this

#10 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 06 April 2019 - 08:47 AM

Marty

   Love your shot of the AR near the limb!  I currently switch between my Stellarvue SV80 f/6, Celestron XLT102 f/6.3, SW ED100 Pro f/9, Orion 120mm f/6, and Celestron XLT120 f/8.3  (bit of a equipment junky)  Depending on the seeing and what I want to image (check out my solar shots at http://www.solarhead.net  (redirects to the Shutterfly share sites)

   When I am sitting under cloudy skies I get the equipment bug.  I also have a 127mm Mak and Celestron 8 inch Edge for Planetary and Lunar.  All riding on my Skywatcher EQ6-R.  My skies are Bortle 7.5-8 and I am shooting over a factory about 300 yards away so the seeing is almost always unsteady.   Now that warm weather is here I may play more with the dial on the Quark as well as the 80 vs 100 vs 120's

 

here are a couple of my shots all with Quark and various of my scopes

 

hbS03pUh.jpg

 

9Ijz16sh.jpg

 

IeQHxeTh.jpg

 

e1rqKqMh.png

 

lieTjBgh.jpg

 

qZyThinh.jpg

 

ZKzndozh.jpg


  • hopskipson and mikerepp like this

#11 MalVeauX

MalVeauX

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,905
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 06 April 2019 - 09:38 AM



Marty

   Love your shot of the AR near the limb!  I currently switch between my Stellarvue SV80 f/6, Celestron XLT102 f/6.3, SW ED100 Pro f/9, Orion 120mm f/6, and Celestron XLT120 f/8.3  (bit of a equipment junky)  Depending on the seeing and what I want to image (check out my solar shots at http://www.solarhead.net  (redirects to the Shutterfly share sites)

   When I am sitting under cloudy skies I get the equipment bug.  I also have a 127mm Mak and Celestron 8 inch Edge for Planetary and Lunar.  All riding on my Skywatcher EQ6-R.  My skies are Bortle 7.5-8 and I am shooting over a factory about 300 yards away so the seeing is almost always unsteady.   Now that warm weather is here I may play more with the dial on the Quark as well as the 80 vs 100 vs 120's

 

 

 

 

Lovely work!

 

Based on that, I would not bother getting a new 150mm achromat for this. The 120mm F8 you already have will be nearly the same thing, but you already have it, and you do not need a D-ERF at all at that aperture. I imaged quite extensively, 2 years or so straight, on an Omni XLT 120mm F8.3 achromat. Just upgrade the focuser and that scope is excellent in HA with a Quark. I eventually did move to a 150mm F8 with an ERF, but within a year, I went up to a 200mm F10 solar scope after that. I don't recommend it at all. If I were to suggest anything it would be to stay on the 120mm F8, you will image great with that far more often! Your local seeing absolutely defines what you're able to do. So if you think your seeing is unsteady, it may not be worth pushing larger apertures,  you may be better off simply staying with what you have in the 4~5" range. Also, based on your images, you clearly do not need a prominence model Quark as you're already imaging prominences great. Some prominences are just so feint they will be difficult no matter what with these class instruments.

 

Celestron Omni XLT 120mm F8.3 + Quark Chromosphere + IMX174

 

42876000052_b114013710_c.jpg

 

35889665164_f9ace233c6_c.jpg

 

35361200432_db6c98ef4e_c.jpg

 

++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++

 

For reference, I imaged with the 150mm F8.3 (Celestron CR150HD) and the 120mm F8.3 (Omni XLT) with the same Quark & IMX174 at F35 (over-sampled) under good seeing, to compare the difference in aperture and resulting resolution. While I could see minor differences better resolved by the 150mm, to have that advantage, to me, recommending to anyone else, the difference is not profound enough, but the mount requirement for the 6" is more challenging, the ERF is required in my opinion at 6" aperture for high resolution imaging, and the bad seeing is also more resolved in the larger aperture making it even more challenging to image with without great conditions. So the 120mm F8 to me is the better way to go (easier to mount, easier to image with and no ERF needed so way less costly), unless you have optimal conditions for the larger aperture instrument quite often.

 

120mm_vs_150mm_HA_PostSize_10142018.jpg

 

Very best,


Edited by MalVeauX, 06 April 2019 - 09:46 AM.

  • dswtan likes this

#12 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 06 April 2019 - 09:49 AM

Thank you Marty!!

 

I am about to head out to the backyard and see what I can snag on the sun.



#13 skunkwirks

skunkwirks

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 07 April 2019 - 06:17 PM

Hi everyone, I have a 6 inch F8 1200mm doublet refactor, on a Celestron Advanced GT mount. I will be getting a prominence filter. My question is will the DAYSTAR prominence filter work well with my set-up. I will be using a UV/IR cut filter and I can stop down the aperture if needed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Clear skies.



#14 skunkwirks

skunkwirks

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 07 April 2019 - 06:17 PM

Hi everyone, I have a 6 inch F8 1200mm doublet refactor, on a Celestron Advanced GT mount. I will be getting a prominence filter. My question is will the DAYSTAR prominence filter work well with my set-up. I will be using a UV/IR cut filter and I can stop down the aperture if needed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Clear skies.



#15 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,583
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 07 April 2019 - 11:06 PM

Hi Ben,

 

Just use a faster focal-ratio with your Chromosphere model, it will widen the bandpass to be less narrow (just under >1A), just like the Prominence model. Same thing. Try around F15~20 instead of F30, and play around with tuning for optimal contrast for your copy. No need to buy the Prominence model. waytogo.gif

 

Very best,

But the view gets tiny.  Are we allowed to use shorter fl eyepieces to get the magnification back up or does that undermine the benefit of the reduced focal length?



#16 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,583
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 07 April 2019 - 11:12 PM

Hi everyone, I have a 6 inch F8 1200mm doublet refactor, on a Celestron Advanced GT mount. I will be getting a prominence filter. My question is will the DAYSTAR prominence filter work well with my set-up. I will be using a UV/IR cut filter and I can stop down the aperture if needed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Clear skies.

Your likely better off with the chromosphere model.  It gives very good prominence detail, enough to keep you greatly entertained, and the solar disk is more interesting than you might think. 

 

You might also consider the quark combo.  You'll need to buy a 4x power mate from Televue but the point is the telecentric barlow is built into the classic Quark.  It's kind of nice being able to use the power mate(s) in other combinations (I have the 2x and 4x, which are recommended to the Quark combo by Daystar).  

 

Greg N



#17 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,583
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 07 April 2019 - 11:15 PM

Quark Chromosphere vs Prominence model.

I have the chromosphere, with the solar minimum and most of the "action" being on the limb, how much brighter and obvious are the proms when imaging with the Prominence model?

 

Is anyone using both?

I can't really say I have BOTH, but when I was talking at the NEAF exhibit with the Daystar people they recommended Sodium as the next step, not a different h-alpha.

 

Greg N



#18 ValeryD

ValeryD

    Vendor (Aries)

  • ****-
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1,993
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Kherson, Ukraine.

Posted 08 April 2019 - 04:03 AM

I can't really say I have BOTH, but when I was talking at the NEAF exhibit with the Daystar people they recommended Sodium as the next step, not a different h-alpha.

 

Greg N

As far as I have seen images,  better to buy Magnesium Quark Mg B2 line.  It shows better a supergranulation and in general a more contrast view.  It also more pleasant for eyes - it is light green and not a boring yellow.

 

 

Valery


  • highfnum likes this

#19 MalVeauX

MalVeauX

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,905
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 08 April 2019 - 06:44 AM

But the view gets tiny.  Are we allowed to use shorter fl eyepieces to get the magnification back up or does that undermine the benefit of the reduced focal length?

For visual you can use shorter focal length eyepieces. The only change will be the brightness/dimness of the view. That's after the etalon, so anything after the etalon & blocking filter has zero effect on it's bandpass.

 

Very best,


  • gnowellsct likes this

#20 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,583
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 08 April 2019 - 12:14 PM

For visual you can use shorter focal length eyepieces. The only change will be the brightness/dimness of the view. That's after the etalon, so anything after the etalon & blocking filter has zero effect on it's bandpass.

 

Very best,

This is very good to know!  I will probably spend more time now with the 2x power mate to see what I can learn.

 

So if I use 30 to 40 mm with my 4x power mate, I should be able to use 15 to 20 mm oculars with the 2x.  I burned out some credit card circuits on the Leica zoom (8.9 to 17.8 mm equivalent) at NEAF, I had it in mind as a "travel eyepiece," but maybe it will be find a use in solar viewing with the 2x barlow.      

 

I will be disappointed if the spicule fringe on the limb disappears with 2x power mate and higher magnifications.  When there's a big prominence going, spicules are kind of like the chorus dancers in the back of the stage.  They're not the main show, but some of them are quite good looking, so to speak.    I got a few lessons from the solar  observing experience at NEAF, quite a few of the setups traded surface detail for limb detail and vice versa.  The three 120 to 130 mm scopes seemed to pull ahead of the pack in rendering details on both surface and limb, so I'm also looking forward to trying my 130.

 

Greg N



#21 highfnum

highfnum

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,213
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 08 April 2019 - 12:24 PM

I have prom model good for faint wispy proms

otherwise for general sun viewing go chromo



#22 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:40 PM

Decided to do a test on one of my typical days, shot about noon when the sun was a bit out of the turbulence from the factory.  I shot AR2737 and some proms with my XLT120 F/8.3 and my XLT102 f/6.2 (the AZ model).  The 102 is my favorite solar scope due to moderate length and handles roiled skies well.

     I really want the 120 to work as well or better - I even started looking at the Explore Scientific ED127 Achro, thinking that might be better glass than the XLT120 ( I am tempted)

 

here are shots from the 120 first and then the 102.   Let me know what you think. I only spent 10 minutes processing each one, Astrostakkert, Registax 6 wavelets, PS, LR

 

GbwgBCbl.jpg

 

w4lOvjvl.jpg

 

 

 

Oqe926fl.jpg

 

 

1bxX3Zrl.jpg


  • drprovi57, mikerepp and MalVeauX like this

#23 MalVeauX

MalVeauX

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,905
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:51 PM

Looks great to me,

 

Your seeing supports your 120mm and I can see more resolution on those images in this comparison at least, and that's not a lot of aperture difference (17% difference in potential resolution & aperture). The other difference is the narrower beam going through your etalon (from the F8.3) results in a more narrow bandpass, so it has more contrast. Higher contrast looks "sharper" often, as it does here.

 

I don't think you'll find any difference buying newer, better potential glass, when it comes to these longer achromatic doublets. Splitting hairs at best. They already perform very well at this wavelength. The XLT's optics are great already. If you really wanted to get H-A optimized glass, iStarOptical has HA optimized lenses: http://www.istar-opt...a-doublets.html

 

I think a really interesting test/comparison would be to put your Quark on a 120mm F5 and compare that to the 120 F8.3 and compare prominences and surface contrast.

 

Very best,


Edited by MalVeauX, 08 April 2019 - 07:52 PM.


#24 Ben Cartwright SASS

Ben Cartwright SASS

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2015
  • Loc: SE Massachusetts - Near Gillette Stadium

Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:08 PM

Marty that is a good idea, I will do a 120 shootout, F/8.3 vs F/5 !!

 

Of course since there is a new AR with sunspot that looks great they are saying we are going to be clouded out for the next 7 days!!!  figures...


  • MalVeauX likes this

#25 gnowellsct

gnowellsct

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,583
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

Posted 08 April 2019 - 10:28 PM

FWIW, the limb looks better focused in the 102.  But the 120 seems to have some advantages,judging from the pictures.




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