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

OSC in red/white zone = lost cause

  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 deanlee

deanlee

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Toronto

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:09 PM

I've been shooting with my 183MC and its good.. Even better now that it's connected to the 8" RASA.  I shoot gain 0 and 1min subs.  I don't even calibrate anymore.  I get zero amp glow with short exposures.

 

Yes yes you can get pretty good images out of a OSC BUT.. compiled MONO is and looks so much better that I don't think can be obtained by OSC.

 

Should I keep trying, or just throw in the towel and go mono?

 

 

 



#2 gezak22

gezak22

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,256
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2004
  • Loc: On far side of moon. Send help.

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:19 PM

Go mono!

 

But once galaxy season swings around again, mono will not be as much of a life saver as it is in narrowband nebula season.



#3 OhmEye

OhmEye

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Western NY Southern Tier

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:36 PM

Money aside, mono+filters. I have both versions of the ASI183 and haven't found any reason to use OSC since I went mono. I could have used it for comet atlas since moving targets don't lend well to changing filters, but I didn't care enough to change cameras and did my video from mono frames.

 

Mono+filters is more time efficient than OSC and more flexible for type of filters and data ratios. OSC can do a lot and is better for a few situations (mainly lower cost and complexity) but I'm an enthusiastic convert to mono.



#4 OhmEye

OhmEye

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Western NY Southern Tier

Posted 30 June 2020 - 12:41 PM

Go mono!

 

But once galaxy season swings around again, mono will not be as much of a life saver as it is in narrowband nebula season.

I disagree. I went mono during galaxy season and it's a huge step up in my opinion. The better time efficiency alone is worth it to me. I took the reducer off my scope for galaxies, so I lost speed. The faster signal acquisition with mono helped a lot. A lot of OSC users don't fully appreciate how much more efficient mono is and have misconceptions that filters mean more time is needed to image, when it's the other way around. As with a lot of aspects to this hobby, it's not intuitive at first how 3 exposures for RGB get more signal in the same time than 1 exposure with OSC.


Edited by OhmEye, 30 June 2020 - 12:43 PM.

  • OldManSky likes this

#5 jdupton

jdupton

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Central Texas, USA

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:04 PM

OhmEye,

 

   Mono imaging using a Luminance filter along with RGB filters is a very clear winner -- always. I agree completely.

 

   However, I steadfastly disagree with the comparisons that are always made to show how "bad" OSC is. In your example, you said that "3 exposures for RGB get more signal in the same time than 1 exposure with OSC.

 

   You seem to be saying that using three hours of exposure with mono will gather more signal than one hour with OSC. I agree but that is hardly a fair comparison. When you compare three one hour exposures for R, G, and B filters on a mono camera to three hours with an OSC camera you find that the signal gathered is very comparable. What suffers in color resolution, not signal gathering.

 

   Where Mono gets it's advantage is in the gathering of data with the L filter. Add L to the RGB signal totals and you will always do better than an OSC for the same total exposure time. Total RGB photon capture is very similar between Mono and OSC; it's the L captures that make all the difference.

 

 

John


  • psandelle likes this

#6 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,317
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:13 PM

OhmEye,

 

   Mono imaging using a Luminance filter along with RGB filters is a very clear winner -- always. I agree completely.

 

   However, I steadfastly disagree with the comparisons that are always made to show how "bad" OSC is. In your example, you said that "3 exposures for RGB get more signal in the same time than 1 exposure with OSC.

 

   You seem to be saying that using three hours of exposure with mono will gather more signal than one hour with OSC. I agree but that is hardly a fair comparison. When you compare three one hour exposures for R, G, and B filters on a mono camera to three hours with an OSC camera you find that the signal gathered is very comparable. What suffers in color resolution, not signal gathering.

 

   Where Mono gets it's advantage is in the gathering of data with the L filter. Add L to the RGB signal totals and you will always do better than an OSC for the same total exposure time. Total RGB photon capture is very similar between Mono and OSC; it's the L captures that make all the difference.

 

 

John

what about RGB under bortle 4 skys and less?  I keep reading that mono adavantge is for light pollution. but what about when we take the LP out of the equation. Is mono still a lot better?  Then, I didnt realize that OSC does not use an L channel. If OSC does not have an L, then mono would always win.



#7 Dan Crowson

Dan Crowson

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2,529
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Dardenne Prairie, MO

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:17 PM

Looking at it a bit different than the others posts. I think the OSC would be decent under dark skies but it seems like they're fairly terrible under bright. I've had fairly good luck with LRGB under red zone skies for several years.
 
There's a lot of mention of using luminance but there are a lot of people that only take RGB. I still do LRGB but I can see pros and cons of both.
 
Regardless of the above, I don't think you're saving any collection time with the OSC over monochrome and filters. There's also a lot more you can do when introducing narrowband or scientific filters that would be less than ideal with a OSC. Of course the filters would be a challenge if you kept the RASA or similar setup.

Dan


  • jdupton likes this

#8 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:33 PM

what about RGB under bortle 4 skys and less? I keep reading that mono adavantge is for light pollution. but what about when we take the LP out of the equation. Is mono still a lot better? Then, I didnt realize that OSC does not use an L channel. If OSC does not have an L, then mono would always win.

L is the whole point why you go mono. Sure, you get cleaner rgb channels with mono, but L is where the increased resolution comes from.

That's the whole reasoning behind mono, not having a CFA and thus having almost 100% of the pixels available to get the highest possible detail.

Even in Bortle 1 skies Mono will have higher resolution.

Edited by Huangdi, 30 June 2020 - 01:33 PM.

  • psandelle and jdupton like this

#9 jdupton

jdupton

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Central Texas, USA

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:35 PM

Ballyhoo,

 

what about RGB under bortle 4 skys and less?  I keep reading that mono adavantge is for light pollution. but what about when we take the LP out of the equation. Is mono still a lot better?  Then, I didnt realize that OSC does not use an L channel. If OSC does not have an L, then mono would always win.

   Yes, the Mono can have an advantage under brighter skies. The advantage is that you can gather so much more signal with L. The rules of imaging under light polluted skies are that you either gather lots more exposure or switch to narrow-band. Mono with an L filter helps you gather lots more photons.

 

   If you take light pollution out of the equation, the answer is still the same. When you image in dark skies with an L filter, you get more signal per unit time. In terms of photon capture, RGB with a Mono camera is on par with RGB from an OSC camera. The kicker is that you can only take pure L exposures with a Mono camera. You cannot gather pure L with an OSC. That is where the big Mono advantage lies.

 

 

John


Edited by jdupton, 30 June 2020 - 01:54 PM.

  • Ballyhoo likes this

#10 sn2006gy

sn2006gy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 04 May 2020
  • Loc: Austin, TX

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:35 PM

Here's what Mono people won't tell you until they have flipped their crap. Dark skies matter the most. Period.

 

You will read about how mono people love to shoot Ha during full moon. You can do that with OSC+L-enhance filter. No shooting Sii.. maybe some of the others.    Narrowband on a fast F2 is restricted to less narrow band and high speed filters are $$$

 

You will read about how mono people get beautiful LRGB shots.  What isn't really mentioned in LRGB is notched - they filter out skyglow and sodium lighting...  so just use an L-PRO on your OSC and see what you can do. "oh but filters are bad..." big ol meh wink.gif

 

With a RASA,  LRGB is a lot of work. You have to manually swap out your filter.   I imagine you'd want 2" filters to so LRGB gets pricey (no vignette for such a beautiful fast scope).  How much is your time worth in having flats, potential re-focus, dark library for each filter? Manual swapping of filters means if you have a smudge/dust you WILL need flats between each change or you will need to be really good at PI to process it out...

 

and if you get good at PI - there are ways to reduce gradients with OSC.  Do you dither every frame? have you tried LN integration?  There are tricks... I've shot on really terrible skies (i'm bortle 7) and i'll use an L-PRO to take a few shots, then shoot with just UV-ir and i'll use data from one to try and calibrate the other gradients out (such as transfering DBE from l-pro to my uv-ir so i don't lose nebulosity and can mark what my sky should be). 

 

there are lots of tricks...

 

but i think the worst trick of all is people convincing you to drop 2k+ on mono+filters only to realize dark skies matter the most and if you know to make the most of what you have, you can certainly attack some of that while enjoying your OSC.

 

that's my 5 cents 

 

And yes, i know that because of bayer matrix Mono reigns king... but if mono is KING dark skies are the GODS of astro-imaging. Dithering can diminish the mono lead greatly especially if you use your non filter swapping time to add more exposures and dither between every frame.


Edited by sn2006gy, 30 June 2020 - 01:57 PM.

  • mtc and Spammy like this

#11 jdupton

jdupton

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Central Texas, USA

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:37 PM

Julian,

 

L is the whole point why you go mono. Sure, you get cleaner rgb channels with mono, but L is where the increased resolution comes from.

That's the whole reasoning behind mono, not having a CFA and thus having almost 100% of the pixels available to get the highest possible detail.

Even in Bortle 1 skies Mono will have higher resolution.

 

   Plus 1! You said it better than I did...

 

 

John


  • Huangdi likes this

#12 gezak22

gezak22

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,256
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2004
  • Loc: On far side of moon. Send help.

Posted 30 June 2020 - 01:54 PM

L is the whole point why you go mono. Sure, you get cleaner rgb channels with mono, but L is where the increased resolution comes from.

That's the whole reasoning behind mono, not having a CFA and thus having almost 100% of the pixels available to get the highest possible detail.

Even in Bortle 1 skies Mono will have higher resolution.

Resolution is the point of mono. The channel (L, H-alpha, ...) is up to the photographer.

 

In the case of mono + L + shooting from the red/white zone, the benefits will not be as big as with a narrowband filter. But the main benefit of the narrowband filter will not be resolution but reduced light pollution.

 

 

Here's what Mono people won't tell you until they have flipped their crap. Dark skies matter the most. Period.

Correct. I spent ~10 years shooting from dark blue skies. Loved it. One night, I wondered what I could do from my orange backyard using a narrowband filter. The result was garbage. Not because the image was lousy, but because my standards were crazy high from shooting from dark skies for 10 years.


  • psandelle likes this

#13 imtl

imtl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:02 PM

I don't really understand why the need to turn this into another mono vs osc war but let me add a few comments since I have both.

 

Here's what Mono people won't tell you until they have flipped their crap. Dark skies matter the most. Period.

 

Yes they do. What does that have anything to do with mono vs. osc?

 

 

You will read about how mono people love to shoot Ha during full moon. You can do that with OSC+L-enhance filter. No shooting Sii.. maybe some of the others.    Narrowband on a fast F2 is restricted to less narrow band and high speed filters are $$$

 

I tried that. It looks like.... The other major difference you're comfortably ignoring is that mono give you a lot more versatility. Not to mention full use of the resolution of your camera.

You keep mentioning $$$. This is an expensive hobby as you go deeper into quality and sustainability. What is your point? Quality = $$$. Not a huge surprise really. Good OSC costs money as well.

 

You will read about how mono people get beautiful LRGB shots.  What isn't really mentioned in LRGB is notched - they filter out skyglow and sodium lighting...  so just use an L-PRO on your OSC and see what you can do. "oh but filters are bad..." big ol meh wink.gif

 

Most light pollution today comes from LED lights and not sodium. The L-pro and all the other light pollution filters are mostly a waste of money. The notching on the LRGB is mainly to separate colors and cut UV/IR the way humans perceive colors. And not for LP.

 

With a RASA,  LRGB is a lot of work. You have to manually swap out your filter.   I imagine you'd want 2" filters to so LRGB gets pricey (no vignette for such a beautiful fast scope).  How much is your time worth in having flats, potential re-focus, dark library for each filter? Manual swapping of filters means if you have a smudge/dust you WILL need flats between each change or you will need to be really good at PI to process it out...

 

Once you get a workflow going its fine. Not need to scare people. And the end result is optimum.

 

and if you get good at PI - there are ways to reduce gradients with OSC.  Do you dither every frame? have you tried LN integration?  There are tricks... I've shot on really terrible skies (i'm bortle 7) and i'll use an L-PRO to take a few shots, then shoot with just UV-ir and i'll use data from one to try and calibrate the other gradients out (such as transfering DBE from l-pro to my uv-ir so i don't lose nebulosity and can mark what my sky should be). 

 

there are lots of tricks...

 

Yes there are a lot of tricks. Which you are implementing in OSC and wasting a lot of valuable time you can spend taking more useful data and not spending two weeks processing nonsense you got with OSC filters that try to deal with LP and the inherent limitations of the color camera.

 

but i think the worst trick of all is people convincing you to drop 2k+ on mono+filters only to realize dark skies matter the most and if you know to make the most of what you have, you can certainly attack some of that while enjoying your OSC.

 

Nobody is convincing anyone to do anything. People have opinions. So do you. OSC can do great with certain conditions. No question about that. Mono can do great on ALL conditions.

 

that's my 5 cents 

 

And yes, i know that because of bayer matrix Mono reigns king... but if mono is KING dark skies are the GODS of astro-imaging.Dithering can diminish the mono lead greatly especially if you use your non filter swapping time to add more exposures and dither between every frame.

 

Agreed on the dark skies. Dithering is relevant to mono as well. Which again brings me back to what was your point in all of this? Were you talking purely for the RASA system in all of this?


Edited by imtl, 30 June 2020 - 02:07 PM.

  • OldManSky likes this

#14 sn2006gy

sn2006gy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 04 May 2020
  • Loc: Austin, TX

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:11 PM

I don't really understand why the need to turn this into another mono vs osc war but let me add a few comments since I have both.

 

War? nah...  I just explained that Mono isn't a magic panacea. Red/white zone?? no... not recommending mono even if they have money to throw at it without telling them their osc options they already have.

 

 

I was tempted to reply to the rest of your points but your reply style leaves that nearly impossible so i'll pass.

 

I mean, this person says they don't even do calibration frames so the thought of going mono as a recommendation BOGGLES ME.. but that's just me.

 

And that isn't me declaring war on anything... oi


Edited by sn2006gy, 30 June 2020 - 02:18 PM.

  • imtl likes this

#15 Huangdi

Huangdi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2019

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:20 PM

I doubt that there could ever be an OSC vs Mono war, since OSC would never win. It might win in a convenience war, but this is about better data and mono will always prevail.

 

That being said there are certain areas where the added resolution is pointless or less important, that is where OSC shines, in my opinion.

 

Let's compare an EdgeHD800 + ASI1600 with LRGB filters to a Orion ED80CF triplet + Nikon D610a

 

What's your likely goal with the edge&asi? Getting the finest possible detail out of the faint galaxies.

 

What's your likely goal with the ED80+Full frame DSLR? Getting super high SNR to stretch your data to reveal faint nebulosity, IFN, etc. 

 

 

Would interchanging the cameras make sense? absolutely not. But there are specific uses to specific cameras. I would much rather take a full frame camera under dark skies and shoot low res high SNR widefield shots over having to mosaic my way with a Mono+LRGB. 

 

For example, the dusty region of polaris. Virtually noone is going to zoom in to see the IFN details, right? It's about the wide field.

 

Compare that to the galaxy/PN setup, you will certainly zoom into the spiral arms of M81 or check out the fine detail in M82's starburst.

 

To me this is where you have to wager what will be better for you. What will be better for the data quality? Of course Mono. Thats why everyone who wants the best possible data WILL have to go mono. But when you don't even want high resolution, whats the point?


Edited by Huangdi, 30 June 2020 - 02:21 PM.

  • psandelle and imtl like this

#16 imtl

imtl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:23 PM

War? nah...  I just explained that Mono isn't a magic panacea. Red/white zone?? no... not recommending mono even if they have money to throw at it without telling them their osc options they already have.

 

 

I was tempted to reply to the rest of your points but your reply style leaves that nearly impossible so i'll pass.

 

I mean, this person says they don't even do calibration frames so the thought of going mono as a recommendation BOGGLES ME.. but that's just me.

 

And that isn't me declaring war on anything... oi

Well that's good to know. I fully agree with you that the OP should make full use of their current OSC equipment before jumping forward to spend more money. This is true in my opinion as a general rule.



#17 sn2006gy

sn2006gy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 04 May 2020
  • Loc: Austin, TX

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:28 PM

Well that's good to know. I fully agree with you that the OP should make full use of their current OSC equipment before jumping forward to spend more money. This is true in my opinion as a general rule.

waytogo.gif

 

I love mono!

 

I'm just waiting for something more modern than the asi1600 or bigger pixels than the 183 (which both would need calibration big time - especially the 1600) and cheaper than the 6200 (not sure if i'm ready for handling full frame 61mp data processing - especially in LRGB SHO).  The 6200 can probably get away with just flats, flat darks and lights - so if they came out with a half sensor of that, i'd be happy.

 

hell, an imx533 mono would be a dreaaam but probably not good for rasa... so back on topic ;)


Edited by sn2006gy, 30 June 2020 - 02:30 PM.

  • imtl likes this

#18 imtl

imtl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:32 PM

waytogo.gif

 

I love mono!

 

I'm just waiting for something more modern than the asi1600 or bigger pixels than the 183 (which both would need calibration big time - especially the 1600) and cheaper than the 6200 (not sure if i'm ready for handling full frame 61mp data processing - especially in LRGB SHO).  The 6200 can probably get away with just flats, flat darks and lights - so if they came out with a half sensor of that, i'd be happy.

 

hell, an imx533 mono would be a dreaaam but probably not good for rasa... so back on topic wink.gif

I know how you feel. It also very much depends on which telescope you are pairing the camera with.

Yes back on topic.



#19 klaussius

klaussius

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 549
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Buenos Aires

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:33 PM

Ballyhoo,

 

   Yes, the Mono can have an advantage under brighter skies. The advantage is that you can gather so much more signal with L. The rules of imaging under light polluted skies are that you either gather lots more exposure or switch to narrow-band. Mono with an L filter helps you gather lots more photons.

 

   If you take light pollution out of the equation, the answer is still the same. When you image in dark skies with an L filter, you get more signal per unit time. In terms of photon capture, RGB with a Mono camera is on par with RGB from an OSC camera. The kicker is that you can only take pure L exposures with a Mono camera. You cannot gather pure L with an OSC. That is where the big Mono advantage lies.

 

I think that the resolution improvements with mono also come from the fact that you don't have a CFA. I mean, one less optical component necessarily means less distortion.

 

Even if I drizzle and convert to mono data from my DSLR, which does improve resolution, it's still a far cry from the resolution I get with my 120MM. I blame the CFA/LPF as an imperfect optical component introducing aberrations, a component that isn't there, or that you can replace with a much higher quality one in mono, especially when you capture Luminance.



#20 P_Myers

P_Myers

    Vendor (Optical Structures)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 29 Feb 2016

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:37 PM


Let's also consider ... is the individual who initially posted this question... is his setup a portable or a permanent setup.

for a portable setup I can see the benefit of a OSC and filter..since most people aren't retired and have a lot of ample/idle time on their hands. Available free time is of the essence

Definitely I can see a plus here for OSC + narrowband filter.


Whereas with a permanent observatory ..well that's a no-brainer favoring a mono setup.

therefore, like the proverbial question that I get asked... "what one telescope will do everything that I want"....unfortunately there isn't such a Scope.


Unfortunately the best of both worlds is to have a OSC camera and a mono camera eventually IMHO
  • psandelle and sn2006gy like this

#21 APshooter

APshooter

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,071
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Camby, In.

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:55 PM

What about a hybrid approach?  I'm shooting LUM data with my 1600 on my Rasa and combining it with OSC data from my 2600MC on the same scope.  I get the detail I want from mono and the speed and convenience of OSC (with no filter changes).


  • psandelle, jdupton and sn2006gy like this

#22 sn2006gy

sn2006gy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 04 May 2020
  • Loc: Austin, TX

Posted 30 June 2020 - 02:57 PM

I think that the resolution improvements with mono also come from the fact that you don't have a CFA. I mean, one less optical component necessarily means less distortion.

 

Even if I drizzle and convert to mono data from my DSLR, which does improve resolution, it's still a far cry from the resolution I get with my 120MM. I blame the CFA/LPF as an imperfect optical component introducing aberrations, a component that isn't there, or that you can replace with a much higher quality one in mono, especially when you capture Luminance.

Optical train distortions can be calibrated out with flats if they're not defects and in that case no camera can change that...

 

As for drizzling, I wouldn't drizzle on the 183mc unless the short exposures to avoid amp  glow are under sampled, then I would try an experiment with drizzling. Maybe?

 

The 120mm, that's a 1.2 MP camera, i use one for guiding i wouldn't use it over the 183mc for imaging.  The ASI183 doesn't have the quirks of DSLR as far as having to remove ir filters (and re-add a UV-IR) and all that jazz.  The asi183 is already a cooled one shot color cam and a very fine one at that.

 

Here's what i'd do.

 

1. Use calibration frames - the amp glow/dark current on 183 is still visible even at 60 seconds.

2. Invest in a LP filter  (L-Pro)

3. Invest in a nebula filter  (L-Enhance)

4. Have fun and keep learning and do whatever you want to do next knowing that dark skies matter the most.

 

 

What I wouldn't do - spend 1800 to go to a 1600mm pro or the 183mm with filters and expect a miracle in bortle 7/8 skies.  Spend 300 and get used filters and be amazed! Sell them for what you bought them for if you find the urge to go mono once you've learned more.

 

For someone who doesn't calibrate color right now - stacking L, R G B un-calibrated isn't gonna look any better. (that's 3x the work to calibrate & remove gradients from)

 

edit: however - the new post right above me states a great option.. two cameras.. best of both worlds laugh.gif - still an expensive proposition in bortle 7/8


Edited by sn2006gy, 30 June 2020 - 03:01 PM.


#23 jdupton

jdupton

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,535
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Central Texas, USA

Posted 30 June 2020 - 03:18 PM

deanlee,

 

   I apologize for kicking off the debate between Mono and OSC. I was only trying to point out that Mono, when using an L filter, will beat OSC in equal sky time. The amount of L used affects how much better it will be. If all you do is switch to Mono and shoot only RGB (with no L), then you are no better off than using the OSC you have now, all other factors considered.

 

   The answer to getting better images in heavy light pollution (like a red zone), is to shoot much more total exposure -- like 4x or 8x more.

 

 

I've been shooting with my 183MC and its good.. Even better now that it's connected to the 8" RASA.  I shoot gain 0 and 1min subs.  I don't even calibrate anymore.  I get zero amp glow with short exposures.

 

Yes yes you can get pretty good images out of a OSC BUT.. compiled MONO is and looks so much better that I don't think can be obtained by OSC.

 

Should I keep trying, or just throw in the towel and go mono?

 

   To circle back to your question as to whether to make that jump, consider the following.

 

   Assume we use your 183MC OSC camera as a basis for comparison. For the comparison, I am assuming you purchase AstroDon iSeries LRGB filters and pick a 183MM mono camera. Other filter sets will give slightly different results. With the same camera in a mono version as your choice we can calculate the following.

 

For equal total sky exposure time between the two cameras:

  • Mono with L only (black and white) gathers 2.4x more photons than your OSC in equal time
     
  • Mono RGB only (no L) gathers 0.75x the photons compared to your OSC in equal time. (The OSC wins this very limited case.)
     
  • Mono with Equal total amounts of L as RGB (3xL, 1xR, 1xG, 1xB) gathers 1.6x more photons than your OSC in equal time
     
  • Mono with double the L as RGB (6xL, 1xR, 1xG, 1xB) gathers 1.9x more photons than your OSC in equal time
     
  • Mono with quadruple the L as RGB (12xL, 1xR, 1xG, 1xB) gathers 2.1x more photons than your OSC in equal time

   As you can see, the big advantage of shooting Mono is the shooting of Luminance. The more of L you shoot with respect to the amount of RGB color data, the more photons captured in equal time units. 

 

   Since the solution to overcoming light pollution is "more total exposure time" or "darker skies," you would benefit from moving to Mono + filters so long as you shoot significant Luminance. Actually, in a case like yours, shooting the color RGB data with the 183MC and then adding at least four times that amount of exposure with just the L filter of a 183MM Mono camera would give you the best overall total photon capture. The only remaining question is whether the cost is worth it to you personally. In such a case, you would save the cost of the other filters since you only be using the Mono camera for capturing the L channel.

 

 

John


Edited by jdupton, 30 June 2020 - 03:35 PM.

  • Huangdi likes this

#24 deanlee

deanlee

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Toronto

Posted 30 June 2020 - 03:39 PM

Thanks for all the replies, there are a lot of good points but it did started a debate on which is better..  which isn't the point.. it really should be which is better in a red / white zone.  Yes, nothing beats dark skies.  But for me and a lot of others, we don't have the luxury nor do I feel like driving 2 hours and sleep in my car.  This isnt a debate about money either, I'm fully aware of how much it will cost LOL.  

 

I don't calibrate my frames anymore since shooting with the RASA,  I used to do my darks, bias, flats when I was using my William Optics to get rid of the amp glow star burst / noise when shooting 5min subs.  Images at 0 gain @ 1min exposure leaves a very very clean image with barely any noise, so why calibrate?  I dither every 5th frame and normally capture 240 frames 4hrs worth at F2 decent guiding around 0.6 - 0.8 arc.  

 

I have already ordered the starizona filter drawer for the scope but I have not yet bite the bullet in purchasing a new mono + filters.  

I also use AF so changing and finding focus on filter changes would be a click away.

 

The filter I've been using these days is the Optolong CLS (I think its pretty good), I've found this much better then my skytech "forgot model"

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • optolong-cls-ccd-city-light-supression-filter-transmision-curve.jpg


#25 deanlee

deanlee

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Toronto

Posted 30 June 2020 - 03:45 PM

Another thing is, say I google something like Eagle nebula...  You can clearly distinguish which one was shot with a mono and one with OSC.  The mono images are by far so much more appealing.  They look like art.  The OSC images look... RED..  

 

So I guess,  can you get those nice hubble pallet colored images with OSC?  and if so,  at what cost?  How many more hours of subs,, 2x , 3x more?




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