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

QHY600 - Yet another thread!

  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#26 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 15 July 2020 - 12:42 PM

Anis,

 

Good to see you are getting this camera going. The sensor is just so darn good. It is a joy to use. 

 

Do you have a CTU of some sort? That left corner definitely needs more spacing to the sensor.



#27 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 15 July 2020 - 01:04 PM

Anis,

 

Good to see you are getting this camera going. The sensor is just so darn good. It is a joy to use. 

 

Do you have a CTU of some sort? That left corner definitely needs more spacing to the sensor.

Thank you! Yes. these chips are really good . Your image of the wall is one of the best I have seen. Gabe's image with the same sensor is also top class.  I am thinking this is chip is going to get super popular. It is very exciting.

 

I am waiting for couple of M54 spacers so I can do threaded connection all the way from rear of the Moonlite CXL focuser to the OAG. But since the rear flattener is fixed to the scope, the focuser is setting the chip distance from the fixed flattener. I measured the distance when it hits focus and it is not exactly 178mm (Mine is the original 106ED with captain's wheel) . 

 

Basically , If I add spacer , then the focuser draw tube has to move into compensate (basically there is only one point where the image is in focus). I am starting to think the scope itself may have this.. I am going to test by rotating the camera to see if it follows the camera or stays in teh same direction. If it rotates, then chip may have orthogonality issue. 



#28 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 15 July 2020 - 01:07 PM

Few other issues I am hitting are, with SGP, the Platesolve2 hits out of memory error causing blind solving to happen for centering.  SGP's new autofocus routine someimes fails with weird errors (bad HFR value two times in a row and aborts even though there are tons of stars etc).

The cooling is still a bit weak struggling to maintain -5C. 

 

 

Here is a compressed version of the image. 

attachicon.giflight_BINNING_1_integration_Stretch.jpg

Larger at: https://www.astrobin.com/w9kpaw/

You might want to try binning some more to 3x3 or even 4x4 to reduce file size.

 

Peter 


  • anismo likes this

#29 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 15 July 2020 - 01:14 PM

You might want to try binning some more to 3x3 or even 4x4 to reduce file size.

 

Peter 

Thanks Peter! That makes sense. I will try it!



#30 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 15 July 2020 - 02:00 PM

Thank you! Yes. these chips are really good . Your image of the wall is one of the best I have seen. Gabe's image with the same sensor is also top class.  I am thinking this is chip is going to get super popular. It is very exciting.

 

I am waiting for couple of M54 spacers so I can do threaded connection all the way from rear of the Moonlite CXL focuser to the OAG. But since the rear flattener is fixed to the scope, the focuser is setting the chip distance from the fixed flattener. I measured the distance when it hits focus and it is not exactly 178mm (Mine is the original 106ED with captain's wheel) . 

 

Basically , If I add spacer , then the focuser draw tube has to move into compensate (basically there is only one point where the image is in focus). I am starting to think the scope itself may have this.. I am going to test by rotating the camera to see if it follows the camera or stays in teh same direction. If it rotates, then chip may have orthogonality issue. 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I understand how the native back focus works on the scope. I have the same one. I am talking about adding a camera tilting unit (CTU). The sensor or another part is causing a tilt so the top left corner stars will not come into focus with the rest of the frame. Spacers will not help here but, shims or a CTU will. Other than that corner, from what I see on the full res astrobin file, the stars look very good to the other corners.


Edited by ezwheels, 15 July 2020 - 02:02 PM.


#31 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 15 July 2020 - 02:29 PM

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I understand how the native back focus works on the scope. I have the same one. I am talking about adding a camera tilting unit (CTU). The sensor or another part is causing a tilt so the top left corner stars will not come into focus with the rest of the frame. Spacers will not help here but, shims or a CTU will. Other than that corner, from what I see on the full res astrobin file, the stars look very good to the other corners.

Thanks! I was making sure I am not missing something since your stars look perfect with the same scope :) .  The QHY has a tilt adjust ring . I havent tried adjusting it . I will try that out tonight and see if that helps. I will be happy if it can get to at least somewhat closer to the stars in your image.   I will be sure to post once I try adjusting it. Thank you again!

 

CS

Anis


  • psandelle likes this

#32 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 15 July 2020 - 03:16 PM

The QHY has a tilt adjust ring . I havent tried adjusting it . I will try that out tonight and see if that helps. I will be happy if it can get to at least somewhat closer to the stars in your image.   I will be sure to post once I try adjusting it. Thank you again!

 

CS

Anis

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think QHY's wording of "tilt" adjusting is a bit misleading. I don't think you can adjust for tilt but I believe it's more for centering but it's kind of useless. I like and prefer QHY's circular dovetail design for ease of framing.

 

Peter


  • anismo likes this

#33 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 15 July 2020 - 03:26 PM

I thought the QHY dovetail ring was used as a quick connect/disconnect for the camera and also serves to rotate the camera but not adjust for tilt. Maybe their use of the term tilt is a translation error? Like tilting the frame to change the angle if the composition? Is there another part that QHY includes that I am missing?

 

I use a M68 version of this to adjust the tilt in the optical train. https://www.gerdneum...lting-unit.html


Edited by ezwheels, 15 July 2020 - 03:27 PM.

  • psandelle and anismo like this

#34 deepanshu29

deepanshu29

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017

Posted 15 July 2020 - 03:57 PM

QHY's so called tilt ring is actually sensor orientation (rotation) angle adjuster. It is not the tilt adjuster. I am planning on getting the same M68 CTU that ezwheels is using. I am running the scope at f/3.6 so CFZ is crazy small. 



#35 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 15 July 2020 - 05:51 PM

I just went and checked the ring (which they do list it as 'tilt" ring) and you folks are right. I dont see how it can change the tilt. The only instruction that I read seems to pertain to QHY8PRO (https://www.qhyccd.c...user manual.pdf) and the tilt adapter in QHY8PRO looks like the 020002 adapter that comes with this camera but clearly doesnt seem to have any tilt function that I could tell .

 

I guess I will order the CTU as well then (Thanks @ezwheels)

 

@deepanshu, I have an adapter from precise parts on order for QE reducer to M54 (72.2 - 58.5mm) but with this adapter, that might need to be changed. How are you currently connecting your camera with the reducer

 

Clearly this part is not doing any tilt adjustment functionality :)

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 5.48.03 PM.png


Edited by anismo, 15 July 2020 - 05:52 PM.


#36 deepanshu29

deepanshu29

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017

Posted 15 July 2020 - 07:53 PM

 

@deepanshu, I have an adapter from precise parts on order for QE reducer to M54 (72.2 - 58.5mm) but with this adapter, that might need to be changed. How are you currently connecting your camera with the reducer

 

 

645 reducer slides into the focuser draw tube and it is also static element (does not move when you draw the focuser tube).  CAA250 and Part 86003 slide on top of reducer. 86003 has M54 thread, I use a bunch of M54 extension tubes to connect my camera. I will replace this stupid extension tubes with a custom adapter and M68 CTU will sit in between. Please note that I am using color camera and very likely that QHY600 I get will also be color version, so I have room for adjustments. 

 

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 5.53.05 PM.png


  • anismo likes this

#37 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 16 July 2020 - 09:22 AM

Have the Gerd neumann CTU (M68 version) on the way. Thanks @ezwheels for the link. Hopefully that will do the trick. 


Edited by anismo, 16 July 2020 - 09:23 AM.

  • psandelle and ezwheels like this

#38 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 16 July 2020 - 10:56 AM

I wanted to get Gerd neumann CTU but the back focus of my TEC Field Flattener is only 78mm and the CTU just won't fit within the 78mm back focus requirement using QHY600M, CFW3-M, and OAG-M. I hope I won't need any kind of tilt adjustment. It's not going to bother me if there are slight star elongations at the corners of the images because the sensor is huge and cropping a bit is not going to matter much.

 

I'm expecting better results with TEC FF than Quad TCC reducer. Focal reducers tend to show more imperfections at the corners than dedicated Field Flatteners. It's probably not worth the effort and time tweaking for perfect flatness or coma free stars with reducers.

 

Peter


  • anismo likes this

#39 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 16 July 2020 - 11:54 AM

It just feels bad to see bad stars on such huge field :)

 

@peter I hope your setup doesnt have any tilt issues and it works right off the bat. It will be a beautiful field with the TEC indeed. 

 

With my QE reducer, I have only 72.2mm as well. wiht 58.5 gone , I have 13.7mm adapter on order. I probably will not bother with tilt with the reducer if I cant fit it in.

 

With perfect focus, it is hard to see bad stars anyway (once the image is resized to like 2000 px..) .. but knowing that it is there will eat me.. 



#40 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 16 July 2020 - 12:18 PM

Sounds like you have OCD. shocked.gifshocked.gifshocked.gifshocked.gifshocked.gif 

 

lol.giflol.giflol.giflol.giflol.gif 

 

Peter


  • anismo likes this

#41 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 16 July 2020 - 04:32 PM

I wanted to get Gerd neumann CTU but the back focus of my TEC Field Flattener is only 78mm and the CTU just won't fit within the 78mm back focus requirement using QHY600M, CFW3-M, and OAG-M. I hope I won't need any kind of tilt adjustment. It's not going to bother me if there are slight star elongations at the corners of the images because the sensor is huge and cropping a bit is not going to matter much.

 

I'm expecting better results with TEC FF than Quad TCC reducer. Focal reducers tend to show more imperfections at the corners than dedicated Field Flatteners. It's probably not worth the effort and time tweaking for perfect flatness or coma free stars with reducers.

 

Peter

Yeah I use the FRC with my TEC140 and this is an ideal match for the sensor. Great stars to the edges but, I still needed the GN CTU for the final tweak. I also have a QTCC that I will try on it at some point, but I do not expect the same results. 



#42 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 19 July 2020 - 01:49 PM

I had very bad tilts with my 600M.

 

This is with AP 130 gtx and Quad TCC (f4.5).

When I rotated the camera after loosening the thumbscrews on the "tilt" adapter, the tilt direction stayed the same so I concluded the tilt was somewhere in the camera.

I added total 0.6mm shims on the right side of the camera, the tilt is mostly gone now.

I could improve further if I have a thinner shim but I think it's good enough.

Now I need to find the optimal spacing.

I got a Precise Parts adapter with the optimal length based on the information published by QHY and AP but still the spacing is not perfect.

 

I'm not sure if that amount of original tilts are within the spec though.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • before.PNG


#43 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 19 July 2020 - 01:49 PM

This is after adding the shims.

Attached Thumbnails

  • after.PNG

Edited by Denimsky, 19 July 2020 - 02:22 PM.

  • anismo likes this

#44 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 19 July 2020 - 02:06 PM

I'm not surprised. After thorough research, reducers tend to be more difficult to deal with than dedicated flatteners.

 

Peter



#45 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 19 July 2020 - 10:15 PM

That is great that you are able to resolve it with the Shims! I am waiting for the Gerd Neuman CTU get here (and the filters) to test! 



#46 FredOS

FredOS

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 263
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2017

Posted 20 July 2020 - 12:24 PM

Denimsky,

 

how are you stars in the corner. I also have an AP130GTX with Quad and was wondering how it would operate with this camera. The alternative would be to use the flattener.

 

Frederic



#47 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 20 July 2020 - 05:07 PM

That is great that you are able to resolve it with the Shims! I am waiting for the Gerd Neuman CTU get here (and the filters) to test! 

 

I found that I was wrong :-(

 

The tilts are not in the camera.

I rotated the camera again and I found that the tilt rotated together.

I thought that it was staying but I guess my brain was dead at 3 am in the previous night.

 

So the tilt is after Quad TCC and before the camera because the tilt stays when I rotate the Quad TCC (Quad TCC use similar mechanism as QHY cameras: three thumb screws on the conical surface).

I'm not sure what is actually causing that and I don't have much ideal how to find the exact cause.

The shims are still fixing the tilt though.


Edited by Denimsky, 20 July 2020 - 05:19 PM.


#48 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 20 July 2020 - 05:13 PM

Denimsky,

 

how are you stars in the corner. I also have an AP130GTX with Quad and was wondering how it would operate with this camera. The alternative would be to use the flattener.

 

Frederic

After adding the shims that I mentioned, it improved a lot but they are not round.

The curvature is still 20% but I think it means that spacing is not right.

Finding the exact spacing will be very tricky though.

I think this is the first camera with this small pixels with large FOV so it can be very challenging to get round stars to the corners.
 



#49 anismo

anismo

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,052
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Austin, TX, USA

Posted 20 July 2020 - 07:23 PM

@Donghun

Can you try adding the spacers and see if that can help with the remaining bad stars? I agree that the size of the chip is going to make getting a flat field very hard.  However, EZWheel's image proves that it is possible.

 

In my case, the spacing cant be an issue so I am expecting it to be tilt. I have the CTU delivered today. so will try and test it soon. Waiting on the filter set so I can test it.



#50 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,174
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 21 July 2020 - 12:35 PM

I just ordered this camera and Denimsky had me really worried when he said the tilt was in the camera at first.. glad I kept reading :)

 

I have the TEC140 with the Quad TCC reducer but I haven't started thinking about spacers yet.   I also ordered a new EdgeHD 11 that I intend to use with this camera most of the time.   That'll all be weeks away though.  




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