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

Choosing between a imx464 and imx462

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#26 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,394
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 22 July 2021 - 07:25 AM

I have no real brand loyalty. Only results incur loyalty. I have a few ZWO cameras and decided to try out Player one's offering. While not the 464 sensor, I was quite very happy with price and packaging or the 290 camera.

 

If I am going back to one shot color, I will go to player-one


Edited by wargrafix, 22 July 2021 - 07:31 AM.

  • GSBass likes this

#27 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 07:45 AM

I would love to see an American company enter this space, that’s the extent of my brand loyalty, I’ll buy American all things being equal, every one of these companies are basically a Sony product. That’s not a bad thing though, Sony makes excellent camera chips and my camera decisions are based more on that than any wrapper

I have no real brand loyalty. One results loyalty. I have a few ZWO cameras and decided to try out Player one's offering. While not the 464 sensor, I was quite very happy with price and packaging or the 290 camera.

 

If I am going back to one shot color, I will go to player-one


Edited by GSBass, 22 July 2021 - 07:47 AM.


#28 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 08:00 AM

Btw….QHY does make very good cameras, I have been pleased with both of mine, they have been responsive to inquiries and are an excellent value, I do not see any disadvantage choosing them or player one over zwo, again, they are all Sony, the main thing we need to look for is driver support for the programs we use for capture, currently all three of these companies are doing well supporting Sharpcap, which is currently the only one that counts for me



#29 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 09:29 AM

Btw….QHY does make very good cameras, I have been pleased with both of mine, they have been responsive to inquiries and are an excellent value, I do not see any disadvantage choosing them or player one over zwo, again, they are all Sony, the main thing we need to look for is driver support for the programs we use for capture, currently all three of these companies are doing well supporting Sharpcap, which is currently the only one that counts for me

It is very amazing to see that almost only Sharpcap is accepting all astro dedicated cameras brands even 3rd party, i wish if my new camera has new driver native for acquiring software i am using not Sharpcap, i never worry about planetary, Firecapture and Sharpcap are doing fine so far, and Player One must making drivers for their cameras to keep them in sale.



#30 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 09:49 AM

There are a few unsupported cameras, it’s all up to the camera makers to keep up, they don’t at their own peril

It is very amazing to see that almost only Sharpcap is accepting all astro dedicated cameras brands even 3rd party, i wish if my new camera has new driver native for acquiring software i am using not Sharpcap, i never worry about planetary, Firecapture and Sharpcap are doing fine so far, and Player One must making drivers for their cameras to keep them in sale.



#31 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 09:57 AM

There are a few unsupported cameras, it’s all up to the camera makers to keep up, they don’t at their own peril

So they should look at all or most common and popular astro apps we use and trying to make native drivers for them, i don't like all ASCOM, at least not with my new color camera astro cooled, but that won't stop me or change my mind anyway.


  • GSBass likes this

#32 Player One Astronomy

Player One Astronomy

    Vendor - Player One Astronomy

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2020

Posted 22 July 2021 - 11:28 AM

It is very amazing to see that almost only Sharpcap is accepting all astro dedicated cameras brands even 3rd party, i wish if my new camera has new driver native for acquiring software i am using not Sharpcap, i never worry about planetary, Firecapture and Sharpcap are doing fine so far, and Player One must making drivers for their cameras to keep them in sale.

Hello Tareq, now Firecapture 2.7.05b and Sharpcap 4 both support Player One cameras. We are working on Linux and MacOS SDK(almost done).  And more deepsky softwares will support native driver in near future.


Edited by Player One Astronomy, 22 July 2021 - 11:31 AM.

  • happylimpet likes this

#33 Player One Astronomy

Player One Astronomy

    Vendor - Player One Astronomy

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2020

Posted 22 July 2021 - 11:34 AM

Thought you might like that! lol.gif.

 

I assume Firecapture can control Player-One cameras?

Yes, the new 2.7.05b version support Player One camera. Here is download link: http://www.firecaptu...2.7beta_x64.zip



#34 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,519
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 22 July 2021 - 11:42 AM

Yes, FireCapture 2.7beta does support the Neptune-CII. Now if I only knew how to use FireCapture, or SharpCap for that matter . . . lol.



#35 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,519
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 22 July 2021 - 11:54 AM

Probably the main selling point for these new sensors is infrared…. If you have no interest in daytime astrophotography or imaging in infrared at night then it’s not going to be much different than what you have. In my case 50% of my imaging is daytime, lunar and planets 

 

My most used daytime and nighttime infrared filter is the astronomik 642, it’s actually kind of a narrowband because it blocks light above 850 also…. Highly recommended, some of my best lunar shots were done with it, helps to steady the atmosphere but keeps the far infrared from robbing detail

You take excellent daytime Moon pics and the colors are fabulous.

 

So, if you don't mind a stupid question from a complete newb to a Neptune-CII, can you explain daytime lunar imaging as it relates to infrared?

 

What is the difference between daytime full disc Moon pics using the IR filter that comes with the camera vs. the astronomik 642?



#36 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 01:06 PM

Sure…. So the filter that comes with the player one cameras is an infrared cut filter, it’s required to give natural color photos, all cameras in the world have these cut filters built in or else infrared light messes the colors up. The imx462 and imx464 cameras are not built in simply because the chip is so sensitive to infrared that people want to actually block visible light with a not included infrared filter. Soooo there are a variety of ir filters available… one that blocks 100% of visible light is the 850nm, the one I like to use let’s just a narrow red light band through between 642 and 850nm … there are others too, usually all under 50.00

So if you block most visible light then you can image the planets and the moon during daylight hours

You take excellent daytime Moon pics and the colors are fabulous.

 

So, if you don't mind a stupid question from a complete newb to a Neptune-CII, can you explain daytime lunar imaging as it relates to infrared?

 

What is the difference between daytime full disc Moon pics using the IR filter that comes with the camera vs. the astronomik 642?



#37 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,519
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 22 July 2021 - 01:30 PM

Sure…. So the filter that comes with the player one cameras is an infrared cut filter, it’s required to give natural color photos, all cameras in the world have these cut filters built in or else infrared light messes the colors up. The imx462 and imx464 cameras are not built in simply because the chip is so sensitive to infrared that people want to actually block visible light with a not included infrared filter. Soooo there are a variety of ir filters available… one that blocks 100% of visible light is the 850nm, the one I like to use let’s just a narrow red light band through between 642 and 850nm … there are others too, usually all under 50.00

So if you block most visible light then you can image the planets and the moon during daylight hours

Thank you for the explanation. So are you using 1.25" filters? After reading the Astronomic site for the 642 I'm wondering what the difference is between it and the 742. Looks like I'll need to add another filter to the kit.


  • GSBass likes this

#38 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 01:41 PM

Yes I currently use 1.25 filters, it’s hard to recommend one over the other without having used them all…. Just keep in mind longer wavelengths rob you of detail so the filters that are more in the red part of the spectrum are compromises to keep things as sharp as possible. A 642nm exposure will look extreme red while if you use a 850nm you basically imaging in monochrome, but both need to be post processed anyway so it does not matter except what you will see on your laptop screen while imaging…. Also of note, if you have the filter screwed in to the scope side of the mirror flip box, the 642nm will allow enough visible light through to your reticle to still be able to center, if you use 850nm your reticle will be black…. Ie zero visible light

Thank you for the explanation. So are you using 1.25" filters? After reading the Astronomic site for the 642 I'm wondering what the difference is between it and the 742. Looks like I'll need to add another filter to the kit.



#39 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 01:48 PM

Btw… I don’t know this because I have not researched the 742… but the 642 starts at 642 and ends around 850, the 742 may just let everything through above 742….. if that’s correct then I think you could expect slightly more detail in the 642 but the 742 may be brighter due to more ir coming through

Thank you for the explanation. So are you using 1.25" filters? After reading the Astronomic site for the 642 I'm wondering what the difference is between it and the 742. Looks like I'll need to add another filter to the kit.



#40 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 02:02 PM

Btw… I don’t know this because I have not researched the 742… but the 642 starts at 642 and ends around 850, the 742 may just let everything through above 742….. if that’s correct then I think you could expect slightly more detail in the 642 but the 742 may be brighter due to more ir coming through

Sounds it does [742], i have it and i am so so happy with it

https://www.astronom...742-filter.html



#41 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 02:08 PM

Yeah, here is difference, I suspect the 642 would win on detail on planets and moon but the 742 would win if you were doing infrared dso

Attached Thumbnails

  • 30E2196F-66E9-4A3F-AF84-C69F62871DB6.png
  • C3D8156B-B9DE-46EF-B7CA-C21B5A44BA64.png


#42 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 02:21 PM

I have 742 and 685, and 742 is my choice, and i saw someone did test few filters of IR including those two and 642 and 805, and he concluded that the best results were from 685 and 742, he was testing planets as Jupiter/Saturn, i don't remember if he tested on the moon, but for me the moon is the easiest target in the sky.



#43 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 02:32 PM

My assumptions are based purely on the theory that longer wavelength ruin detail…. But it’s mathematical and does not take in to account all the different seeing conditions and equipment people are using…. So theoretically the 642nm ability to block above 850nm should result in finer detail under perfect conditions, just simple telescope/camera mismatch could skew the results easily im sure , and certain atmospheric conditions could also make a 850nm steady the atmosphere just enough more to make that filter win over the other two

I have 742 and 685, and 742 is my choice, and i saw someone did test few filters of IR including those two and 642 and 805, and he concluded that the best results were from 685 and 742, he was testing planets as Jupiter/Saturn, i don't remember if he tested on the moon, but for me the moon is the easiest target in the sky.



#44 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 02:53 PM

My assumptions are based purely on the theory that longer wavelength ruin detail…. But it’s mathematical and does not take in to account all the different seeing conditions and equipment people are using…. So theoretically the 642nm ability to block above 850nm should result in finer detail under perfect conditions, just simple telescope/camera mismatch could skew the results easily im sure , and certain atmospheric conditions could also make a 850nm steady the atmosphere just enough more to make that filter win over the other two

I got that 850 also, now i don't know if i should buy that 642 filter also based on your comment, and also with 642 if i use a color camera i won't have nicer colors really or not even nicer mono, so i feel like i don't know what i will use that 642 for, unless if finer details as you mentioned is what i want using good enough setup under nice seeing conditions and using a mono camera.



#45 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 22 July 2021 - 03:20 PM

I can only say that I get consistently better shots of the moon than I was getting with the 850 ….. but I look deep looking for fine detail, detail so small that you can’t even share it here…. Just about any resizing makes the benefits go away but I get a lot of personal satisfaction capturing those details… I pull up lunar reconnaissance orbiter photos to reference what I get or what I miss

I got that 850 also, now i don't know if i should buy that 642 filter also based on your comment, and also with 642 if i use a color camera i won't have nicer colors really or not even nicer mono, so i feel like i don't know what i will use that 642 for, unless if finer details as you mentioned is what i want using good enough setup under nice seeing conditions and using a mono camera.


  • dcaponeii likes this

#46 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 July 2021 - 05:05 PM

I can only say that I get consistently better shots of the moon than I was getting with the 850 ….. but I look deep looking for fine detail, detail so small that you can’t even share it here…. Just about any resizing makes the benefits go away but I get a lot of personal satisfaction capturing those details… I pull up lunar reconnaissance orbiter photos to reference what I get or what I miss

I understand, i already mentioned that 685 and 742 gave the best results of planets using IR over 805 and 850, i believe that 642 isn't much far from that, but i assume that was by using a mono camera, because when i used 685 or 742 with my color camera i liked the one from 742, even when i used 174mm that 742 was sharper, but maybe with a mono and 642 that could be finer details as you said, can't judge until seeing the results, and 462 or 464 are both color cameras anyway.



#47 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,519
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2021 - 02:01 AM

I've been searching and reading more posts and for now I'm going to stick with the visual spectrum and color images. Nice discussion on the IR pass world and at some point I may consider something like the 642 for some daytime mono imaging.



#48 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 23 July 2021 - 06:53 AM

I would say the main advantage is going to be the moon since color is not a big consideration…. The reason this works so well is it does settle bad seeing substantially….it’s a very noticeable difference in how much boiling is going on because the longer wavelengths of light are not as affected by atmospheric turbulence…. So it just allows you to capture luckier images, that applies to night and day

I've been searching and reading more posts and for now I'm going to stick with the visual spectrum and color images. Nice discussion on the IR pass world and at some point I may consider something like the 642 for some daytime mono imaging.


  • MarMax likes this

#49 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,501
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:00 AM

This is one comparison almost 3 years ago by someone

 

https://www.astrobin.../332925/?page=2

 

And another test of same person 2 years ago but without 642

 

https://www.astrobin...93988/C/?page=2



#50 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,516
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 23 July 2021 - 07:16 AM

The reason I take these with a grain of salt is the results vary so much by seeing… ie whether the 642 or 742 is sharper literally depends on the night your taking the shots…. Better seeing will result in a 642 win, worse seeing results in a 742 win…… and really bad seeing with make the 850 pull ahead

This is one comparison almost 3 years ago by someone

 

https://www.astrobin.../332925/?page=2

 

And another test of same person 2 years ago but without 642

 

https://www.astrobin...93988/C/?page=2




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