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
55 replies to this topic

#51 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,253
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted Yesterday, 07:46 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

How does that really count? If nicer seeing 642 win then it will win in another bad seeing, so the winner is changeable, in this case no filter is a winner, it is exactly the same topic about which aperture to use for planetary, and many said that aperture rules only if seeing is nice excellent, so if it is bad poor then 6" will do better or a winner over 14" scope, this is like changing Physics, but to make a conclusion, for a color camera go with IR longer than 680um, for mono go with shorter than 650um, and for poor seeing go with 800 and with excellent seeing go with 600, so no one choice here because it is always excellent to poor seeing everywhere.



#52 GSBass

GSBass

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,973
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted Yesterday, 08:10 AM

Only way to describe what I’m saying is

 

shorter wavelegths = more detail , atmospheric disturbances affect shorter wavelengths the most….. therefore in good seeing shorter wavelength is best

 

the 642 is the shortest wavelength filter because it is narrowband…. It blocks longer wavelength above 850nm

 

the 742 and 850 let everything through above their number, these filters are better for bad seeing because atmospheric disturbances affect long wavelengths the least.

 

so this is why one filter will outperform another depending on which night you use it

How does that really count? If nicer seeing 642 win then it will win in another bad seeing, so the winner is changeable, in this case no filter is a winner, it is exactly the same topic about which aperture to use for planetary, and many said that aperture rules only if seeing is nice excellent, so if it is bad poor then 6" will do better or a winner over 14" scope, this is like changing Physics, but to make a conclusion, for a color camera go with IR longer than 680um, for mono go with shorter than 650um, and for poor seeing go with 800 and with excellent seeing go with 600, so no one choice here because it is always excellent to poor seeing everywhere.



#53 GSBass

GSBass

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,973
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted Yesterday, 08:18 AM

Just to expand on that…. The highest detail image is an ir/cut….. however that is rare to get because we hardly ever have perfect seeing and so all those fine detail short wavelengths get destroyed by atmospheric disturbances….. and of course that’s why we use infrared filters in the first place…. But if you get lucky and seeing is really great then you should avoid infrared completely



#54 MarMax

MarMax

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted Yesterday, 11:42 AM

And another "obvious" observation that I just realized is there is no point in an ADC once you move past a 642 and maybe even with it. I'll consider a 642 once I get some more time playing in the visual world with the ADC.

 

Great discussion so thank you GS and Tareq!


  • GSBass likes this

#55 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,253
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted Yesterday, 09:01 PM

Only way to describe what I’m saying is

 

shorter wavelegths = more detail , atmospheric disturbances affect shorter wavelengths the most….. therefore in good seeing shorter wavelength is best

 

the 642 is the shortest wavelength filter because it is narrowband…. It blocks longer wavelength above 850nm

 

the 742 and 850 let everything through above their number, these filters are better for bad seeing because atmospheric disturbances affect long wavelengths the least.

 

so this is why one filter will outperform another depending on which night you use it

Same what i nsaid, for excellent seeing shorter than 650mm or go longer if seeing isn't good, and that means my statement is still applicable as no filter is winner because the seeing is always changing, in my yard i swear i see nights as crystal clear i even don't need any filter, and another night i must use 742 or 850 to make it, and for now my sharpest moon result i have was from 174 with 742.

 

I don't have 642 in particular, but i do have 500 green bandpass filter and 610 longpass and 685 and 742, i don't know why i avoided 642, but maybe because of that result i posted above or earlier that showed less details or sharpness with 642 so i thought it is not the best one to buy anyway, i will not jump and buy 642 yet, but i will keep it in mind.



#56 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,253
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted Yesterday, 09:02 PM

And another "obvious" observation that I just realized is there is no point in an ADC once you move past a 642 and maybe even with it. I'll consider a 642 once I get some more time playing in the visual world with the ADC.

 

Great discussion so thank you GS and Tareq!

You welcome!




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