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

#51 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,533
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,533
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,533
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 23 July 2021 - 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!



#57 Ittaku

Ittaku

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,499
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Posted 24 July 2021 - 04:34 AM

I have a 642BP, 742LP, 807LP, 850LP and CH4 filters for infrared. When the seeing is good enough for the 642 to produce the sharpest results, it is also good enough for colour imaging. The 807 is a little softer than the 742 and the 850 doesn't really capture as much light so gets noisier. So I've consolidated on using the 742 for an IR image given I have way too many cameras and too many filters to decide what to do. If the colour is below average, the 742 still looks very good. Your mileage may vary...


Edited by Ittaku, 24 July 2021 - 04:34 AM.


#58 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 24 July 2021 - 07:55 AM

Regardless of which people choose, it is pretty remarkable how well these filters combat the atmosphere. With so few clear nights it becomes inevitable that you will be out trying to capture something when conditions are bad……. And it’s also a pleasure imaging in the afternoon and mornings, it’s something that makes the 462c such an advance in our hobby. It’s not something many do right now but as more chips get released with high IR sensitivity I think more people will start their sessions way before sunset. I’ll often go out around 4pm and image the moon and then just leave everything set up and go back in to process those images while waiting for dark.



#59 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:23 PM

I just ordered a ProPlanet 742. I'd like to do more imaging of the Moon and especially daytime from the 20-50% phase after the new Moon.

 

EDITED to add that with the 464 sensor and the C11 at about f/4 using the f/3.3 reducer it looks like I'll need to do six panels to get a full disc Moon.


Edited by MarMax, 24 July 2021 - 08:26 PM.

  • TareqPhoto likes this

#60 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • Posts: 7,533
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:27 PM

I just ordered a ProPlanet 742. I'd like to do more imaging of the Moon and especially daytime from the 20-50% phase after the new Moon.

 

EDITED to add that with the 464 sensor and the C11 at about f/4 using the f/3.3 reducer it looks like I'll need to do six panels to get a full disc Moon.

Congratulations, good choice! waytogo.gif



#61 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 24 July 2021 - 09:13 PM

Yeah it’s still a small chip for long fl scopes but it will still be cool to capture more than the 462, also I’ve refrained from actually cropping my 462 photos so far but that’s a whole new creative avenue to go down because I have had some excellent nights over the past year so I could create some artistic framing for detail overlooked when you post larger areas….. I really should be doing that with as many cloudy nights as I’ve had lately

I just ordered a ProPlanet 742. I'd like to do more imaging of the Moon and especially daytime from the 20-50% phase after the new Moon.

 

EDITED to add that with the 464 sensor and the C11 at about f/4 using the f/3.3 reducer it looks like I'll need to do six panels to get a full disc Moon.



#62 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 24 July 2021 - 09:20 PM

The unfortunate reality is I delete my sers almost right after processing because I’m working off a 512 mb drive, I think if you wanted to severely crop your photos you would need to have those and crop before going through the processing routine… guess I should invest in a giant drive to at least have some reasonable archive of sers I know turned out well…. Wish I could afford this hobby just a little better…. Lots of money



#63 MarMax

MarMax

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
  • Joined: 27 May 2020
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 July 2021 - 12:01 PM

Other than the sensor size, is there any significant difference between the 462 and 464?

 

I'm asking because it would be nice to have an idea of a starting point for some settings. I'm not sure if this is top secret stuff that's not shared, but if it's an open topic it would be nice to have some suggestions on settings for say Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and full disc Moon.

 

It's been cloudy here so I've not been able to do much with the 464 the past week. I did buy a new laptop and that should make things easier. No more glitchy screen to deal with. If I understand SharpCap the target name capture profiles are not populated with anything until you modify them.

 

I did install FireCapture as well but I've not really used it.



#64 GSBass

GSBass

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,536
  • Joined: 21 May 2020
  • Loc: South Carolina

Posted 26 July 2021 - 03:34 PM

As far as I can tell size is only difference…. Looking at my forecast it looks like weds night/Thursday morning will be my first opportunity to image with the new cam

Other than the sensor size, is there any significant difference between the 462 and 464?

 

I'm asking because it would be nice to have an idea of a starting point for some settings. I'm not sure if this is top secret stuff that's not shared, but if it's an open topic it would be nice to have some suggestions on settings for say Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and full disc Moon.

 

It's been cloudy here so I've not been able to do much with the 464 the past week. I did buy a new laptop and that should make things easier. No more glitchy screen to deal with. If I understand SharpCap the target name capture profiles are not populated with anything until you modify them.

 

I did install FireCapture as well but I've not really used it.




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