Combining OSC with Mono

#...

· 1 like

Wei-Hao Wang:
I can provide real word example of mono RGB vs OSC. The mono is even cooled, and the OSC uncooled.

Take a look at the first post here without further reading down:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/858009-cooled-mono-astro-camera-vs-modified-dslrmirrorless/
And guess which one is OSC, which one is mono. Same exposure time, same scope, same condition.

Did you guess right?

*** its compelling and i coudnt separate the two ***

7.56 andrea tasselli #... · view views · 2 likes
Wei-Hao Wang: This works, and can work very well. Many people add Ha, or OIII, or SII to their RGB images. (There are many different workflows for this.) And RGB images from OSC are no different from RGB images taken with mono camera and RGB filters. You can even go as far as using an image from mono as L and an image from OSC as RGB to do LRGB composition, like this one of mine recently. If you are taking RGB broadband color images, there is no hard evidence (at least I haven't seen) that a modern good OSC is much less efficient than a mono with RGB filters. Of course for narrow-band works, OSC can be much less efficient. You are quite damn right and I did experiment with both pure L(Mono) and RGB(OSC) and L(Mono)+L(synthetic from OSC) and obviously OSC RGB data (for the color layer) and it works a treat. SNR should be close or on par with RGB filters on Mono while efficiency (time per given SNR) way in favour of OSC. The only problem I do have is changing the camera while mantaining the same orientation (but I'm working on it...). Edited ... Like

7.56

#...

· 2 likes

Wei-Hao Wang:
This works, and can work very well. Many people add Ha, or OIII, or SII to their RGB images. (There are many different workflows for this.) And RGB images from OSC are no different from RGB images taken with mono camera and RGB filters. You can even go as far as using an image from mono as L and an image from OSC as RGB to do LRGB composition, like this one of mine recently.

If you are taking RGB broadband color images, there is no hard evidence (at least I haven't seen) that a modern good OSC is much less efficient than a mono with RGB filters. Of course for narrow-band works, OSC can be much less efficient.

You are quite damn right and I did experiment with both pure L(Mono) and RGB(OSC) and L(Mono)+L(synthetic from OSC) and obviously OSC RGB data (for the color layer) and it works a treat. SNR should be close or on par with RGB filters on Mono while efficiency (time per given SNR) way in favour of OSC. The only problem I do have is changing the camera while mantaining the same orientation (but I'm working on it...).

Edited ...

2.15 Rob Kiefer #... · view views · 1 like
I do it constantly. I started off with a OSC (QHY268C). However, I quickly realised the limitations using dual narrowband filters with OSC and bought a Mono as well (QHY268M). Now I use the OSC for my star colours, RGB imaging in general and the Mono for LUM and narrowband, or feeding my OSC with Ha etc. This works very well for me. However, I cannot make any statements of how much I "loses" not doing RGB with M as well (I am not having any RGB filters, so cannot test). The advantage using OSC for me is, that at the end of a session, I have a set of data. My weather conditions are poor and I have very limited imaging time, so at least after one session I have some data to play around with (with M - I already have some projects sitting there waiting for next year to be continued...) . I have no calibration issues using OSC, PI does this for me, no rotation issues, NINA sorts this out and combining both works very well. CS, Rob Like

2.15

Rob Kiefer

#...

· 1 like

I do it constantly. I started off with a OSC (QHY268C). However, I quickly realised the limitations using dual narrowband filters with OSC and bought a Mono as well (QHY268M). Now I use the OSC for my star colours, RGB imaging in general and the Mono for LUM and narrowband, or feeding my OSC with Ha etc. This works very well for me. However, I cannot make any statements of how much I "loses" not doing RGB with M as well (I am not having any RGB filters, so cannot test).

The advantage using OSC for me is, that at the end of a session, I have a set of data. My weather conditions are poor and I have very limited imaging time, so at least after one session I have some data to play around with (with M - I already have some projects sitting there waiting for next year to be continued...) . I have no calibration issues using OSC, PI does this for me, no rotation issues, NINA sorts this out and combining both works very well.
CS, Rob

0.00 Don #... · view views · 1 like
This is my first post here on Astrobin. I have 2 OSC cameras and 2 mono cameras. I mix data all of the time, occasionally from all 4 cameras. I guess straight mono produces the best SNR, but other factors count too. I often have 2 scopes pointed at the same target, one shooting mono, the other OSC. The final image will be a combo of both. Usually a base image and stars from the OSC, and supplemental details from the mono camera. I put it all together with Siril and Photoshop. (I don’t use PI). Plenty of images in my gallery are done this way. Like

0.00

Don

#...

· 1 like

This is my first post here on Astrobin.

I have 2 OSC cameras and 2 mono cameras. I mix data all of the time, occasionally from all 4 cameras. I guess straight mono produces the best SNR, but other factors count too. I often have 2 scopes pointed at the same target, one shooting mono, the other OSC. The final image will be a combo of both. Usually a base image and stars from the OSC, and supplemental details from the mono camera. I put it all together with Siril and Photoshop. (I don’t use PI). Plenty of images in my gallery are done this way.

8.59 Jon Rista #... · view views · 4 likes
Coolhandjo: Wei-Hao Wang: I can provide real word example of mono RGB vs OSC. The mono is even cooled, and the OSC uncooled. Take a look at the first post here without further reading down: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/858009-cooled-mono-astro-camera-vs-modified-dslrmirrorless/ And guess which one is OSC, which one is mono. Same exposure time, same scope, same condition. Did you guess right? * its compelling and i coudnt separate the two * Wei-Hao shared this on another thread on CN. It is definitely possible to guess which is which, if you understand the underlying characteristics of the kind of noise and signal profile each sensor. I've spent a lot of time analyzing a lot of image data from a lot of people over the years, which gives some insight into what the data looks like from each kind of camera. CCD vs. CMOS, mono vs. OSC, etc. I was able to guess which was which (I will not provide the answer here) based on two key factors: 1. Noise characteristics 2. Color characteristics OSC can do very well, and its efficiency depends on the Q.E. of the sensor, and the nature of the OSC filters. Not every OSC camera is the same from a filter standpoint. Some use richer color dyes in the CFA, some use weaker. The richer the dyes, the more narrow the bandpasses will usually be, and the more pure the color from each, while the weaker, the more bell-curve shaped and overlapped the filters will be, and how pure the colors in each will be. Filter transmission in OSC is lower than a lot of RGB filters used with monochrome cameras, however...most of the time those filters are interference filters, which provide just about 100% transmission but have hard-edged cutoffs for bandwidth. OSC filter bandpasses usually overlap, and the greater the degree of overlap, the wider the bandpasses, the more light passes through. OSC's lower CFA transmission is usually offset somewhat or wholly by passing more light per channel. OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do. Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC. Like

8.59

#...

· 4 likes

Coolhandjo:
Wei-Hao Wang:
I can provide real word example of mono RGB vs OSC. The mono is even cooled, and the OSC uncooled.

Take a look at the first post here without further reading down:
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/858009-cooled-mono-astro-camera-vs-modified-dslrmirrorless/
And guess which one is OSC, which one is mono. Same exposure time, same scope, same condition.

Did you guess right?

*** its compelling and i coudnt separate the two ***

Wei-Hao shared this on another thread on CN. It is definitely possible to guess which is which, if you understand the underlying characteristics of the kind of noise and signal profile each sensor. I've spent a lot of time analyzing a lot of image data from a lot of people over the years, which gives some insight into what the data looks like from each kind of camera. CCD vs. CMOS, mono vs. OSC, etc. I was able to guess which was which (I will not provide the answer here) based on two key factors:

1. Noise characteristics
2. Color characteristics

OSC can do very well, and its efficiency depends on the Q.E. of the sensor, and the nature of the OSC filters. Not every OSC camera is the same from a filter standpoint. Some use richer color dyes in the CFA, some use weaker. The richer the dyes, the more narrow the bandpasses will usually be, and the more pure the color from each, while the weaker, the more bell-curve shaped and overlapped the filters will be, and how pure the colors in each will be. Filter transmission in OSC is lower than a lot of RGB filters used with monochrome cameras, however...most of the time those filters are interference filters, which provide just about 100% transmission but have hard-edged cutoffs for bandwidth. OSC filter bandpasses usually overlap, and the greater the degree of overlap, the wider the bandpasses, the more light passes through. OSC's lower CFA transmission is usually offset somewhat or wholly by passing more light per channel.

OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do.

Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC.

7.56 andrea tasselli #... · view views · 1 like
Jon Rista: OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do. Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC. I'd disagree with most if not all that is said above as far as broadband imaging is concerned. And as I have several hundreds of images and thousands of hours worth of time spent under light polluted skies using both mono and OSC cameras I feel I can pass some judgment about that. OSC camera aren't intrinsically worse in handling light pollution than are mono cameras and usage of LP suppression filter or NB filters greatly helps in the endeavor, especially given the current development of processing tools (see Graxpert and such). So the question boils down on efficiency in use when your imaging opportunities a few and far in between. In this case OSC cannot be beaten in terms of being the most efficient in use (rather than just in abstract sense). And, let's be honest, LRGB is a kludge. Like

7.56

#...

· 1 like

Jon Rista:
OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do.

Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC.

I'd disagree with most if not all that is said above as far as broadband imaging is concerned. And as I have several hundreds of images and thousands of hours worth of time spent under light polluted skies using both mono and OSC cameras I feel I can pass some judgment about that. OSC camera aren't intrinsically worse in handling light pollution than are mono cameras and usage of LP suppression filter or NB filters greatly helps in the endeavor, especially given the current development of processing tools (see Graxpert and such). So the question boils down on efficiency in use when your imaging opportunities a few and far in between. In this case OSC cannot be beaten in terms of being the most efficient in use (rather than just in abstract sense). And, let's be honest, LRGB is a kludge.

1.81 Stjepan Prugovečki #... · view views · 2 likes
Combining OSC and mono data definitely works (almost all my recent images are made like that, they are not IOTD , but are reasonable I think) Yes, the color resolution of OSC is worse, yes mono is faster, but if you have two setups one with mono one with OSC, combination is possible. I am running 2setups in parallel imaging the same target. I get RGB images (stars) and dualband from OSC and for example narrowband from mono and combine dualband and narrowband. Would it be better if done on 2 mono cameras? Most likely, but I do not have 2 mono setups. The other way to combine is to do luminance on mono and RGB on OSC. If you do not plan to use 2 cameras in parallel , than it is perhaps the best to sell OSC and buy mono and filters, or do nothing as with your current camera you can make nice images (takes a bit more time though) Like

1.81

Stjepan Prugovečki

#...

· 2 likes

Combining OSC and mono data definitely works (almost all my recent images are made like that, they are not IOTD , but are reasonable I think) Yes, the color resolution of OSC is worse, yes mono is faster, but if you have two setups one with mono one with OSC, combination is possible. I am running 2setups in parallel imaging the same target. I get RGB images (stars) and dualband from OSC and for example narrowband from mono and combine dualband and narrowband. Would it be better if done on 2 mono cameras? Most likely, but I do not have 2 mono setups. The other way to combine is to do luminance on mono and RGB on OSC. If you do not plan to use 2 cameras in parallel , than it is perhaps the best to sell OSC and buy mono and filters, or do nothing as with your current camera you can make nice images (takes a bit more time though)

8.59 Jon Rista #... · view views · 4 likes
andrea tasselli: Jon Rista: OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do. Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC. I'd disagree with most if not all that is said above as far as broadband imaging is concerned. And as I have several hundreds of images and thousands of hours worth of time spent under light polluted skies using both mono and OSC cameras I feel I can pass some judgment about that. OSC camera aren't intrinsically worse in handling light pollution than are mono cameras and usage of LP suppression filter or NB filters greatly helps in the endeavor, especially given the current development of processing tools (see Graxpert and such). So the question boils down on efficiency in use when your imaging opportunities a few and far in between. In this case OSC cannot be beaten in terms of being the most efficient in use (rather than just in abstract sense). And, let's be honest, LRGB is a kludge. You are free to disagree... That doesn't mean that I am wrong, though. ;) It just means you have an opinion. I agree that LRGB can be a kludge...but, I didn't say LRGB. ;) I said RGB. I've been at this hobby for over a decade and have plenty of experience under my belt. I've processed many, many thousands of hours worth of data of a very wide variety. I've been helping people process data since 2014, 2015 and have had hundreds of people come to me for assistance. Many hundreds of data sets, spanning the spectrum of quality, equipment and skies. I've processed data from systems costing hundreds of thousands all the way through processing data from point and shoot cameras on fixed tripods, and everything inbetween. I'll stand by what I said above. Processing tools can only work within the range of the quality of the data you acquire, even AI. It cannot create something you don't have (at least, not something you could call "acquired" rather than generated, and don't get me started on generative AI), and they can only be pushed so far before they break down the image quality. As someone who started in this hobby over 10 years ago but was out of the game the last couple of years, I'm quite frankly a bit dismayed at the general decline in the state of the hobby and quality of images produced now. I don't believe AI has really helped there...in fact, I think it is helping speed the decline. Just because you can fiddle with a few knobs and then let an artificial "intelligence" do all the really hard work for you, doesn't make you an expert image processor, or expert in IQ in general. These modern AI powered tools are certainly intriguing, but the sheer volume of overprocessed results also speaks to their limitations...your profile and most of its images being quite demonstrative of the very issues with OSC that I've mentioned here. There is a particular look to light polluted OSC images, one I am quite familiar with...one you should be too. The problem is not just efficiency. You may be familiar with the saying "Quality over quantity?" You certainly have quantity....but do you have quality? Quality requires more care, more time, more effort, more determination, and more interest, than sucking down as much poor quality light as you can as fast as you can and shoving it into the digital maw of AI. That is the sadly declined state of modern astrophotography, it seems. Feed the AI. There is more to astrophotography than cranking out as many mediocre images as you can as fast as you can. But please, feel free to continue to disagree. ;) Like

8.59

#...

· 4 likes

andrea tasselli:
Jon Rista:
OSC for RGB and mono for NB can certainly work great! My recommendation would in fact be to use Bayer Drizzle to integrate your OSC RGB data. That will distribute the OSC color data into a final integration in a manner that will produce a noise profile more similar to the NB mono data, which should produce a better noise profile in the end once you combine them. You do not necessarily need to increase the resolution while drizzling, its just that the way bayer drizzle works it distributes the information in such a way that produces a different kind of noise profile than normal debayering algorithms do.

Now, all the above said, OSC under light polluted skies, is not necessarily the best option. If you have the ability to use dark skies, or better LIVE under dark skies, then OSC is great, especially bayer drizzled, and it will combine fine with mono NB data. However I've always found that OSC under light polluted skies ends up being more effort than its worth. The overlapping bandpasses can complicate LP issues, gradients are usually not just simple linear brighter to darker gradinets that are easy to remove, but instead often involve complex multi-scale structured complexity that makes them a real pain to remove. If you do live under light polluted skies, not because of any inherent inefficiency in "all" OSC cameras, but just because of the way their filters work and overlap, you might be better off selling the OSC camera, and replacing it with another mono camera and just doing RGB imaging with that, while you do NB imaging with the other (if you can image with both at the same time.) Mono channels will allow you to deal with gradients in each channel independently, which is often easier than trying to unravel them from all the overlapping channels of OSC.

I'd disagree with most if not all that is said above as far as broadband imaging is concerned. And as I have several hundreds of images and thousands of hours worth of time spent under light polluted skies using both mono and OSC cameras I feel I can pass some judgment about that. OSC camera aren't intrinsically worse in handling light pollution than are mono cameras and usage of LP suppression filter or NB filters greatly helps in the endeavor, especially given the current development of processing tools (see Graxpert and such). So the question boils down on efficiency in use when your imaging opportunities a few and far in between. In this case OSC cannot be beaten in terms of being the most efficient in use (rather than just in abstract sense). And, let's be honest, LRGB is a kludge.

You are free to disagree... That doesn't mean that I am wrong, though. ;) It just means you have an opinion.

I agree that LRGB can be a kludge...but, I didn't say LRGB. ;) I said RGB. I've been at this hobby for over a decade and have plenty of experience under my belt. I've processed many, many thousands of hours worth of data of a very wide variety. I've been helping people process data since 2014, 2015 and have had hundreds of people come to me for assistance. Many hundreds of data sets, spanning the spectrum of quality, equipment and skies. I've processed data from systems costing hundreds of thousands all the way through processing data from point and shoot cameras on fixed tripods, and everything inbetween. I'll stand by what I said above.

Processing tools can only work within the range of the quality of the data you acquire, even AI. It cannot create something you don't have (at least, not something you could call "acquired" rather than generated, and don't get me started on generative AI), and they can only be pushed so far before they break down the image quality. As someone who started in this hobby over 10 years ago but was out of the game the last couple of years, I'm quite frankly a bit dismayed at the general decline in the state of the hobby and quality of images produced now. I don't believe AI has really helped there...in fact, I think it is helping speed the decline. Just because you can fiddle with a few knobs and then let an artificial "intelligence" do all the really hard work for you, doesn't make you an expert image processor, or expert in IQ in general. These modern AI powered tools are certainly intriguing, but the sheer volume of overprocessed results also speaks to their limitations...your profile and most of its images being quite demonstrative of the very issues with OSC that I've mentioned here. There is a particular look to light polluted OSC images, one I am quite familiar with...one you should be too.

The problem is not just efficiency. You may be familiar with the saying "Quality over quantity?" You certainly have quantity....but do you have quality? Quality requires more care, more time, more effort, more determination, and more interest, than sucking down as much poor quality light as you can as fast as you can and shoving it into the digital maw of AI. That is the sadly declined state of modern astrophotography, it seems. Feed the AI. There is more to astrophotography than cranking out as many mediocre images as you can as fast as you can.

But please, feel free to continue to disagree. ;)

8.59 Jon Rista #... · view views · 1 like
Coolhandjo: I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii? I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine. Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good? Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies? Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort. Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c. With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest. Like

8.59

#...

· 1 like

Coolhandjo:
I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii?

I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine.

Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good?

Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies?

Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort.

Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c.

With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest.

1.20 Rodrigo Roesch #... · view views · 1 like
I do that. I have both ASI 294mm and ASI 294MC. I usually take Narrow band with the 294mm and then take color images to add the stars or sometimes I use the 294mm to take the L channel and the color for the RBG portion, or to build a HaRGB image Like

11.91 Arun H #... · view views · 2 likes
There's also quite noticeable losses in light gathering behind the CFA filters compared to the same colour filter on a mono camera (on a per pixel level with the same colour filter). I don't think this is accurate. Remember that the transmission curves for the mono color filters have to be multiplied with the QE of the mono sensor. When you do this. and consider that the bandpasses of the RGB filters in the OSC have overlap and are wider than the sharp cutoffs you see in the mono color filters, at least some analyses show an efficiency advantage for OSC for RGB (note: not LRGB) imaging. See for example, John Upton's posts on CN from a few years ago. Obviously, it would depend on the specific OSC under consideration, but I think the Sony sensors do have significant spectal overlaps. In answer to the OP's question, I have used the combinations both for LRGB ( L from Mono and RGB from OSC) and H-alpha from Mono and RGB from OSC, and have generally been satisfied with the results. The broader OSC bandpasses work against you if you are imaging from a light polluted site, so the best use for the OSC would be if you are imaging from or have access to a dark site. Like

11.91

Arun H

#...

· 2 likes

There's also quite noticeable losses in light gathering behind the CFA filters compared to the same colour filter on a mono camera (on a per pixel level with the same colour filter).

I don't think this is accurate. Remember that the transmission curves for the mono color filters have to be multiplied with the QE of the mono sensor. When you do this. and consider that the bandpasses of the RGB filters in the OSC have overlap and are wider than the sharp cutoffs you see in the mono color filters, at least some analyses show an efficiency advantage for OSC for RGB (note: not LRGB) imaging. See for example, John Upton's posts on CN from a few years ago. Obviously, it would depend on the specific OSC under consideration, but I think the Sony sensors do have significant spectal overlaps.

In answer to the OP's question, I have used the combinations both for LRGB ( L from Mono and RGB from OSC) and H-alpha from Mono and RGB from OSC, and have generally been satisfied with the results. The broader OSC bandpasses work against you if you are imaging from a light polluted site, so the best use for the OSC would be if you are imaging from or have access to a dark site.

7.56 andrea tasselli #... · view views · 1 like
Jon Rista: You are free to disagree... That doesn't mean that I am wrong, though. ;) It just means you have an opinion. Actually, it means my experience is leading me to disagree with some of your previous statements, but not all, mind you. And I have a quarter of century under my belt so this might not count for nothing. But let's say we agree to disagree whether some of the statements are true or not. In the province of LP effects on OSC imaging I disagree. Like

7.56

#...

· 1 like

Jon Rista:
You are free to disagree... That doesn't mean that I am wrong, though. ;) It just means you have an opinion.

Actually, it means my experience is leading me to disagree with some of your previous statements, but not all, mind you. And I have a quarter of century under my belt so this might not count for nothing. But let's say we agree to disagree whether some of the statements are true or not. In the province of LP effects on OSC imaging I disagree.

1.91 Coolhandjo #... · view views
Jon Rista: Coolhandjo: I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii? I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine. Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good? Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies? Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort. Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c. With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest. * T Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! * Like

1.91

#...

Jon Rista:
Coolhandjo:
I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii?

I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine.

Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good?

Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies?

Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort.

Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c.

With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest.

*** T
Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! ***

1.91 Coolhandjo #... · view views · 1 like
Thanks all. these answers are excellent and help greatly! I will get a 533mmpro and add it to my 533mcpro. I cant lose either way becuase I will have both then. I can then test it out and if I like it I can then decide on the next big upgrade pathway. To be honest I imaged CCD Mono back in the day and when the latest generation of OSC came out I said I would NEVER go back to mono but....... there is an edge given by mono under certain circumstances in some targets and in some conditions so having both cant hurt! Like

1.91

#...

· 1 like

Thanks all. these answers are excellent and help greatly! I will get a 533mmpro and add it to my 533mcpro. I cant lose either way becuase I will have both then. I can then test it out and if I like it I can then decide on the next big upgrade pathway. To be honest I imaged CCD Mono back in the day and when the latest generation of OSC came out I said I would NEVER go back to mono but....... there is an edge given by mono under certain circumstances in some targets and in some conditions so having both cant hurt!

8.59 Jon Rista #... · view views · 1 like
Coolhandjo: Jon Rista: Coolhandjo: I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii? I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine. Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good? Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies? Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort. Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c. With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest. * T Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! * From the static viewpoint of a camera sensor, its really tough to get better than Bortle 4. That is my own dark site...unless I point due west into the Denver LP bubble. Due to variations in airglow, its pretty rare, at least as far as I've found tromping around the Colorado front range and plains for years, to get much darker than about 21.5mag/sq", even hundreds of miles from any big city. The difference of half a stellar mag, doesn't make a lot of difference to a camera sensor, and a full mag when you are already at a dark site, makes a minimal difference. You should be able to make the most of both cameras, IHMO. Like

8.59

#...

· 1 like

Coolhandjo:
Jon Rista:
Coolhandjo:
I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii?

I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine.

Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good?

Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies?

Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort.

Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c.

With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest.

*** T
Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! ***

From the static viewpoint of a camera sensor, its really tough to get better than Bortle 4. That is my own dark site...unless I point due west into the Denver LP bubble. Due to variations in airglow, its pretty rare, at least as far as I've found tromping around the Colorado front range and plains for years, to get much darker than about 21.5mag/sq", even hundreds of miles from any big city. The difference of half a stellar mag, doesn't make a lot of difference to a camera sensor, and a full mag when you are already at a dark site, makes a minimal difference. You should be able to make the most of both cameras, IHMO.

8.02 Reg Pratt #... · view views
Coolhandjo: Thanks! so when you say low efficiency was it degrading the overall image? What I meant was the fact that color cameras can't collect as much light in a given amount of time as mono. The Bayer matrix reduces incoming light for one. Second, each pixel of a color camera is divided into 4 subpixels 1 red, 2 green, 1 blue (RGGB) is the most common configuration. So when collecting light only 25% of the sub pixels are collecting red photos, 50% green, and 25% blue. With a mono camera there is no Bayer matrix and the entire chip is being used to collect light with a given filter. This means in a given amount of time a mono camera with a red filter collects 75% more light than an osc. Mono with a green filter collects 50% more light. Mono with a blue filter collects 75% more light. So a mono camera can collect more photos in less time than a color camera making them much more efficient. This is not to say that OSC is bad. Just that it is less efficient. Which is best will depend on the individual, their goals, and their preferences. Like

8.02

Reg Pratt

#...

Coolhandjo:
Thanks! so when you say low efficiency was it degrading the overall image?

What I meant was the fact that color cameras can't collect as much light in a given amount of time as mono. The Bayer matrix reduces incoming light for one. Second, each pixel of a color camera is divided into 4 subpixels 1 red, 2 green, 1 blue (RGGB) is the most common configuration. So when collecting light only 25% of the sub pixels are collecting red photos, 50% green, and 25% blue.

With a mono camera there is no Bayer matrix and the entire chip is being used to collect light with a given filter. This means in a given amount of time a mono camera with a red filter collects 75% more light than an osc. Mono with a green filter collects 50% more light. Mono with a blue filter collects 75% more light. So a mono camera can collect more photos in less time than a color camera making them much more efficient.

This is not to say that OSC is bad. Just that it is less efficient. Which is best will depend on the individual, their goals, and their preferences.

1.91 Coolhandjo #... · view views
Jon Rista (jrista) Coolhandjo: Jon Rista: Coolhandjo: I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii? I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine. Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good? Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies? Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort. Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c. With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest. * T Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! * From the static viewpoint of a camera sensor, its really tough to get better than Bortle 4. That is my own dark site...unless I point due west into the Denver LP bubble. Due to variations in airglow, its pretty rare, at least as far as I've found tromping around the Colorado front range and plains for years, to get much darker than about 21.5mag/sq", even hundreds of miles from any big city. The difference of half a stellar mag, doesn't make a lot of difference to a camera sensor, and a full mag when you are already at a dark site, makes a minimal difference. You should be able to make the most of both cameras, IHMO. * here is my sky showing the difference in Bortle* Like

1.91

#...

Jon Rista (jrista)
Coolhandjo:
Jon Rista:
Coolhandjo:
I am wondering if anyone would recommend combining OSC data with Mono data. in particular OSC for RGB and Mono for Narrowband Ha Oii Sii?

I have a 533mcpro and want to get a 533 mm pro. trying to do away with rgb filters for the MM and simply combine.

Anyone has any examples or techniques on how that would be good?

Joe, I am curious what your skies are like? Do you live under dark skies, or light polluted skies?

Also, I'm curious what your ultimate goals are in the long run with combining OSC data with NB data. Depending on exactly what kind of skies you have, this can work exceptionally well, well, or it could be that low quality OSC data might not be worth the effort.

Your images appear to be pretty good, and it looks like most were created with the MC camera. Based on that, and the IQ, I'm going to assume you at least live under reasonably dark skies, even if they are a little light polluted. Given that, I think OSC could work very well for you, unless I've just totally misjudged your skies. IMO, OSC can produce some of the best images around under dark skies, with a better diversity of color than your standard mono+LRGB or even mono+RGB (if they are standard square-cutoff interference filters). Mono might surpass, if you use a better set of filters, something that overlaps, like the J-C BVR filters or maybe Astronomik Type-2c.

With reasonably dark skies, I think you could do some amazing things with your MC for RGB and an MM+NB filters for the rest.

*** T
Thanks Jon. I live in Bortle 4 east Bortle 5 zenith Bortle 6 west becuase I live on the coast so i have fairly dark sky as you deduced! YOur rsponse helps a lot! ***

From the static viewpoint of a camera sensor, its really tough to get better than Bortle 4. That is my own dark site...unless I point due west into the Denver LP bubble. Due to variations in airglow, its pretty rare, at least as far as I've found tromping around the Colorado front range and plains for years, to get much darker than about 21.5mag/sq", even hundreds of miles from any big city. The difference of half a stellar mag, doesn't make a lot of difference to a camera sensor, and a full mag when you are already at a dark site, makes a minimal difference. You should be able to make the most of both cameras, IHMO.

*** here is my sky showing the difference in Bortle***

7.56 andrea tasselli #... · view views · 3 likes
Reg Pratt: With a mono camera there is no Bayer matrix and the entire chip is being used to collect light with a given filter. This means in a given amount of time a mono camera with a red filter collects 75% more light than an osc. Mono with a green filter collects 50% more light. Mono with a blue filter collects 75% more light. So a mono camera can collect more photos in less time than a color camera making them much more efficient. Nonsense. You are mixing spatial sampling with photon collection. For each single pixel the mono (with filters) is not more efficient and in fact is less efficient than OSC (organic dyes have broader response curves than typical interference filters). The remainder of the field is dealt with interpolation and, possibly, drizzle. Like

7.56