6.02
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Rodd, here I am again. Meanwhile I have reprocessed my M 13 a little bit, perhaps in that way you like more, not so fluffy and with black background and saturated crisp stars. If you like, take a view again: [url=http://  ]M 13 crop[/url] [url=http:// ]M 13 wider field[/url]I am still convinced, that there is no advantage to use a mono cam. The difference between our images is crucially due to your better than 17.5 sqm sky conditions and 3 arsec seeing I am forced to be pleased with.  Gotthard
|
 #... |
|---|
|
Much better--now if you can find a way to tame the core, you are there. that may not be possible, though, as there could be overexposure. Yes, the difference in our images is no doubt one of processing. I never said otherwise. Comparing data in finished images is meaningless (see note below). BTW--I did not say I like black background. I have no choice because my sky is very poor--if I do not drop the black point, noise and LP will remain. I much prefer a darker background than the smeariness of noise suppression. If you can avoid background below 23/23/23 or .07/.07/.07 (PS/PI), then more power to you. I often can't. Regarding the Mono/color debate. One thing is crystal clear....in poor skies, such as mine, OSC would be suicidal and far inferior to mono. In pristine dark sky sites, many agree with you, but there are still individuals that feel otherwise (I am among them but that is meaningless as I know nothing). Much depends on the quality of the camera. A back illuminated, well cooled, 16 bit, 90% efficient OSC with quite electronics may well be superior to a 60% efficient, front illuminated, poorly cooled, noisy mono camera. But assuming equal quality, I think the consensus is mono wins (as far as quality)--totally different answer if convenience is the over riding consideration. The question is not "are there great images taken with OSC", the question is "how much better would those images be if the imager used a mono camera". One MUST NOT compare finished images from different people. The only meaningful comparison is to compare linear, raw data that has not been processed or manipulated in any way (except for the debayer process--which I though must be done to OSC data. A comment on this thread, however, suggested that debayering was not required. Some other process was mentioned. There is no doubt overlap, but I feel the best data from a mono beats the best data from a OSC. Maybe its something like this: 50-90 for Mono and 40-80 for OSC. There is also a matter of consistency. If Mono is better in poor conditions, then the mono will be better more often. Regardless--since I have mono, the only way I would switch to OSC is if it offered a marked improvement potential. Even if it could be said to be as good--there would be no point for me to change (I care more about quality than convenience). Expense is a consideration--why should I spend thousands of dollars without the potential to get much better data? |
3.71
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello Rod, I 'm an old-hat at mono imaging with filters (25+ years), but pretty new with OSC. I have a mono QSI on my 11", but wanted to get into OSC on my 80mm. Our venerable "Mr. Eclipse", Fred Espenak, recommended the ZWO ASi183MC-pro - right-size array and pixel size. To date, I've only shot a few images from my location northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico, but with the learning curve of processing OSC images, I can at least recommend this camera. |
#... |
|---|
Steve Solon and Terry Chatterton: Yes--that is one OSC camera I have considered considering. But I really want a full frame sensor (QSY 600 or ASI 6200). The triumvirate for me is Aperture (big), Focal Ratio (Fast) and FOV (large). Focal length is a derivative of aperture and focal ratio. My dream scope would be a 600 mm, F5 scope with a big corrected FOV, a 50100 size sensor,and a .5x reducer. Any ideas? Oh....and it has to be a refractor! |
11.07
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos: Agree with that statement. How about this - By chance do you currently have 36mm filters? If so, they would fit the new QHY268M/ZWO2600 cameras. With those you get the same chip quality as the IMX455 and it is a bigger FOV than the old ASI1600 - though not full frame of course. Price-wise that would be a less bitter pill to swallow. |
 #... |
|---|
|
Rodd, The best toolbox is one that, budget permitting, has a wide selection of tools. Many technical and environmental factors are at play and have variability from night to night, making this not so much a binary decision of OSC or no OSC, but often one of selecting the best tool for the task as of right now, tonight, under the specific circumstances. Cheers, Jim PS Have you written your PixInsight post-processing book yet? |
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jim Lindelien: That sums it up just about perfectly. It also shines a light on my inflexibility. I am loath to make any change to me setup. Even if i had all the best tools, I would still no doubt limit myself to one (the one on the mount). Perhaps if I had lots of clear sky I would be more willing to make some changes. One change I want to make soon is to switch filters to the sty 8300 and get the C11edge on the mount (it has a self guiding filter wheel. The asi 1600 needs a guide scope). But I had trouble with that camera. I hope if still works.......a book? I still need to learn how to REALLY process!;) |
#... |
|---|
Hi Rodd, can you point me to any great images taken with a colour cam from a bortle 6 location? *hey Richard. How about Elmikos most rdd recent image of Regulas and dwarf galaxy. A Osc from bortle 7 and only 1.9 hours |
0.00
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Doug Summers: Depends on the target.
I'm currently 26 hours into an SNR project with my VSD100, and I'm likely going to need double this, just to have something to work with. |
#... |
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: The only problem with this is you need to buy 2 cameras instead of a camera and a filter wheel. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the mono and filters will provide superior color data all other things being equal. So to spend more and get less quality data is not the way I would want to go. Your results speak for themselves--but we can't compare your OSC with my mono. We need to compare your OSC with your mono. Do you have such a comparison? |
#... |
|---|
Kevin Morefield:Rodd Dryfoos: Just saw this Kevin--yes, that is precisely what I want to do--the ZWO 2600 (though I hear the Altair is much better). Money is tight though. Its a dream. Maybe I should sell one of my refractors. either the np101is or FSQ 106 EDX IV. Wekll see. The FSQ is currently in Japan being fixed--it was always off and they finally agreed weith me and off it went. If it is not 110% when I get it back--goodbye. Though it will be hard not to replace it. |
|
11.07
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Rodd Dryfoos:Kevin Morefield:Rodd Dryfoos: Well, if the FSQ is working correctly after the repair you can probably sell it for $7000 or more. Prices are up and wait times on new equipment are crazy. |
