#1  
Old 12-02-2013, 10:47 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Camera for Meade 12" ACF at f6.7?

Hello,

I could use a bit of advice. I'm thinking about trying to image through a 12" ACF. The camera I own is a Moravian G2-8300. I've worked out that if I bin 2x2 at f6.7 my image scale would be 1.11 arcsec. Not bad, but I don't know enough to know if this is just a compromise that in the end will give unsatisfactory results?

The only camera I have found so far that I might afford is the SBIG ST1603ME with 9 u pixels. At f6.7 this would put me at .92 arcsec with a 15.7 x 23.6 arcmin field of view. (the Kaf8300 = 25 x 33 arcmin field)

It would be nice to find something with the sensor size of the KAF8300 and 9 u or larger pixels, but does such a chip exist? At the moment a 16803 + large filters, new wheel is just beyond reach.

Do I just stick with the G2-8300? Thanks for any feedback on this!

Peter

Last edited by PRejto; 17-02-2013 at 09:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-02-2013, 08:40 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
Have you actually tried binning the 8300 yet? Got to be worth a try, although I have read in a few places that it has a bright star overload problem when binned, due possibly to limited capacity in the transfer registers - but of course that may be just another of the self perpetuating myths that populate the web. If on-chip binning presents problems, do it in software afterwards - not as good, since you will get extra read noise, but would fix any overload issues and still give a significant gain in sensitivity.

otherwise your options are limited to one of the 7-9 micron pixel Kodak chips. The 4000 or 11002 for example may be relatively affordable from the better second tier makers (eg Atik, Starlight Express). Read up on RBI before buying one though - it can affect some Kodak chips. (edit: but apparently not the interline transfer devices) You need to find an expert on Kodak chips.

Or to throw in something totally from left field, the only other chip that I can think of with big enough pixels is the QHY8/SX M25C, which is a sensitive OSC with usable Ha capability. It would give you a decent field of view and 0.85 pixel scale. would be ideal if was mono, but it might still be just worth looking at if the Kodak based cameras are totally out of reach.

Last edited by Shiraz; 18-02-2013 at 03:20 PM. Reason: add info
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-02-2013, 07:24 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Hi Ray!

I really appreciate your reply to what is now a slightly old post. "Old" only in the sense that I have been reading quite a lot and have other cameras to consider, such as the cameras with the KAI4022 CCD, and perhaps a ICX694 chip. I'm sure that last camera would raise eyebrows; I only mention it because over at CN there have been some big discussions re the "myth" about resolution vs FL if one images with a great mount and minimal required guiding meaning terrific polar alignment. I saw some images with the ICX694 taken a f10 (2000mm fl) that looked pretty decent to me. I think the argument runs along the lines that the CCD is much more sensitive thus allowing quicker sub capture which might minimise star bloating. Well, that's the theory anyway. I would appreciate some additional points of view re this logic, or lack thereof... I think the ICX694 would be a very good match for my TEC140, but then so is my KAF8300, so I wouldn't bother unless it was superior at longer FL.

Anyway, I would appreciate an opinion of the KAI04022. I read that it isn't very sensitive to red and Ha, but I've seen some beautiful images with this chip especially those by Dietmar Hager: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/41-465-0-0-1-0.html and http://www.stargazer-observatory.com/bilder/

Re the 8300, no, I have not tried it yet. I need adapters and a guiding solution and I just don't want to invest, find out it doesn't work so well, and start over. Thought I do some serious asking first. Re binning, If I read your comments correctly, binning at 2x2, or software binning to 2x2 would give similar results assuming the camera takes care of 2x2 binning correctly (or better results if the camera doesn't handle binning properly). But, wouldn't capturing at 2x2 be a lot quicker and allow shorter exposures? I wasn't aware that software binning could increase SN ratio. Can you please explain how that is done? I assume it isn't the same thing as just reducing image size 50% in photoshop...or is it?

EDIT: I found some huge posts on the subject of software binning at CN....I think I know enough now that no further comments are necessary. Like everything in this lovely hobby the answers are varied, complex, not exactly clear, and full of conditions. So what else is new?

Sorry for so many questions! Many thanks,
Peter

Last edited by PRejto; 18-02-2013 at 10:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-02-2013, 08:03 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,032
My understanding is the Meade Flattener/Reducer (which is what I am assuming you're using to get f6.3) doesn't work with the already corrected optics of the ACF scopes.

DT
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-02-2013, 09:19 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
My understanding is the Meade Flattener/Reducer (which is what I am assuming you're using to get f6.3) doesn't work with the already corrected optics of the ACF scopes.

DT
Correct, though there are a few posts that I've seen claiming it does. I decided to go with the AstroPhysics CCDT67.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-02-2013, 05:43 AM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,032
That reducer is more appropriate, but the illuminate circle is quite small, so you'll be limited to small chips like the KAF8300. Read the PDF one the AP site about how the distance between the reducer and the chip varies reduction and the illuminated circle - from my experience it is spot on.

I think you can use the bigger AP 2.7inch reducer on a Meade 12 inch because they have a 3 inch visual back.

DT
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-02-2013, 06:43 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
That reducer is more appropriate, but the illuminate circle is quite small, so you'll be limited to small chips like the KAF8300. Read the PDF one the AP site about how the distance between the reducer and the chip varies reduction and the illuminated circle - from my experience it is spot on.

I think you can use the bigger AP 2.7inch reducer on a Meade 12 inch because they have a 3 inch visual back.

DT
The small illumination circle is OK with me for now. I don't have a camera, nor can I afford one at the moment, that would take advantage of a larger FOV.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-02-2013, 11:20 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto View Post
Hi Ray!

I really appreciate your reply to what is now a slightly old post. "Old" only in the sense that I have been reading quite a lot and have other cameras to consider, such as the cameras with the KAI04022 CCD, and perhaps a ICX694 chip. I'm sure that last camera would raise eyebrows; I only mention it because over at CN there have been some big discussions re the "myth" about resolution vs FL if one images with a great mount and minimal required guiding meaning terrific polar alignment. I saw some images with the ICX694 taken a f10 (2000mm fl) that looked pretty decent to me. I think the argument runs along the lines that the CCD is much more sensitive thus allowing quicker sub capture which might minimise star bloating. Well, that's the theory anyway. I would appreciate some additional points of view re this logic, or lack thereof... I think the ICX694 would be a very good match for my TEC140, but then so is my KAF8300, so I wouldn't bother unless it was superior at longer FL.

Anyway, I would appreciate an opinion of the KAI04022. I read that it isn't very sensitive to red and Ha, but I've seen some beautiful images with this chip especially those by Dietmar Hager: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/41-465-0-0-1-0.html and http://www.stargazer-observatory.com/bilder/

Re the 8300, no, I have not tried it yet. I need adapters and a guiding solution and I just don't want to invest, find out it doesn't work so well, and start over. Thought I do some serious asking first. Re binning, If I read your comments correctly, binning at 2x2, or software binning to 2x2 would give similar results assuming the camera takes care of 2x2 binning correctly (or better results if the camera doesn't handle binning properly). But, wouldn't capturing at 2x2 be a lot quicker and allow shorter exposures? I wasn't aware that software binning could increase SN ratio. Can you please explain how that is done? I assume it isn't the same thing as just reducing image size 50% in photoshop...or is it?

EDIT: I found some huge posts on the subject of software binning at CN....I think I know enough now that no further comments are necessary. Like everything in this lovely hobby the answers are varied, complex, not exactly clear, and full of conditions. So what else is new?

Sorry for so many questions! Many thanks,
Peter
Hi Peter

It sure is a can of worms. I have been trying to approach the subject of camera choice from the perspective of matching the pixel size to the expected FWHM of stars produced by a seeing limited scope (which yours will be). You can still produce very nice images if the pixel matching is not right, but you will either get quick results with some loss of detail (if undersampled) or spend much more time imaging (if oversampled) with no extra detail. To get close to optimum sampling in Australian seeing conditions and your scope, you would require a sensor with pixels up around 10microns or so. Your only option is the Kodak line of sensors and the specs of the 4022 are typical of their products. The 694 is not well matched to the image scale produced by your scope and you would probably need binning to get the best out of it.

However (always a qualification!!!), the guys on CN who have used the 694 are reporting that it outguns the Kodak chips even when undersampling. These claims are not surprising, since the 694 has a very much higher QE and much lower read noise than the 4022. It was interesting to read the comment from one of the camera makers that in essence said why worry about low QE, you just have to image longer.

And I guess that sums it up. You could choose either chip and be happy with it. The Kodak chip will give you a much bigger field of view and will produce images with detail that is limited only by the seeing. The 694 will also be seeing limited, but will give you an oversampled system with smallish field of view. However, the 694 is so efficient that you could need very much shorter imaging times in good conditions.

The much greater well depth of the Kodak chips is often noted as a benefit over the 694, but the dynamic ranges of the two chips are about the same, so I do not think that this parameter is an issue - as you noted, the CN discussion suggests that the shorter 694 subs can compensate for the lower well depth - that makes sense.

in summary, on your system
  • Ultimate image quality is fairly likely to be about the same for both chips
  • the 4022 has a much bigger field of view than the 694
  • with binning, the 694 would produce 1.5mp images. The 4022 without needing binning would produce 4mp images. if you get exceptional seeing conditions, the 694 could produce 6mp images.
  • the 694 should be able to get images in much less time than the 4022.

Please bear in mind that this is based only on untested theoretical considerations - I haven't used either chip and there might well be some important aspect of either that I have not included in the analysis. However, the musings of others (who have used them) on other forums show the same trends. I will add sky brightness to my model - would expect extraneous light to bring the 694 back closer to the 4022 and will post results in the next couple of days if that would help. sky brightness should not affect anything much if you are doing narrow band imaging though. Need also to find out more about RBI on the Kodak chips (not sure if it affects the 4022 edit: it doesn't) and charge leakage, which could possibly affect the small 694 pixels more than the Kodak ones (haven't found any data on this yet).

It's not an easy choice - suggest that you could probably be happy with either chip - you just have to decide what is more important to you:
  • good images from a significantly larger field of view plus well established technology
  • good images from significantly shorter imaging times with relatively untried technology.

Good luck.

regards ray

Last edited by Shiraz; 18-02-2013 at 08:33 PM. Reason: add info
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-02-2013, 11:03 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Many thanks, Ray. Very helpful information and very balanced too. If you have time to look at sky brightness in your model I'd appreciate your sharing of the result.

Cooling wasn't mentioned. Seems the Sony CCD doesn't need nearly as much compared to the Kodak chips. I looked at several offerings of the KAI4022:

FLI cooling to -55C below ambient
Moravian -50 (2 stage)
QSI -40
ATIK -40
Starlight -40

The Moravian camera is attractively priced and includes a built in wheel, as does the QSI which offers guiding options too at a price.The FLI, I'm sure offers other electronic benefits as well as the best cooling, but is quite expensive in comparison to all the other cameras.

I'm a sucker when it comes to "new" technology; consequently the 694 CCD cameras won't get out of my head very easily, in spite of rational and tested competition....

Peter

Last edited by PRejto; 19-02-2013 at 10:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement