Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 09-10-2020, 10:38 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,195
QHY600m Spider

Conditions were remarkably pleasant last night and allowed first light of my new QHY600m-lite CMOS camera.

There are many bouquets and brick bats I could throw at QHY, but for now I'll refrain and simply say, while the overall experience was very positive, but at low flux levels, unlike CCD's, with CMOS low-level pattern noise needs to be worked around.

First light image is here

No noise reduction or sharpening was applied to the image stack. Darks and Flats both applied.

For those who are interested, I'm happy to field questions about the QHY600.

P.S.
Curiously, with my CCD based cameras Cosmic ray hits were common seen when collecting dark frames. I would have thought sCMOS would also detect these interlopers. Nup. Not a one. Very mysterious.

Last edited by Peter Ward; 09-10-2020 at 05:09 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-10-2020, 06:51 PM
John W (John Wilkinson)
Registered User

John W is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 627
Very nice detail Peter (almost 3D). Which mount did you use?
Thanks. John W.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2020, 07:58 PM
Decimus's Avatar
Decimus (Richard)
Registered User

Decimus is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hobart TAS
Posts: 256
Wow....There is much to be said for a monochrome image, Peter. A fascinatingly detailed panorama and you managed to suppress the usually overpowering light from R136. You can see where 60Mp comes in handy, too.

Lovely image. Thanks for sharing it.

Cheers,
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2020, 08:49 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,973
Wow Peter,
that's impressive.
the FSQ-106 has handled the 36mm x 24mm frame easily
with no sign of aberrations in the corners.
It looks like the QHY 600 has worked well straight out of the box
with a QE above 80% for most of the light spectrum
and 75% at Ha wavelength of 656nm for your image.

My old QHY-9 is only giving 50% QE at 656nm for Ha.

Times have changed.
I look forward to some great colour images from you with this setup.
Are you going to try the QHY600 on the Alluna
or would it be oversampled with such small pixels?



cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-10-2020, 09:01 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,959
Looks very nice Peter.

I ordered my QHY600M before the lite was announced. Only difference I can really find between the two is that the lite uses the consumer grade chip (as does the ASI6200) and has a shorter housing length which may have an effect on cooling. With your more extensive knowledge and understanding of astronomy equipment from a dealer's perspective, was there a particular reason you chose the lite?

DT
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-10-2020, 11:24 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
Looks very nice Peter.

I ordered my QHY600M before the lite was announced. Only difference I can really find between the two is that the lite uses the consumer grade chip (as does the ASI6200) and has a shorter housing length which may have an effect on cooling. With your more extensive knowledge and understanding of astronomy equipment from a dealer's perspective, was there a particular reason you chose the lite?

DT

The main difference is a smaller case size, and 1G of buffer memory.

The buffer is important if you think you'll need high frame rates. Given my minimum exposures are measured in minutes, rather than frames per second, I do not see an issue here.

The case size is smaller, which makes it easier to mount IMHO, but, meh, a trivial difference at best.

Hope that helps

P.S. Stating the obvious, the Photo-lite version is also less expensive.

Last edited by Peter Ward; 09-10-2020 at 11:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-10-2020, 07:16 AM
Placidus (Mike and Trish)
Narrowing the band

Placidus is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Euchareena, NSW
Posts: 3,559
A lovely image.


A wonderful result for just one hour. I had to multiply 12 x 5 minutes several times before I convinced myself. The CMOS approach works so well on say the 100 brightest beasties.


The one place left for CCD's on great big scopes is the ridiculously faint.


Mike

Last edited by Placidus; 10-10-2020 at 08:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-10-2020, 08:35 AM
Andy01's Avatar
Andy01 (Andy)
My God it's full of stars

Andy01 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,724
Impressive detail for the short integration!
Framing is awkward though - those half cropped nebs on the top edge of the frame and RHS might be better left out altogether next time
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-10-2020, 08:58 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placidus View Post
A lovely image.


A wonderful result for just one hour. I had to multiply 12 x 5 minutes several times before I convinced myself. The CMOS approach works so well on say the 100 brightest beasties.


The one place left for CCD's on great big scopes is the ridiculously faint.


Mike
Ta M&T. This new CMOS kid on the block won't be replacing my STX16803 anytime soon. I re-shot the same field last night with the CCD and it wipes the (noise) floor with the CMOS. (I am putting together a small test report and will post a link soon). Sure the QHY has better resolution, but the bigger CCD pixels have recorded just a much, if not more, nebulosity with a buttery smooth background that makes the CMOS look like sand paper.

Weather permitting I will re-shoot the scene with the QHY, dithered & shorter exposures, but same total exposure time.

It expect the result will be interesting!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-10-2020, 09:05 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy01 View Post
Impressive detail for the short integration!
Framing is awkward though - those half cropped nebs on the top edge of the frame and RHS might be better left out altogether next time
Ta...but it was never intended to be a pretty picture. Simply a test/demonstration of the CMOS waters.

The pretty stuff will hopefully come next week when the Camera Tilt Adjuster arrives for use with the 645 reducer. The QHY shows even the slightest error at F3.8. ( tried it already) ..hence not much point in a re-shoot until the required bits arrive.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-10-2020, 09:07 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by John W View Post
Very nice detail Peter (almost 3D). Which mount did you use?
Thanks. John W.
It's a bit of a struggle, but the PMEII I use manages to cope.
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 05:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement