#1  
Old 12-01-2016, 06:16 PM
Geoff45's Avatar
Geoff45 (Geoff)
PI rules

Geoff45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,631
FLI: 8MHz vs 1MHz

The FLI Proline 16803 has two download speeds--the fast one at 8MHz which is lighting fast and the slower 1MHz speed. FLI warns that 8MHz is noisier, so I checked this. In the graph attached the left hand plots are 8MHz downloads and the rest are the 1MHz. Eyeballing the graphs suggests that the average noise goes down from around 12.5 ADU in the 8 MHz case to about 10 ADU in the one MHz case--a reduction of 20%. This indicates to me that 1MHz should definitely be the speed of choice--obvious of course, but it's nice to see agreement with one's expectations.
Geoff
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (noise.jpg)
25.0 KB44 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-01-2016, 07:16 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Interesting comparison, Geoff!

I did read noise measurements with the PL16803 my group is using at SRO and got 8.4e- read noise at 8MHz and 5.9e- at 1MHz.

The impact of this is that it would require subs twice as long at 8MHz than at 1MHz to get sky limited (8.4^2/5.9^2).

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-01-2016, 07:28 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
I did a similar test with my QHY9, 8.5e- at normal readout at ~12 at high, still incredibly slow download compared to the FLI though, 12 seconds at normal for an 8.3MP.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 14-01-2016, 08:16 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
I have an interesting photo - below -to show for this thread.
You can see the difference in the graphs between
on the left - low speed readout for my QHY9 mono &
on the right -high speed readout.

At -30 degrees DARK FRAMES:
The low speed is giving a median noise of about 1025
& the high speed median of about 4200
out of a maximum of 65536.

4200 is just at the area of sky noise so obviously
the low speed readout is essential.
The high speed readout should only be used for quick captures to see the target but never for real data.
Unfortunately I did not know this & all of my pictures have been taken
with the high speed readout.
If only I would have read the manual more closely -
I would not have made this mistake.
Really - the QHY9 capture program called EZYCap should not allow you the option
of high speed for capture - except only in preview or focus mode.
I expect my pictures in the future to be a lot better knowing this
& also the fact that I have upgraded from an 8" f6 to a 10" f4 Newt. -
the difference should be huge.

cheers
Allan
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (QHY9 slow speed and high speed comparison.jpg)
181.4 KB30 views

Last edited by alpal; 14-01-2016 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14-01-2016, 08:21 PM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,716
Can relate to your frustration Allan. After loading new drivers pre-astrofest I collected days of data on the high speed setting in error. For LRGB its not ideal, but really starts to bite for narrow band.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14-01-2016, 08:26 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF View Post
Can relate to your frustration Allan. After loading new drivers pre-astrofest I collected days of data on the high speed setting in error. For LRGB its not ideal, but really starts to bite for narrow band.

Hi Rob,
Really - so I won't see a massive difference now?

You know something - it's quite a surprise to me
because the system is digital -
you wouldn't think it would make any difference but my picture doesn't lie.


cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-01-2016, 08:55 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
With the large increase in ADU between low and high readout on the QHY9, all you need to do is reduce the Offset. At Normal I use an offset of 106 but during high speed (what I use for focusing and modelling) I put it down to 76.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14-01-2016, 09:19 PM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,716
The trouble with the QHY9 on high speed is you get column artifacts too.
Definitely better to always use normal speed. I'm sure I've read somewhere on the QHY forums slow speed not necessary on modern drivers.

He's an example in Ha taken with high speed - columns were prominent in dark areas, particularly bottom right until I black clipped image a bit harder. Hardly a right-off though.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/a...e.php?a=187199

And final HaLRGB - all taken on slow speed. Veil is a reasonably bright object and astofest skies nice and dark

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/a...e.php?a=188812
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14-01-2016, 09:37 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Hi Rob,
I never noticed any columns on high speed data with my QHY9m.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 14-01-2016, 09:58 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
I have compared the read noise of both the Normal and Slow, found there was a lower read noise in the Normal readout speed, plus it downloaded 4s faster! 12s vs 16s.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 15-01-2016, 11:30 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos View Post
I have compared the read noise of both the Normal and Slow, found there was a lower read noise in the Normal readout speed, plus it downloaded 4s faster! 12s vs 16s.
The fast download from the QHY9m is about 2 seconds.

I don't understand why there should be any difference -
after all - it's digital.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 15-01-2016, 12:23 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
The fast download from the QHY9m is about 2 seconds.

I don't understand why there should be any difference -
after all - it's digital.
Mine takes 4s in High mode and 12s in Normal.
I cannot say why the offset needs to be changed, I can only assume that it is because of the higher read noise.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 15-01-2016, 12:48 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos View Post
Mine takes 4s in High mode and 12s in Normal.
I cannot say why the offset needs to be changed, I can only assume that it is because of the higher read noise.

OK - I don't understand where the read noise comes from but anyway -
we can be sure that you need to use slow download speed
for data you want to keep & process.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 15-01-2016, 03:33 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
OK - I don't understand where the read noise comes from but anyway -
we can be sure that you need to use slow download speed
for data you want to keep & process.
Normal read out gives cleaner data than the Slow, lower read noise. Pretty sure I remember reading on the QHY forums a while ago that it is supposed to be used on the normal readout for optimal results.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 15-01-2016, 04:12 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos View Post
Normal read out gives cleaner data than the Slow, lower read noise. Pretty sure I remember reading on the QHY forums a while ago that it is supposed to be used on the normal readout for optimal results.

The picture I posted below shows that the readout noise is higher on high speed.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 15-01-2016, 05:05 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
The picture I posted below shows that the readout noise is higher on high speed.
Sorry, my bad! I am thinking about the ASCOM driver for the QHY9 which has High, Normal & Low readout speeds. The Low readout speed is worse than the Normal, slower download AND more noise.
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 07:50 PM.

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