elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 7, 2017 10:02:16 GMT
Or comparison between ICX825 and IMX224 This are two shots at the same speed. Note the differences in sensibility/resolution Mallincam AG1.2c with IMX224 Infinity with ICX825
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jul 7, 2017 10:19:14 GMT
The Infinity certainly looks better. That could be due to the wider FOV. But the detail is nicer. Infinity also has no Amp Glow. No wonder. It is a $150 camera compared to a $1500 camera
With the Infinity I prefer the detail, FOV, less noise, and no amp glow.
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 31, 2017 10:29:45 GMT
Two more but this time is with Infinity/ RisingSky IMX244 10x10" Infinity 10x4" RisingSky
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jul 31, 2017 10:42:21 GMT
Weird. This time the 224 looks better.
When the images are opened up at full size the difference is very noticeable. The 224 is cleaner, and less pixelated. Probably due to smaller sensor giving a smaller FOV. But whatever it is, the 224 looks better.
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 31, 2017 10:58:01 GMT
Yes, it is my opinion too, and maybe the small pixel gives a little more detail. This are two more comparing Mallincam IM224 and Rising Tech IMX224 Mallincam IMX224 RisingTech IMX224
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jul 31, 2017 12:03:44 GMT
Strange differences for the same sensor.
The Mallincam one looks like it has a yellow cast to it with no other colour. The RisingTech one has full colour and looks nicer but has more Amp Glow.
Each have their pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisV on Jul 31, 2017 13:36:16 GMT
I suppose the infinity is better (kind of), if you want better you gotta pay. But part of that could be the bigger fov psyching us out
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 31, 2017 13:43:31 GMT
Each picture was taken at different days and seeing conditions. There may be different shades of light.
What I wanted to note is that the detail of the galaxy (with the faint star included) is almost identical in both cases. I think the two chips behave basically the same. It does not matter the manufacturer.
I comment this because there are several manufacturers that use this chip and the prices of the cameras are quite different.
Another thing I check in practice is that the reduction of Amp glow that some manufacturers sell is not as spectacular as they say. To me, with exposures of more than 2 seconds, still appears amp glow with the model Risingtech that in theory has the reduced Amp glow incorporated.
Taking advantage of having clear nights, I will continue to try
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 31, 2017 13:48:59 GMT
I suppose the infinity is better (kind of), if you want better you gotta pay. But part of that could be the bigger fov psyching us out Maybe But results are slightly better in IMX224....and one must also think that the Infinity is worth almost four times more than the Risingtech. IMHO,I think for Videoastronomy is more appropriate.
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 2, 2017 21:40:35 GMT
Two more but this time is with Infinity/ RisingSky IMX244 10x10" Infinity 10x4" RisingSky I think the Infinity is over exposed for the PN plus the pixels are much larger on the Infinity. That is why it doesn't look as good. Around the object you can see objects in the Infinity shot that barely appear in the IMX224 shot. You can also see bleeding between the double star. Your image scale is very different between the two cameras. Based on the color around the stars, I'm assuming you used the Bresser 102? With the Infinity, you're at around 2.89 arc/sec pixel vs 1.68 for the IMX224. For big objects, it's not as big of a deal but for tiny objects like a small bright PN, it's noticeable. So things are going to look much blurrier with the Infinity because you're covering more space with one pixel (about 300% more space per pixel). This is especially true when you're inspecting it so closely. Your object is only 12 arc seconds across meaning the object will fit in a 4x4 pixel grid on the Infinity vs a 7x7 grid for the IMX224. I would expect more detail in the 224 as you're using 3 times the pixels. Bigger pixels and smaller scopes don't do well for detail on small objects. A better test might be using the bigger 8" scope or binning the IMX224 so you can get similar pixel sizes.
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 2, 2017 22:43:14 GMT
Weird. This time the 224 looks better. When the images are opened up at full size the difference is very noticeable. The 224 is cleaner, and less pixelated. Probably due to smaller sensor giving a smaller FOV. But whatever it is, the 224 looks better. It looks more pixelated because it is zoomed and overlayed on the Infinity image over top of the original image (you can just make out the black circular zoom window where the arrow ends). You would expect the planetary nebula to be more pixelated because the object is only about 4 pixels wide on the Infinity sensor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 5:50:54 GMT
Robert Your calculations were very informative. I have never understood how to apply image scale and you have explained it well. The only problem I have are your figures for image scale. The arcsecs/pixel I get in Astronomy Tools are different than yours but the space per pixel still works out nearly 300% for the Infinity. How did you work out the image scale? Paul
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Aug 3, 2017 9:51:45 GMT
Rob, all this pictures were done with the 200/800. And yes, I think too that Infinity picture was taken at 10" and Rising one at 4". Stars are more big in Infinity and nebula are slightly overexposed.
Yes, they are differences in FOV between Infinity and Rising but my eye can see a LITTLE more detail in Rising.
What we are going to agree on, is that the price of the Infinity, four times higher, does not represent an improvement of 4 times more in the detail/quality/ exposition time (sensibility) of the picture.
I think that for the type of short exposure photos (30 ") we make, the IMX224 chip has better value for money. Today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 11:16:18 GMT
Robert I have just noticed that Carlos's Bresser is 102/460. Astronomy Tools Bresser 102 has FL 1000 so that accounts why I was getting different image scales than you. So ,for Carlos's 200/800 ,Infinity = 1.66 arcsec/pixel, 224 = .97arcsec/pixel,and Infinity still has almost 300 % more space per pixel. The 12 arcsec object will fit on a 7x7 pixel grid on the Infinity and a 12x 12 grid for the 224. If that is correct then today I have learned what image scale can be used for. Thanks for that
Carlos Dont you ever get cloudy nights where you live? I am amazed at the number and frequency of your pics. I have a GSO 200/800 with an Infinity and a 224 with nothing to show. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Aug 3, 2017 12:47:08 GMT
Paul, maybe they don't have clouds in Spain. Their government banned them
|
|
|
Post by ChrisV on Aug 3, 2017 13:57:40 GMT
Carlos is prolific. Must rain even less in Spain than Australia
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Aug 3, 2017 14:28:04 GMT
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 3, 2017 17:02:48 GMT
Rob, all this pictures were done with the 200/800. And yes, I think too that Infinity picture was taken at 10" and Rising one at 4". Stars are more big in Infinity and nebula are slightly overexposed. Yes, they are differences in FOV between Infinity and Rising but my eye can see a LITTLE more detail in Rising. What we are going to agree on, is that the price of the Infinity, four times higher, does not represent an improvement of 4 times more in the detail/quality/ exposition time (sensibility) of the picture. I think that for the type of short exposure photos (30 ") we make, the IMX224 chip has better value for money. Today. I would expect that you can see more detail because you have 3 times more pixels on the target. Your eye can see more detail because there is more detail. For smaller targets like this planetary nebula, that's what you want. The Infinity and Ultrastar will show more of a larger target due to it's wider field of view. CMOS is certainly a game changer for video astronomy. It's definitely the best bang for the buck. It's a great time for getting into the hobby. That said, each has it's place. One advantage of an Ultrastar/Lodestar Mono is the ability to do multi-spectral narrowband imaging in a near-live video astronomy setting. So far, Starlight Live is the only software that can do that in a near live setting.
|
|