|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 10, 2018 13:28:53 GMT
Paul (Jaybee) sent down his Rising Tech IMX 287M for me to test out for him in my dark skies, and because I have more time than Paul. He's a busy boy. Rather than just take screenshots of the 287M view I also took identical screen shots of the same objects using the same settings with a 224 colour so there was something to compare the 287M to. I didn't use an IR/UV filter with the 287 in these images as there is no need to. It's Mono. But I did take screenshots with and without the IR/UV filter for my own interest. (without the IR/UV filter is better) To make sure the test was pretty hard on the camera I used an ED80 instead of the big 6 inch refractor. All images are single frame, no stacking. Here's the results: First a simple bright object - M42 Then a medium bright object - Carina nebula Then a slightly fainter object - NGC 253 and then a bunch of Screenshots with just the 287M: OMEGA CENTAURI CENTAURUS 'A' GALAXY SOMBRERO GALAXY M1 CRAB NEBULA M83 SOUTHERN PINWHEEL GALAXY
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 10, 2018 14:07:11 GMT
And some people have trouble stacking in RisingSky software. Here is a stacked image of NGC 253 to show it works: and the settings I used:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 15:14:44 GMT
Thanks for that Ken.Good job. I sent it to you because the pics I got were rubbish.They were too noisy and too blocky. I needed your expertise to show that I hadnt wasted my money altogether.A number of guys on CN were very interested in what the 287 would produce and I had nothing to show them.They wanted to know how sensitive it was under 5 sec exposures
Yes ,I am a very busy boy on holidays. Got the Lorne Pier to Pub swim this saturday and the head off to Adelaide for the Tour Down Under on Sunday for a week.
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Jan 10, 2018 20:57:14 GMT
Couldn't resist ... Ken's post appeared in the "New Posts" selection right above my post on using quick and easy Photogallery adjustments which can be done on the fly out in the dark to enhance your EAA. Here's the rapidly tweaked stack and a short video showing just how quick it was to get the extra detail ... cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2018 23:07:17 GMT
Howie,those pics were all Ken's as well as the stack.My pics were rubbish but in my own defence they were taken in the middle of that terrible weather Victoria had before Christmas so I blame the weather. They were so bad that I thought I had wasted my money and sent the camera over to Ken to see what he could do with it. How would the NGC 253 taken with Ken's RT 224 compare after tweaking in Photogallery? My impression is that the 224 is still much better value . Paul
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Jan 11, 2018 1:53:12 GMT
Howie,those pics were all Ken's as well as the stack.My pics were rubbish but in my own defence they were taken in the middle of that terrible weather Victoria had before Christmas so I blame the weather. They were so bad that I thought I had wasted my money and sent the camera over to Ken to see what he could do with it. How would the NGC 253 taken with Ken's RT 224 compare after tweaking in Photogallery? My impression is that the 224 is still much better value . Paul Value wise 224 maybe ... quality and ease of image I think the 287 mono! I've got no bias either way and actually owned an ASI224 for ages which is based on the same chip as the RT224. But boy tweaking the two single 20 sec frames ... the 287 won IMO. Maybe someone else can download the combined image which I used from this thread, and try their luck at processing and see what they get. But watch the vid ...
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 11, 2018 12:34:20 GMT
Thanks Howie, good post about bringing out more detail, but I am a bit of a fusspot purist. I like the KISS method. 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. What appears on screen as close to Live as possible is what I prefer, not processed too much. I had enough of that when I did Astrophotography. All I want to do now is get what I can as fast as I can. Running near-Live images through more processing isn't 'Near-Live' to me I want to see what the camera can show, not how good my processing skills are I also prefer the results from the Mono 287M over the 224, which is a bizarre thing for me to say as I'm really not a fan of Mono. I LOVE colour! But Mono sensors always outperform Colour sensors simply because of the Bayer Matrix problem. And the 287M has no Amp Glow. I actually like the 287M.
|
|
|
Post by jimthompson on Jan 15, 2018 17:29:06 GMT
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your post. I have been waiting to see something from a camera with the IMX287 sensor for a while. Just to clarify, when you say you captured your images with the same settings between the two cameras, do you mean exposure time and gain were the same as well as the histogram, gamma, brightness, contrast, etc.? If so, I am puzzled by the performance of the 287. I thought that sensor was supposed to have a significantly higher sensitivity? This is compounded by the fact that the 287 is monochrome which gives it a roughly 3x boost in average sensitivity over an equivalent one-shot colour sensor due to there being no Bayer matrix. If this is the performance you are getting, then I see no point to the camera over the ASI290MM that I already have.
Regards,
Jim T.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 18, 2018 15:03:07 GMT
Jim, yes, ALL the settings were identical. I didn't change anything between camera changes.
I took an image with the 224, then removed the 224 and inserted the 287 and hit the Start button again. Same everything, just different cameras.
I did that with each object.
|
|