zernikepolynomial

It was already tried, made no difference.

The tests I conducted were pretty rigorous and well thought out. Natural stable sunlight, flat ROI, grounded separately powered USB hub (also tested with direct computer connection, no difference), paper diffuser. Another user on CN conducted his own tests and actually came out with a very similar result to mine. The smoking gun on why it has to do with LRN engaging properly or not is test 5. Test 5 followed its own complete curve, well outside the std dev of the other tests. Sean from Player One stated that if it was an instability, the curve would be unstable, with points at each gain having a wild deviation; this was not the case, and it looks like a true systematic change in test 5. The silicon can not become better on one set of gains in a row, but then go back for the other same sets of gain ranges. Again, if it was instability in the system, we would expect wild results at individual gains. This is why we need more tests from other people, because if many or some of the cameras are having issues engaging LRN properly, it might be a fixable thing. Might even be sharp cap issue with the camera, resolved with an update. As far as hardware, read noise tends to be related to the amplifier and ADC. One interesting thing to note, on mine and other peoples tests with the camera, engaging the cooler results in a very slight bump in read noise. There could be MANY reasons for that behavior, and so I am not worried about that unless it was more noticeable like this general LRN issue.

I just want to let everyone know, that this is not a Player One bashing thread, and I just heard about someone on the cloudy nights forum having Player One do a very nice thing for them and offered a replacement as well. They do take the time to try and solve these problems. Its just mine is not bad enough to pay for shipping. The other person had a minor dust issue, but they still offered a replacement.

To be fair, I generally see the Uranus-c perform better than the ZWO counterpart, and to be fair my Ares-c is performing better at certain gain settings than the ZWO counterpart. For example, as Adam pointed out, my camera performs better at 7k full well than a standard ZWO.

My results are not similar to Player Ones LRN mode. My results are only similar to the Normal mode both on the Player One website and the results I just published, except at gain 0. I still believe something happens after it jumps from gain 0 and messes up the results, because it randomly started working properly in test 5 of the published results. The way LRN works is based around the way they integrated memory into the camera, and its an easy to miss bit published on the Player One product page. Anyway, I agree that the camera is still useable, just underperforming and disappointing.

Adam, I have watched that video multiple times in the past, and I have actually myself derived his equation for calculating optimal exposure time based on a desired relative noise level and the cameras noise characteristics, as well as light pollution. If you run the calculation yourself, you will see that going from 1.38e to 1.5e results in an increase of (1.5/1.38)^2 = 1.18 times the original exposure length to reach the same noise target (18% longer). That is significant, and it does warrant investigation. Now, will that be noticeable in the images? It depends. If your doing long exposure astrophotography (fewer exposures, but longer) then no. If you are doing short exposure astrophotography, then it can make a significant difference. Also, if your signal is very weak, it can be VERY noticeable. All that information is in the video that you yourself have referenced.

Adam, you could not be further from the truth. My discussion and tests with player one were long and well documented, all you had to do was ask. First thing first, Player One did also use sharp cap to compare their test camera to mine: Player One's test camera in normal mode: Player One's test camera in LRN mode: Then I compared my results to theirs: An example of my LRN mode without cooling: An example of my LRN mode WITH cooling enabled: I conducted many more tests, some were clearly erroneous results and not even consistent with the gain curve. I perfected my experimental environment and took several tests with the exact same conditions, I then compiled them into a graph comparing them to Player One's results (Sean [removed word]): As you can see in the results, I was able to establish that LRN mode suddenly started working in one of the tests (test 5), but I was not able to reproduce it despite having the same exact conditions for each of the tests. In the tests on the above graph, I utilized stable natural sunlight and paper as a diffuser. I also checked to make sure the ROI was on a perfectly flat illuminated area, so systematic error was not having an effect. After this, Player One said the results were very strange via email, and offered to take the camera back. When I accepted the offer, they informed me I would have to pay shipping, but the costs were too high so I reconsidered. This went against their 30 day policy, but they claimed it was not a sufficient enough performance failure to warrant paying the shipping cost, and I found that to be understandable to some degree, but still a bit disappointing because Player One acknowledged the result was unusual and made me do extensive tests without coming to a conclusion.

While they did offer to take the camera back, Player One decided to go against their 30 day policy and somehow simultaneously claimed it was not a true "performance failure" to pay for shipping and still weird enough to take it back. Shipping costs back to their factory are way too much, and I would rather save for another camera than pay for that. Not to mention the risk of sending anything back to china just disappearing if it takes too long. You might have better luck, but anyone else should wait until you see more performance results before buying from them. My results may in fact be the true average, which is not much better than a typical 533mc camera from other manufacturers when taking into account how it responds to gain. Mine must be over 1.5e at unity gain (125), 16k full well. Can hit up to 1.5e at gain 150, 12k full well. My sweet spot will probably be at 1.38e at gain 200, 7k full well, or maybe even whatever I can get down to 4k full well. It will just be a balance of not overexposing with my fast newtonian operating at f3.75, while taking the shortest exposures possible due to its weight.

The canon 6d is a great way of tackling slower scopes with larger image circles. Scopes like the EdgeHD 800, while not able to entirely fill out a full frame, still benefits from the extra size of both the sensor and the pixels, and the relatively low noise. I only sold my canon 6d because I decided to move away from those kinds of scopes (think EdgeHD, Rumak, ect..).

It is not a driver issue. It appears to be a sensor issue, and I will wait to hear back from Player One on monday about what to do.

Player one responded back and it looks like it definitely could be an issue engaging LRN. His results are identical to mine in normal mode (LRN turned off). So he wants me to try not using ascom.

I just got the new Ares-c from player one, and there is some kind of read noise issue going on. Its almost like the low read noise mode is not even working, and I have to set the gain to 200 just to get a comparable read noise to the graphs on the product page. The read noise at unity gain is supposed to be around 1.35-1.38e, but I only reach that at gain 200, otherwise I am well over 1.5e at unity gain which is way out of specification. Can anybody help me out? I have consistently gotten these similar values on 3 tests.

Most of it seems pretty good. The springs for primary collimation dont seem great, but I think most people know that. Its finder shoe requires a ton of tightening to make it secure, but it can accept a second screw, optionally. Spider looked good, and it was not bent. Secondary seemed robust, and it is adhered rather than enclosed, so I don't think mirror pinch will be as big of a problem. Bottom ring clamps on too tight, making loosening the rings to rotating the scope very difficult; this makes it poor for visual use. But the biggest con/issue is the loose paint on the inside. I talked to Agena, who'm talked to GSO, and they say it is not a defect. GSO states it its overspray. So be warned when you get this scope, or get these scopes from Agena, because you will not be able to exchange or use the warranty if it has this paint issue. You may have to void your warranty to fix it.

I cloned your project and decided to make a few adjustments to make it look like the first version. I think the latest version was not rendering correctly. Anyway, I am going to print out a PLA prototype at my local shop. What kind of screws for the standoffs did you use? And print method/material did you use? Did you use self tapping screws and FDM print method? I was thinking maybe heat inserts could be put in the bottom holes. I think the top holes would be too delicate and it would ruin the standoffs.

I am so frustrated with iOptron, they gave me literal crap as a replacement to a scope that came with a faulty focuser, and spit in my face when I tell them its got obvious damage on multiple parts. I would accept this scope for a used price, not a new price. Anybody else have advice on what to do?

I live in the United States, and I received a clearly damaged iOptron Mak 150 from iOptron. It was a replacement scope for a scope that had a damaged focuser. I still have the warranty on it. They are refusing to honor the warranty despite it having a chip in the secondary baffle shield/skirt, scratch on the secondary mirror, and leaking adhesive/scratch on the side of the secondary mirror. I am not too worried about the adhesive/scratch on the side of the secondary mirror, but everything else seems to be clearly against their warranty, and I just want a replacement without this kind of damage. They will not honor the warranty, and even acknowledged the chipped secondary baffle, but are claiming the scratch is not a scratch, when it clearly is. I asked other people if they noticed damage with their older versions of the same scope, and they said NO.

I am an physicist who specializes in adaptive optics, and I have joined to give you my experiences and expertise in telescopes.

I am not sure what you did to the corrector plate around the crack. It looks like residue marks from something you put on it (maybe more cleaner?). Regardless, I think you should put some super glue right or glass adhesive onto the end of the crack (small amount), and if it sinks into the crack a bit, it might help it from getting bigger. Next, you should collimate it and see if the crack has permanently deformed the entire corrector, if it has, replace it. If its just causing a small amount of obstruction, then the scope will be fine because obstructions in the plane of the aperture (at the corrector and primary) become buried in the PSF (point spread function) due to the fourier effect of telescopes and lenses, and it will only reduce the contrast slightly.