russellhq

Dave, it looks like there are a couple scratches near the bottom of the frame (centre), on the lamp post. Maybe some of the CFA has been removed there? What does it look like on the Ha version, maybe all 4 pixels will show signal?

At full scale there's definitely a resolution improvement (comparing to the same image with the interpolation algorithm applied). You can see finer detail, however the interpolation has the effect of appearing to reduce noise a bit due to the blurring, so it does look slightly noisier in the details.

Something to note though is that unless you are cropping a small portion of the image, or printing out in a large format you probably won't make use of this as, if like me, you downsize the final image for displaying on the web/computer.

Sensitivity under normal light isn't much changed, at least using the camera's auto metering results in an image that isn't under or over exposed. As mentioned earlier removing the filter array pretty much undoes the sensitivity loss of removing the microlenses with the net effect being not a lot of change in full spectrum light.

That said, my aim with this (apart from just having fun) is to have a better narrowband camera. Next time I can I'll take some shots of the sun in h-alpha with this camera and an unmodded one. This should show off the resolution improvement and big sensitivity improvement for narrowband use.

The quality of the bayer matrix image is also dependent on the de-bayer routine used. This article was posted in another topic and makes good reading on different de-bayer techniques. Using the VNG method, the bayer matrix image is pretty much as good as the original.

http://www.stark-lab...ayering_API.pdf

Cool and well done

reason I asked about was I was reading this panasonic article about a new filterless sensor which quotes absorption by the CFA being about 50% to 70% (i.e. only 30/50% transmitted) http://www.imaging-r...lter-light-loss

Is that 50-70-% of all light? Or 50-70% of the light the filter's designed to transmit? I.e. does a red filter absorb 50-70% of the red light or 50-70% of the overall light?

I think there's a significant difference.

Tonedeaf, I did see a changed when I tried it, but had to scrape quite hard to get the CFA off. I think that's how I ended up killing the sensor. That's why I think a chemical approach would be safer. Less chance of damaging the sensor.

very nice video!

have to say that i broke my ps3 eye cmos while trying to debayer

at least i learned something...

for all the ps3 eye protective glas is easy to remove, not like on the eos 1100d

I broke 3 PS3 eyes and gave up. In hindsight, I think the stanley knife was the wrong tool for the job...

I've got one of these for mine :-)

http://cpc.farnell.c...atured Products

Helen

Can I ask what you have managed to fit inside it? Did it come with the foam?

I'm trying to find M10 or M12 bolts to upgrade the Altitude bolt on my EQ5: I plan on tapping it out. But I can't seem to find anything suitable.

I was looking for 12.9 grade steel with socket head but everything seems to have a shank on it making it of no use!

Any help appreciated!

I think this also has potential for improving webcams when used for guide cams!

I just had a thought to help out the sensitivity of the stock colour canon 1000d sensor. And thats just to remove the glass/plastic cover on the sensor. From looking at ccd tests with the class removed you get about 5% more light, its easy so i might do it to my one if it ever gets a chance to get used again.

The danger of clouds! :grin: I think that's the only reason I modded my camera, I had nothing else to do!

How about asking if there are any chemists on the forum that might suggest a solvent or chemical that would remove the matrix?

What's the substrate under the bayer matrix made of?

I'm sure I read somewhere that some are made from organic dyes, in which case an organic solvent cleaner like Dichloromethane or Toluene might work.

Thanks bluesman, do you also have info about the box that was made up and maybe how others could replicate the work you've carried out?

I just tried Nitromors on the Playstation Eye sensor. No joy Any other chemicals I could try?

Yes, but you would only have the same exposure time and surely that's what counts?

The noise at ISO 6400 should be four times that at 1600 as the gain is 4x (not just 50%). OTOH the noise is temperature dependent, doubling for every 7C rise in temperature so reducing the temperature by 14C makes the noise at 6400 the same as the noise of an uncooled camera at ISO1600.

Gina, the signal is also affected by gain. So in principal you're not gaining anything by changing ISO since the SNR stays the same (but it's not as straight forward as that either). There's a very good discussion on the topic here: http://stargazerslou...1600-v-iso-800/ and the posts by IanL are very informative!

Also, Ags showed that the noise response of the 1100D sensor from ISO 100 to ISO1600 behaves as expected but at ISO6400 it does not and instead of four times more than ISO1600 it's more like 6 or 7 times more (if my math is correct).

Did Ags cool his cameras for the test like Gina did for hers?

The link is here: http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/166291-phototool-2012/

They were not cooled but temperature was stable. I would expect though that the same effect would be observed on a cooled camera.

True.

I do most of my imaging at ISO 3200 but recent noise tests have shown that with cooling using ISO 6400 is well on.

Ags did some tests on the 1100D and found the noise at 6400 compared to 1600 is over 50% greater. Forgive my ignorance, but what are you hoping to gain from using these high gain settings?

I just tried some paint stripper on a webcam and it cleaned the bayer layer off perfectly in seconds and left a perfectly clean surface. I fell the canon sensor won't be so willing to play ball. Good news for webcam imagers though. Now i need a dead camera to test it with or i might do a little test on the sensor i have alread butchered but just do it in a corner.

I might try this on my webcam guide cam!

I just tried white spirit and no joy. What kind of paint stripper did you use?

I can't see very well from the photos, but is there any way you could prise off the black plastic frame holding the glass from the rest of the assembly?

I just tried some paint stripper on a webcam and it cleaned the bayer layer off perfectly in seconds and left a perfectly clean surface. I fell the canon sensor won't be so willing to play ball. Good news for webcam imagers though. Now i need a dead camera to test it with or i might do a little test on the sensor i have alread butchered but just do it in a corner.

I might try this on my webcam guide cam!

What about baking it in the oven at a low temp, around 120C, and see if it softens any?

I remember using toluene in the lab for dissolving organic compounds and it worked a treat. If the IPA doesn't get it, maybe toluene will?

http://www.brunelmicroscopessecure.co.uk/acatalog/Solvents___Reagents.html

Hope you don't mind me asking but I use a Newtonian with an 1100d unmodded for imaging combined with a Baader Neodymium filter but often wondered if I would benefit from a UHC filter from my light polluted site?

Hi Glider, is the USB focuser still available? I have a skywatcher 'auto' focuser that I would like to be able to control from my laptop and your solution seems ideal!

It works!

I have an EQ5 mount with the Synscan EQ5 upgrade. I bought the cable posted above by Auntystaic, crimped an RJ45 cable onto the end (got the RX & TX mixed up first time round) and went through the EQMOD quickstart guide.

I've now got it connecting and controlling through Stellarium, happy days!

With R1 in place it is 5v, with R2 in place its 3.3v, this one looks like its the 5v setting, but easily changed.

You could get this one with a moulded lead attached for you, next day delivery too.

Don't get it from these rip off merchants

I've got an EQ5 mount with the Synscan upgrade and Handset. If I bought one of the leads above, I guess I would just need to attach an RJ45 to the end of it and wire it up like the drawing in the first post? But the lead in the link as a 7th wire, "Shield", where should this get connected to?