Atik - Colour or Mono?

[Bosuser]

Atik - Colour or Mono? - that is the question.

From reading forums I can see that the mono gives a better definition than colour cameras  - but how much difference is there.

I'm looking towards the Atik 460EX but I'm not sure whether to buy colour or mono + filters.

Is the difference significantly better? Would I get much more definition on DSOs? Are the extra subs needed worthwhile?

I would like your views before I commit.

Thanks

Kevin

[Toxophilus]

I'm by far no expert on the subject, but I would say that it all boils down to what you want to achieve and what circumstances you are working under. If you have a good dark sky and you want to get images quickly with less fuss and complexity and are not bothered with any narrow band options then colour would be my choice. However I'm under light polluted skies and I want the flexibility of being able to use narrow band, plus the geek in me is intrigued with the extra complexity and flexibility a mono camera gives you. So I went mono, plus I can use narrow band to help cut through the light pollution to a certain degree at the sacrifice of some of the colour range. 

[Scott]

For me, there's a lot more to it than just the sensitivity of the two cameras. there is also the option of narrowband imaging with mono + filters. No doubt you will have heard that mono is also quicker than colour, and it is, but there is one proviso in my oinion and that is having an automated filterwheel and fully parfocal set-up where you can take lrgb,lrgb, etc. Otherwise, you will be taking LLL,RRR,GGG,BBB, with the need to manually refocus between filters and with uk weather being what it is, more often then not will only end up with lrg or even just L. Now if you live in a country with lovely clear nights 200 days a year, with dark skies and don't want to do NB imaging then its mono every time.I think theres a real arguement for colour in the uk. That said......I have mono and given the choice, would do it again

[kalasinman]

As Mr. Penrice has repeatedly opined, OSC isn't faster in any case. The Bayer matrix and the inability to bin add up to longer integrations for less data in many ways with OSC. I've heard folks say, "well, if the clouds roll in, at least I have something" Think about it. If the results you need require 2 hours of integration, and you only get 45 minutes, yes you have all the colors, but you're still 90 minutes shy of an image you can use, and eventually you are faced with more complex precessing, less resolution/color depth. LRBG or even HaLRGB are superior to OSC. OSC discards 50% of green, and 75% of red or blue photons collected. Mono/filters collects 100%, so an hour of red collected with OSC would take 15 minutes with mono/filters. Even less if 2x2  binning is used for the colors and 1x1 only for L. With a motor focus, the small focal differences with parfocal filters would mean very quirk, if any focus delay. Those who have switched from OSC to mono/filters report the processing is easier too.

[MarsG76]

I'm by far no expert on the subject, but I would say that it all boils down to what you want to achieve and what circumstances you are working under. If you have a good dark sky and you want to get images quickly with less fuss and complexity and are not bothered with any narrow band options then colour would be my choice. However I'm under light polluted skies and I want the flexibility of being able to use narrow band, plus the geek in me is intrigued with the extra complexity and flexibility a mono camera gives you. So I went mono, plus I can use narrow band to help cut through the light pollution to a certain degree at the sacrifice of some of the colour range.

  

For me, there's a lot more to it than just the sensitivity of the two cameras. there is also the option of narrowband imaging with mono + filters. No doubt you will have heard that mono is also quicker than colour, and it is, but there is one proviso in my oinion and that is having an automated filterwheel and fully parfocal set-up where you can take lrgb,lrgb, etc. Otherwise, you will be taking LLL,RRR,GGG,BBB, with the need to manually refocus between filters and with uk weather being what it is, more often then not will only end up with lrg or even just L. Now if you live in a country with lovely clear nights 200 days a year, with dark skies and don't want to do NB imaging then its mono every time.I think theres a real arguement for colour in the uk. That said......I have mono and given the choice, would do it again

  

As Mr. Penrice has repeatedly opined, OSC isn't faster in any case. The Bayer matrix and the inability to bin add up to longer integrations for less data in many ways with OSC. I've heard folks say, "well, if the clouds roll in, at least I have something" Think about it. If the results you need require 2 hours of integration, and you only get 45 minutes, yes you have all the colors, but you're still 90 minutes shy of an image you can use, and eventually you are faced with more complex precessing, less resolution/color depth. LRBG or even HaLRGB are superior to OSC. OSC discards 50% of green, and 75% of red or blue photons collected. Mono/filters collects 100%, so an hour of red collected with OSC would take 15 minutes with mono/filters. Even less if 2x2  binning is used for the colors and 1x1 only for L. With a motor focus, the small focal differences with parfocal filters would mean very quirk, if any focus delay. Those who have switched from OSC to mono/filters report the processing is easier too.

I totally agree with the above 3 opinions... Definitely go mono and filters if you want better quality images and future proof your CCD.

If you're part way through acquiring your subs for a LRGB image you can always continue the next time you have a clear sky. I assume most GOTO mounts allow you to read your RA and DEC coords of you mount so you can slew right back to it another night. I find my CGEM to be very accurate in going back a different night, the catch is that I do not take my imaging kit off the OTA when packing up, I leave it all in tact and store it that way until I have all of my subs.

So there are work arounds even if you average 3 or 4 clear nights in a month.

[kalasinman]

If you do tear down every night, Astrotortilla makes getting back to the same spot quick and easy.

[kalasinman]

One thing I hope you've considered is chip size/FOV Sit down and make a list of targets you are most likely to image. Compare their size to the FOV a Sony chip would provide compared to a Kodak chipped CCD like the QHY9. Making mosaics is fairly time consuming in addition to requiring an imaging session for each panel, plus processing and then matching the values of each panel. Personally a wider FOV eliminates that for many objects I'd image. If you're interested in very small objects then the smaller chip makes sense. Something to consider.

[Bosuser]

Thanks everybody, great advice.

The skies in Sudbury, Suffolk are not as bad as London, where I used to live, but may still need to experiment with narrow band imaging.

Currently now leaning towards mono.

Thanks Kalasinman, I was wondering about the KAF 8300 as an option too with the Atik383L plus, mainly because I've got a long focal length scope and the FOV with the KAF is greater than the Sony chip. I think I've got loads more homework yet 

Kevin

[swag72]

If I may just chip in regarding the Sony and Kodak chip. I used the Sony chip (In the Atik 490) for almost a year. I was having to do mosaics much of the time and that was using a short focal length of 330mm. Recently I have had the opportunity to change to the Kodak 8300 sensor. I know that it will be noisier and that was a concern of mine a year ago. Now that doesn't bother me..... but you can't beat real estate in my opinion.

Once you've decided on mono or OSC, then think very carefully about the chip you will buy. It's an expensive and soul destroying mistake if you get it wrong.

Hope that helps

[Bosuser]

Thanks Sara,

In the last hour or so of research I've been swayed towards the Kodak 8300 sensor in the Atik 383L +. I've found an excellent app for the iPad produced by Atik  that allows the user to put in details of scope such as focal length and reducer then allows you to try out each of the Atik cameras for FOV.  I can see what you mean about the necessity for mosaics if you get it wrong. 

I'm getting closer - just investigating filter wheels now.

Kevin

[gorann]

Kevin,

I have been thinking about similar problems a lot, and my conclusion is that you should go for mono CCD as it allows you to do things like narrowband imaging. Actually, I do not really see the usefulness of a colour CCD nowadays when you can get DSLR cameras like the Sony A7s for one shot colour with so low noise levels that their users see no need for taking dark frames.

I love my Canon EOS 60Da, as it rapidly got me hocked on AP, but I am now planning to trade in my unused Celestron Nightscape OSC (bought it as a novice mistake) for an Atik 383L+

[Singlin]

I was in the same situation as yourself and ended up buying the 383L.

I am very pleased with it.

Remember not to cool it down too fast as it can fog up.

Since I have been cooling mine down in 5 degree increments it has no longer fogged up.

The filter wheel and Artemis software are excellent too.

[ollypenrice]

OSC is both limiting and slow. I don't want to do it down because I used one for a couple of years but only really posted results from OSC plus mono, which hardly counts!

OSC is not faster, it is slower, in a ratio at least as unfavourable as four to six and probably worse than that. (Do ignore claims that it's faster. No OSC experts at high level make this claim. See Dietmar Hager.) Luminance is theoretically 3x faster and, by my measurement, 4x faster than colour. (RGB or OSC.)

I recently posted  two images, one being Ha and the other being Ha  plus RGB (roughly equivalent to OSC) . http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/249007-crescent-to-tulip-in-the-cygnus-star-cloud/

I didn't post the 'RGB only' image because it was as dull as ditchwater. It would take you forever to get this image in OSC, quite honestly. Raw data is available. Just PM me.

Olly

[lensman57]

Atik - Colour or Mono? - that is the question.

From reading forums I can see that the mono gives a better definition than colour cameras  - but how much difference is there.

I'm looking towards the Atik 460EX but I'm not sure whether to buy colour or mono + filters.

Is the difference significantly better? Would I get much more definition on DSOs? Are the extra subs needed worthwhile?

I would like your views before I commit.

Thanks

Kevin

Whether you go for OSC or Mono with RGB or NB filters  depends to a great deal on your location and your sky. If you are fortunate to have dark skies free of LP, clouds and unpredictable weather as most of us suffer from in the UK  then a Mono sensor will be your fastest ticket to very high quality RGB or NB imaging. Life is seldom so kind to us so we have to make the best of what we have. I live in the suburbs of Manchester and the chance of having two or more consecutive clear and dark evenings in the proper astronomical terms are very slim indeed. At the moment I am getting about 2 hours of imaging time about every 18~20 days. This means that all my very expensive RGB and NB filters are just sitting in the box and loosing me interest on the money that I have spent on them. I for one would be the first to say that a Mono CCD with filters would give you much more quality than an OSC sensor with the same total integration time but this is only possible if you are sure that you can get the clear spells to use them , otherwise an OSC camera will give you results even after a short integration time of 2~2.5 Hours. Only you can be the judge as you know your local sky better than anyone else.

Regards,

A.G

[Singlin]

I believe that many  newcomers are attracted to colour  CCD cameras due to their apparent similarity to dslr cameras and the fact that they are slightly intimidated by the added time needed to capture and process the colour.

I know that I had the same thought process.

The time taken acquiring data is "active" time it is during this time that we are productive.It is far more satisfying than the majority of the time we spend fart arsing about.   

[ollypenrice]

I believe that many  newcomers are attracted to colour  CCD cameras due to their apparent similarity to dslr cameras and the fact that they are slightly intimidated by the added time needed to capture and process the colour.

I know that I had the same thought process.

The time taken acquiring data is "active" time it is during this time that we are productive.It is far more satisfying than the majority of the time we spend fart arsing about.   

...and there's plenty of that!!!!!

lly

[MattJenko]

I actually find the process of capturing data quite mechanical and boring once up and running, as you don't touch it. The real joy, art and creativity comes in the processing for me.

[kalasinman]

I actually find the process of capturing data quite mechanical and boring once up and running, as you don't touch it. The real joy, art and creativity comes in the processing for me.

Matt, at the stage I'm at it's more like herding cats. I dream og boring. I'll admit to spring for a set of bins to use when everything is working well

[lensman57]

I actually find the process of capturing data quite mechanical and boring once up and running, as you don't touch it. The real joy, art and creativity comes in the processing for me.

As you say the process of data collection is almost totally automated and computer dependent. I too find this boring. The thrill for me is finding the targets and the post capture processing. I must also add that I find processing "  Mono " images a lot easier than OSC and lot more satisfying for some peculiar reasons.

Regards,

A.G