QHY10 OR QHY8L?

[HunterHarling]

Hope you get it resolved...

You would think if MA sent you product with an issue they would be forced the replace it?

I don't think you should give up on the QHY10 though it is a really good camera.

[ebdons]

Hi Hunter, sorry for the delay, yes MA sent me some info about removing the dust/dirt/debris which seemed to have worked, but will take some test images, not seen clear skies for 2 weeks  now and the sun 1 week ago!- I'll be glad to see the moon ATM!. yes should have sent it back but as long as it works right,  watch out for the "gooey" sealant which can get dislodged , although I was tempted by the opticstar ds-616 but qhy10 at least had some reviews to go on. hope for clear skies Tony

[ebdons]

Hi All, sorry for the delay, at last I got to test all night on Friday, sorted the dust issue and now have something that is "fit for purpose"  these images were taken without the Astronomic UHC which I had issues getting anything to come through with the QHY10 factory IR cut, so used a separate  Astronomic IR CUT, which allowed me to get something recorded, looks like amp glow or could be LP on the left, although I made a mistake and left the setting on High Speed Read, M42 was also pretty low in the sky, are darks needed for the QHY10?, just processed with NEB and DSS and minor touch up in GIMP, my settings were GAIN 6 and OFFSET 112, so maybe I need to increase the exposure time or adjust the gain and offset to get the UHC to work? all the best Tony. 

     

M42 IR CUT ONLY EDT80 FF 10X2MIN LIGHT,4X2MIN DARKS,20X1SEC BIAS

[HunterHarling]

Could you post the raw stacked file or a single sub?

I always use darks but it is such a low noise sensor they might not be need.

I have my gain at 5 and offset at 132 so you could try that.

[Adam J]

I would not be happy about being forced to open up an brand new camera and clean it myself! This is a very off putting story but not sure if I should be blaming QHY for putting out a dirty sensor (that really is not acceptable the dust should never be on the sensor itself like that. The front glass yes but not the sensor!) or Modern Astronomy for not taking it back. You could have invalidated your warrenty by opening it up too, scary story all in all. 

[John78]

1 hour ago, Adam J said:

I would not be happy about being forced to open up an brand new camera and clean it myself! This is a very off putting story but not sure if I should be blaming QHY for putting out a dirty sensor (that really is not acceptable the dust should never be on the sensor itself like that. The front glass yes but not the sensor!) or Modern Astronomy for not taking it back. You could have invalidated your warrenty by opening it up too, scary story all in all. 

I tend to agree - I can't believe any camera company would ship product like that, there's no way it would pass QA, and MA are legally obliged to take it back or replace it under a load of different types or regulation, faulty, distance selling etc...

That said - I've recently ordered a QHY174M from MA... So I'll see how it goes, its coming from China though as MA had no stock.

[Adam J]

24 minutes ago, John78 said:

I tend to agree - I can't believe any camera company would ship product like that, there's no way it would pass QA, and MA are legally obliged to take it back or replace it under a load of different types or regulation, faulty, distance selling etc...

That said - I've recently ordered a QHY174M from MA... So I'll see how it goes, its coming from China though as MA had no stock.

I think that the CMOS cameras are a much newer design and so would hope that they have improved their quality control in more recent years. They have been selling the QHY10 for a long time it may be old stock. 

[ebdons]

Hi All, thanks for the input, without limiting my options, it was either the QHY8L/QHY10 or the opticstar 616xl, and really only because the weather has been so BA, and wanted some widefield views which my sx7c  could not supply, OSC- you gain in convenience, but you lose in sensitivity, but still have my trusty 825 Trius mono and lodestar x2 and SXFW  to fall back on, although it's a dumb question, anybody used the 825 as a planetary imager? I have a opticstar PX-75c which is giving me good images of the moon etc, and saw something about using the SX costar imager for Jupiter and mars, with the Baader IR-Pass Filter 1¼" (685 nm) filter fitted, maybe I should have gone for the 616xl? all the best Tony

[sloz1664]

I would personally purchase a LP filter if your budget can stretch to the 2" IDAS LP filter this will certainly help with any LP you have, and allow for increased exposures. Regards the gain and offsets there is a method that will give you the optimum for your QHY 10. If you perform the test, please add any filters you will be imaging with onrto the QHY 10 prior to testing.

gain and offset.pdf

Steve

[ebdons]

Hi Steve,  I was looking at the IDAS type filters, think there are 3 similar IDAS? but went for ASTRONOMIC UHC as it was recommended if you have LP in conjuction with the QHY10 inbuilt ir cut, did  the calibration as per the manual, had it set to 846 in ezcap noise analyse 500-1000 limit, then did the longer exp to get between 60,000 and 65535 value, which is a bit fiddly. I original image was only 20 min of light frames, with a poor sky so this could explain my issues, IDAS have a great history, UHC also but maybe the wrong buy for me, with the EDT80 setup? using astro tool utility, my best setup  with best sampling rate with average seeing is with my MEADE 8" sct which is my planetary scope, and my 8" F4 newt, but that may be taxing my mount EQ6 pro. all the best Tony

[ebdons]

Hi All, a new image from me, M42 again, with moon nearby and with the Astronomic UHC only, processed by DSS and cleanup with GIMP, using HunterHarling's recom settings, better image but still has many issues with dark spots and seems to be overexposed near the Trapizium star cluster, maybe I need the separate Astronomic IR CUT in front of the UHC, as I got the trapezium with just the IR CUT fitted, maybe I should try my F4 NEWT to see if I can get some better images? all the best Tony.

       

M42 EDT80 UHC 20X2 LIGHT, MIN 10X2MIN DARK,50X1SEC BIAS

[sloz1664]

I would been more than happy with that as one of the first images from my QHY8 Pro.

You are starting to get fine wispy nebula on M42 but have over exposed it and blown out the core. Don't worry we have all done it. You need to remove the green cast. How you do this in Gimp I don't know as I don't use it.

Many newcomers into astro imaging want to image M42 because it's so spectacular. It's also one of the more complex images to do correctly.

Steve

[HunterHarling]

I personally would not use the UHC filter as it is meant for visual. Maybe try getting a set of exposures with out it?

[ebdons]

Hi Guys, thanks for the quick  reply,  Had a choice between Astronomic uhc-e ,cls and uhc, as Astronomic does have a good reputation, was advised to get the UHC for OSC in combo with ir cut, as I've got serious LP,and could also use this for visual, my previous image was one with just the ir cut on its own but that had serious LP showing, also orion is above some serious LP so that has to be having an impact? yes I have over-exposed the image, just to get some more detail, maybe will perservere with this setup and increase my number of frames,  I had trouble getting this detail using stark labs and DSS ,but also know these programs are only the 1st stage of processing the image and using gimp is a free way of getting something of quality to post. Clear skies all. all the best Tony

[Adam J]

18 hours ago, HunterHarling said:

I personally would not use the UHC filter as it is meant for visual. Maybe try getting a set of exposures with out it?

I disagree the Astronomik UHC is a fantastic filter for imaging emission nebula with a OSC camera. For galaxies you want the CLS though. While some UHC filters are purely for visual the Astronomic also passes H-a, has anti reflection coatings and is an excellent choice for imaging.

10 hours ago, ebdons said:

Hi Guys, thanks for the quick  reply,  Had a choice between Astronomic uhc-e ,cls and uhc, as Astronomic does have a good reputation, was advised to get the UHC for OSC in combo with ir cut, as I've got serious LP,and could also use this for visual, my previous image was one with just the ir cut on its own but that had serious LP showing, also orion is above some serious LP so that has to be having an impact? yes I have over-exposed the image, just to get some more detail, maybe will perservere with this setup and increase my number of frames,  I had trouble getting this detail using stark labs and DSS ,but also know these programs are only the 1st stage of processing the image and using gimp is a free way of getting something of quality to post. Clear skies all. all the best Tony

However, who ever advised you that you need an IR cut was wrong!

You do need an IR cut with the UHC don't get me wrong but I am nearly 100% sure that the sensor window on the QHY10 already incorporates an IR cut filter making the additional filter redundant.  

UHC + the IR cut in the sensor window is all good. 

http://www.qhyccd.com/files/QHY10QHY12 user manual.pdf

see page 5 of the manual. Link above.

 

Also am still seeing large amounts of dust on the sensor....

Try again with the UHC once the moon had departed. 

Perhaps you could let people have access to the unprocessed TIFF? As i have a feeling that you may have clipped the white point in processing the last image you posted, you should not get so much saturation from only 2 min exposures. 

[ebdons]

Hi Adam, thanks for the info regarding the ir cut factory fitting, I maybe  got my wires crossed about my cam being fitted  with a clear glass window option  and not the ir cut version, need to get sorted my with flatfield frames , also getting used to gimp, maybe I just need to adjust my gain and offset back a bit to compensate for the over-exposure,   yes the weather has gone against me, dew over 98% and moon etc, but that goes with the hobby. still my last image is better , but will get it right with the fantastic help you get on here. clear skies! all the best Tony

[ebdons]

Hi All, imaging all night Saturday/sunday, using my Atronomik UHC, not much joy with my previous settings on gain and offset, my best image all night was ngc 2175  no gimp cleanup yet and still very poor I know, maybe best to go with a hutech type filter, did various objects m33 m51 m101 m1 etc just about nothing showed up, so maybe the UHC isn't suitable for these other objects or maybe this is "operator error" ie. ME ! , is  this UHC suitable with my 825 mono trius, or do I sell it? also might have to go and re-calibrate the QHY10 and start again from scratch. clear skies. Tony.

 

ngc2175 edt80 ff uhc 10x5 min light 5x5 min dark 20x 1 sec bias minor cleanup in stark labs

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, ebdons said:

Hi All, imaging all night Saturday/sunday, using my Atronomik UHC, not much joy with my previous settings on gain and offset, my best image all night was ngc 2175  no gimp cleanup yet and still very poor I know, maybe best to go with a hutech type filter, did various objects m33 m51 m101 m1 etc just about nothing showed up, so maybe the UHC isn't suitable for these other objects or maybe this is "operator error" ie. ME ! , is  this UHC suitable with my 825 mono trius, or do I sell it? also might have to go and re-calibrate the QHY10 and start again from scratch. clear skies. Tony.

 

ngc2175 edt80 ff uhc 10x5 min light 5x5 min dark 20x 1 sec bias minor cleanup in stark labs

The UHC is an excellent filter for emission nebula so long as your using a UV/IR cut also. But I would not use it for galaxies ever, a CLS filter is the best bet for that. In the end you are likely to want both so I would not get rid of the UHC filter.

The reality here is that 10 x 5 mins light frames on NGC2175 is totally insufficient you should be aiming for 10 min or even longer subs dependent on light pollution and 4 hours or more of total integration. It looks like you are still sitting in the read noise, try Gain 20 and Offset 120 and always dither with any OSC camera!  

I don't really see any LP gradients in that image so I would guess that the filter is doing its job well. 

Stick with emission nebula targets for now and pick the brighter ones until you are used to the camera, Rosetta is a good target to try. Only image a single target per evening skipping between targets will not get you the results you are after. 

Hope that helps. 

Adam 

[ebdons]

Hi Adam, thanks for the quick reply, looks like "I'm running before walking" with this, yes I was pushing my luck with imaging so many objects in 1 night, at least I know what is possible with the moon coming up, also found that my edt80 2" focuser was  flexing when I was imaging near the horizon which is down to the FF and QHY10 hanging off the end, time to upgrade or get some baader rings to get the focuser in as far as possible, also there is some debate as bother to take Dark frames at all, I always do but do I need to for the QHY10?.  Would the astronomic CLS filter be the better "allrounder" for galaxies and clusters and like? or is the Baader skyglow better? maybe an Explore scientific CLS at 1/3 of the price of the AST CLS, so much to learn still, or maybe go the way and try narrowband with an OSC? clear skies all .Tony

[HunterHarling]

I had a quick process of your image, hope you don't mind. I used pixinsight to reduce noise Lightroom try to get rid of the light pollution.

I would either not use darks or use 25+ darks. You really don't need them though, just stack lots of frames.

I think for galaxies the best light pollution filter is the hutech IDAS lps p2 filter although that is just what I have heard.

[ebdons]

Hi Hunter, thanks for the re-process, did get that colour but thought it too "pink/purple" as my previous post with my 2" focuser drop on low to horizon area objects, which was worse when I did long exp ie 5 mins or more so started 1-2 min exp or this could be the FF which I have set spacing to 55mm to the thread from ccd sensor, maybe a some of both issues going on, I used to get nice star spikes with my 825 mono, but either this is the FF or the QHY10 or my exp length, I have ordered the CLS (no-ir cut) as I have a separate one as well, and hopefully will be able to use this CLS on my 825 mono as well. all the best Tony.

[ebdons]

Hi All, did some imaging last night as it cleared for an hour or so, took a test image of ngc2244 and looked ok, after doing 10x5 min exp this appeared after simple stacking, strange image size, taken with QHY10, field flattener and uhc filter on edt80, cam at -15c, gain 20 offset 120,with heavy dew  around, I think I know what caused it after taking the image train apart unless something else contributed to it as well? any ideas. Tony

[ebdons]

Hi All, found that the skywatcher Field Flattener had vapour or a "damp mist" inside it, I thought these units were sealed between the 2 lenses, the test image was taken with the cam temp at -15c it showed no mist, but as I took more images it seems to have appeared inside the FF, could the cooling of the camera contribute to excess cooling of the FF?, seems unlikely but the FF probably needs resealing? all the best Tony

[Adam J]

On 11/20/2017 at 20:59, ebdons said:

Hi All, found that the skywatcher Field Flattener had vapour or a "damp mist" inside it, I thought these units were sealed between the 2 lenses, the test image was taken with the cam temp at -15c it showed no mist, but as I took more images it seems to have appeared inside the FF, could the cooling of the camera contribute to excess cooling of the FF?, seems unlikely but the FF probably needs resealing? all the best Tony

You should not get anything between the two layers at all and to be honest with you its rare for the FF to get dew at all in any case. Are you sure its not an optical illusion and what you are seeing is not the front glass of the camera....I ask because I know you have had it open.

Take the camera outside and cool it down without anything else connected but just as you normally would then take a look at the cover glass.

The images does look like what I would expect for dew close to or on the camera. Not really much else it could be to make the center darker.

Going back to the filter thing. If you are in bad LP then the UHC is the way to go and image  emission nebula with it. If you want to try galaxies then get the CLS. The CLS is a better all round filter. But to be honest you are significantly better off with the astronomik UHC for nebula and you should stick with it for now. If you keep changing your setup you will not get very far. Try an easy target with it like the rosetta. Try longer subs (10 mins) with the settings i suggested, get a couple of hours at the very least. See what happens. I am not entirely certain that you are on target with that image of NGC2244. You may have missed it.

Adam

[ebdons]

Hi adam thanks for the info, nothing to report as weather is BA, got these last night dodging the showers, not great but better, using the CLS (non ir cut) with my F4 newt with your suggested settings etc ,tried the CLS on my edt80, better but still not great, so maybe my edt80 is not up to the job? will keep the UHC and try on the F4 newt and see so switched to F4 newt and much better only 20 mins of light before rain and sleet, lucky to get that last night. slight oval stars as am using coma corrector, spacing needs fine tuning? all the best Tony

M42 BASIC PROCESS CLS CC 4X5MIN STACK LIGHT 30X1 SEC BIAS (Medium).TIF