From Ghost to Iris and beyond, QHY 367C rocks!

[gorann]

Regarding the number of subs I notice that Yves only used 18x15min (Gain 2800, offset 76) for the image that started this thread, so that would not be so hard on the computer (but maybe a dark site is needed for that).

[AKB]

9 hours ago, vdb said:

So yes of course the location is Les Granges, where else :-D.

I was thinking that you had another Mesu stashed away at some place even better...

 

[vdb]

The ASI has no buffer which is very important, QHY has the same but with buffer, camera should have about the same quality/specs as their full frame cousins ...

 

/Yves

 

[gorann]

2 hours ago, vdb said:

The ASI has no buffer which is very important, QHY has the same but with buffer, camera should have about the same quality/specs as their full frame cousins ...

 

/Yves

 

Thanks Yves,

I also heard from Wim that the buffer helps getting rid of amp glow since the amp does not have to work as hard, and that this is the reason for amp glow in ASI and no amp glow in QHY.

I now had a look at the QHY series. For those of us that you got thinking about an OSC but only have optics that can fill an APS-C sensor, it seems to me that the QHY168C would be as fantastic as your QHY367. Same read-out noise specs for both chips, and about the same pixel size, but the QHY168C comes in at a third of the price. Of course, many may want to wait for a QHY168M.....

[RichLD]

Really glad that you're all digging the QHY. I've got four of their cameras and have nothing but good things to say about them! I've been following the development of the 367 for some time and have to say it certainly delivers - absolutely stunning image!

Thanks for sharing

Rich 

[toxic]

oh my thats a beaut image and camera 

[Moonshane]

Simply amazing images. I too prefer mono in general.

[Jedi2014]

That's a "wow" image.
The camera is interesting, but more important is the dark location I would guess.

 

[laser_jock99]

On 21/10/2017 at 22:03, gorann said:

I would love a camera like that but most of my imaging equipment would probably not be up to the task of illuminating a chip that size. Would the APS-C sized ASI071 be up to the task? Sony chip and about the same pixel size.

Tempted myself- but as you say, few scopes would make full use of a sensor that big. What is the APS-C version like?

[Adam J]

On 10/22/2017 at 10:42, wimvb said:

I read about the possible loss of sensitivity in the qhy forum, a while back. It was measured in a side by side comparative test, but not a major issue, I believe. Unfortunately I can't find the reference at the moment.

Yes...I saw that analysis and its got many holes in it. Would not trust it to be honest the numbers presented literally did not add up and the experimental technique was flawed. Those micro lenses are there for a reason. 

[gorann]

On 10/25/2017 at 00:43, laser_jock99 said:

Tempted myself- but as you say, few scopes would make full use of a sensor that big. What is the APS-C version like?

See my late comment above on this thread. QHY168C could be "our" choice of camera and it comes in at a third of the price

[Adam J]

6 minutes ago, gorann said:

See my late comment above on this thread. QHY168C could be "our" choice of camera and it comes in at a third of the price

Actually, I would say that the QHY247c is the APS-C equivalent in terms of sensor generation to the QHY367c, although it does suffer from smaller pixels than the older generation 168c's sensor. 

[gorann]

3 hours ago, Adam J said:

Actually, I would say that the QHY247c is the APS-C equivalent in terms of sensor generation to the QHY367c, although it does suffer from smaller pixels than the older generation 168c's sensor. 

I was looking at noise performance and pixel size, and then 367 and 168 are virtually identical (except for total chip area), so it all boils down to the imaging train and your preference for arc-secs/pixel

[antoine]

For anyone interested in this QHY 367C camera, there is one available on Astromart right now.

 

[ollypenrice]

On 22/10/2017 at 11:17, wimvb said:

I believe that qhy will release mono versions of their larger chip cameras. But they may have debayered osc sensors to do so*. The astro market is most likely too small for Sony to be bothered.

A disadvantage (other than the minor inconvenience of having to invest in larger optics) of these cameras is that you need lots of subs, especially under light polluted skies. Integration time for good results is still several hours. At 36 mpixel*2 (2 bytes per pixel, even with a 14 bit adc) you need a very powerful computer just to stack. If you do 4.5 hours in 1 minute subs, that's quite a few Gigabytes on one night. (Even Yves' 145 subs that went into M31 is quite a large number. Integration time of 12 hours?) The time it takes to calibrate, stack and process these images adds up fast.

Btw Yves, according to qhy the sensor in the qhy367c is the same as in the d810a.

* when trying this, they lost the microlenses in the process, thus lowering the sensitivity. And got rid of minor diffraction effects as a bonus.

It's worth noting the remarkable speed of the stacking and calibrating process in AstroArt. I now have a fast imaging computer and perhaps the next time Yves is down here we could do a test.

Olly

[laser_jock99]

Still a great image- really interesting camera. Out of my budget at the moment (hell I'm driving round in a 21 year old car!) but interesting nonetheless....

[peter shah]

Another masterpiece Yves....just beautiful colour...it really sits well in that FOV