Altair Astro Hypercam 1600 mono

[julian489289]

Is anyone using one of the new Altair Astro Hypercam 1600 mono cameras?

I am keen to move from a Canon 650D DSLR to a CMOS camera.  I like the 1600 mono camera and see many great results from the ZWO ASI 1600m.  The Altair Astro seems to have a slightly better spec so I was after any reviews on this camera??  ?

[RolandKol]

22 minutes ago, julian489289 said:

Is anyone using one of the new Altair Astro Hypercam 1600 mono cameras?

I am keen to move from a Canon 650D DSLR to a CMOS camera.  I like the 1600 mono camera and see many great results from the ZWO ASI 1600m.  The Altair Astro seems to have a slightly better spec so I was after any reviews on this camera??  ?

not sure about Hypercam,

Just an idea,  - double check it's backfocus also... With ASi1600 6.5mm sensor backfocus, you can use 1.25" filters, - so if you think of astrodons in the future, you get relatively cheap setup.

Edited February 19, 2019 by RolandKol

[jjosefsen]

I just received mine today, so will let you know once it's seen first light. ?

[Adam J]

On 19/02/2019 at 11:46, julian489289 said:

Is anyone using one of the new Altair Astro Hypercam 1600 mono cameras?

I am keen to move from a Canon 650D DSLR to a CMOS camera.  I like the 1600 mono camera and see many great results from the ZWO ASI 1600m.  The Altair Astro seems to have a slightly better spec so I was after any reviews on this camera??  ?

 

5 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

I just received mine today, so will let you know once it's seen first light. ?

Do you both mean the cooled TEC version or just the passive cooled version?

[jjosefsen]

1 minute ago, Adam J said:

 

Do you both mean the cooled TEC version or just the passive cooled version?

Mine is the Pro TEC 4gb version

[david_taurus83]

How will it be any different to the ZWO offering? Same sensor isn't it?

[Adam J]

16 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

Mine is the Pro TEC 4gb version

Very nice.

 

6 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

How will it be any different to the ZWO offering? Same sensor isn't it?

The sensor will be further from the filters which will mean less reflections on bright stars (larger reflections, not the microlens issue) but at the same time 1.25 inch filters may result in vignetting that is difficult to calibrate out. I suspect 36mm filters would be required. The larger amount of ram and 5 degrees more cooling wont really make any difference. However, it is cheaper....too. 

 

Btw do you have any example images of the 102ED-R with the ASI1600mm pro, I have been looking at that scope assuming its the 2017 FPL-53 doublet. 

Edited April 5, 2019 by Adam J

[david_taurus83]

Where do you think I'm going to get clear skies after buying a new scope? Lol!

No mate, not stuck the camera on the end yet. Kinda midway through something on the GT71 but don't think I'll get to finish it now until end of the year. Still haven't figured out how I'll mount guiding stuff to the 102. Easiest option is to just get a 50mm guidescope but will the image scale difference be ok?

[Adam J]

Yes it will be fine. You can guide up to 1000mm focal length with the finder guider unless your pixels are tiny. 

[jjosefsen]

Judging by my initial tests vignetting shouldn't be an issue, as long as you have a pretty thin FW.. I use the ZWO EFW mini with 1.25" filters at F6.4.

[Adam J]

36 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

Judging by my initial tests vignetting shouldn't be an issue, as long as you have a pretty thin FW.. I use the ZWO EFW mini with 1.25" filters at F6.4.

The slow F-ratio will help no doubt.

[jjosefsen]

Just now, Adam J said:

The slow F-ratio will help no doubt.

Yes. Im hoping this combo will be good down to F5.5..

I don't know how reliable this calculator is:

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_filter_size

But when I plug in the details a 102mm TS/AA doublet reduced to F5.5 shouldn't be a problem with the smaller filters. I hope as that is the configuration I am hoping to go with in time.

[Adam J]

On 05/04/2019 at 23:19, jjosefsen said:

Yes. Im hoping this combo will be good down to F5.5..

I don't know how reliable this calculator is:

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_filter_size

But when I plug in the details a 102mm TS/AA doublet reduced to F5.5 shouldn't be a problem with the smaller filters. I hope as that is the configuration I am hoping to go with in time.

I posted this in another thread but its relevant here too:

The math is quite easy:

Required filter diameter = ((Total distance from Filter to sensor / F-ratio) + (Sensor Diagonal / 2)) x 2

Remember that the sensor distance has to include the distance to the filter within the filter wheel (~6mm for zwo wheel).

So total distance from sensor to filter = 23.5mm for Altair Camera.

Altair 1600 TEC + ZWO filter wheel (This assumes the camera has a male connection if not then the back focus will further increase so you may have to add another 1-2mm).

F4 = ((23.5 / 4) + (21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 33.7 mm

F5 = ((23.5 / 5) + (21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 31.3 mm

F6 = ((23.5 / 6) + (21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 29.7 mm

F7 = ((23.5 / 7) + (21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 28.6 mm

So if you want no vignetting with 31mm filters its F6 or slower, if you accept moderate but correctable vignetting its F5 or slower and by the time you get to F4 you are going to be losing quite allot of signal in the corners of the image. That all assumes your optics are perfectly collimated because if not things will be worse.

So you can get away with 31mm filters, but I would not use them faster than F6 if it was me. To get to F5 I would want 36mm filters. 

**For the Altair in terms of 1.25 inch filter (clear aperture = 25mm -> 26mm then you might just get away with it at F6.4 dependent on filter mounting but you will be seeing some significant vignetting. My personal view is that you will not get away with F5.5 and the image will not be fully correctable with flats.

Compare that to the ASI1600mm pro ZWO filter wheel.

F4 = ((12.5 / 4) + 21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 28.2 mm

F5 = ((12.5 / 5) + 21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 26.9 mm

F6 = ((12.5 / 6) + 21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 26.1 mm

F7 = ((12.5 / 7) + 21.9 / 2)) x 2 = 25.5 mm

So you can use the ASI1600mm pro with 31mm down to F4 or even faster, and you can reasonably use it 1.25 inch filter down to F5 or even F4 if you are willing to accept some moderate vignetting.

Hope this makes everything clear.

Adam

 

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Adam J

[jjosefsen]

@Adam J you could be right, even though every calculator I can find online says that the 27mm clear aperture of the baader filters will be enough. Until I try I guess I can't be sure..

Although it might prove to be a moot point, the camera has quite extreme amp glow, and I have not been able to calibrate any of my test data to remove it yet..

 

Doesn't this seem a little extreme for amp glow? It is a master dark at -15c, 316 gain (unity) - stacked with APP.

Edited April 7, 2019 by jjosefsen

[Adam J]

25 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

@Adam J you could be right, even though every calculator I can find online says that the 27mm clear aperture of the baader filters will be enough. Until I try I guess I can't be sure..

Although it might prove to be a moot point, the camera has quite extreme amp glow, and I have not been able to calibrate any of my test data to remove it yet..

 

Doesn't this seem a little extreme for amp glow? It is a master dark at -15c, 316 gain (unity) - stacked with APP.

I don't think that is amp glow. The amp glow on the Panasonic chip is on the right hand side of the image. This looks like a light leak. If it's not a light leak then something is wrong. 

[jjosefsen]

Just now, Adam J said:

I don't think that is amp glow. The amp glow on the Panasonic chip is on the right hand side of the image. This looks like a light leak. If it's not a light leak then something is wrong. 

Crap.. they are in all frames, lights and darks.

These darks were taken with the sensor cap on, can't see how it can be light leaking. I even tried taking a few with the camera covered by a towel, no change.

[jjosefsen]

Looks like it is going back then..

[Adam J]

4 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

Looks like it is going back then..

Take care as some caps are plastic and semi transparent to IR. However if you also chucked it under a towel with no change....

[jjosefsen]

4 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Take care as some caps are plastic and semi transparent to IR. However if you also chucked it under a towel with no change....

Yeah Nick mentioned this too, but it was also facing down into an oak table.. It must be a camera issue..

[jjosefsen]

Little update:

Issue seems to be with my camera - final light leak test tonight, but I fully expect it to fail this as well, meaning it is probably a faulty electronic component.

I have seen some darks from another camera from the same batch, and it has less looks like it has less amp glow than both ZWO and QHY examples I have seen online. by all accounts .

Edited April 8, 2019 by jjosefsen
Amended unfactual comment

[FLO]

44 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

... it has less amp glow than both ZWO and QHY by all accounts.

Who is telling you this? 

Steve 

[Adam J]

33 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

Little update:

Issue seems to be with my camera - final light leak test tonight, but I fully expect it to fail this as well, meaning it is probably a faulty electronic component.

I have seen some darks from another camera from the same batch, and it has less amp glow than both ZWO and QHY by all accounts.

I doubt that as its inherent to the sensor, beyond adding memory to increase read speed on USB2.0 you cant really do anything about it. Even then, I am not sure you would need to make it better, as its never caused me a single issue on my ASI1600mm pro, it just calibrates out perfectly like it was never there in the first place. For that matter in shorter exposures (30 seconds lum at Gain 76) that I use for shooting clusters I don't see it even with no calibration frames.  

Sorry to hear that the camera is not working for you though, its never good when you are itching to try new kit. I am having to send a coma corrector back that is clearly missing an AR coating right now so I feel your pain. 

Adam

Edited April 8, 2019 by Adam J

[RolandKol]

Was it only 90sec Darks?

I do not remember so much glow on my 180sec darks....

Sadly PC at home is Off, - will check once back home...

[jjosefsen]

1 hour ago, FLO said:

Who is telling you this? 

Steve 

Alright I might have misspoken there, what I meant was that it looked like it had less amp glow than a dark frame from QHY/ZWO with the same exposure length.

In reality there are many more variables to consider, so I will amend my previous comment as I can't know unless I have all three cameras... Which I don't. Sorry about that!

The point I was trying to make is: It should not look / behave as it currently does!

Edited April 8, 2019 by jjosefsen

[RolandKol]

My ASI1600MM is off the scope at the moment,

I can produce some darks in the basement for you and share them  via dropbox, just let me know temp, exposures and amounts...

if needed

Edited April 8, 2019 by RolandKol