Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

KAF 8300 vs ASI 1600


Rodd

Recommended Posts

Folks have asked about these two sensors and I thought as long as I have the same target taken with the same scope  (TOA 30) with the same amount of total expoure time  (about 6 hours) I would post them.  A bit of irony is I used a reducer for the STT-8300 (KAF 8300) image, and I binned the ASI 1600 image 2x2 in software.  For this reason the images are the same resolution (1.59 arcsec/pix) but the FOVs are different.  I think the brightness difference between the images is do to me stretching the STT-8300 more aggressively--which resulted in a very inferior background and struggling stars.  I also oversharpened the KAF data, and pretty much over processedthe image as a whole.  I like all but one star better in teh ASI 1600 image--the only one tht really counts!😬  Its interesting to note that the FWHM for the STT-8300 image is around 5"/pix and for the ASI 1600 its about 3.5"/pix (not to bad for a resolution of 1.59, at least not for me--processing usually increases my FWHM)

ASI 1600

h74e-2x2.thumb.jpg.71199b742871a11f3f610be9aa946bd0.jpg

KAF-8300

770854081_STT-8300reduced.thumb.jpg.1db3514261d9099858c904b5da54e5c0.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alan potts said:

I prefer the KAF 8300 image as it handle the bright star so much better, both are really good images but for me the bottom one steals the show.

Alan

I think the only thing better about the kaf  image is that star.  The asi image is better in almost every way.  But as I said, this is probably a processing cause

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you don't mind, but I pulled the stars out of the 1600 image, dusted the microlensing artifact (not perfect, but less distracting?), then added them back, slightly de-emphasised. It's starting to suffering a little from repeated compression. The 8300 image is still a winner, I think

microlensing.thumb.png.3e6c96993fdd6ffb7ff4030e211de2ba.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Both of them are fantastic Rodd... prefer the smaller star in the kaf image and looks slightly more contrasty.. but not a lot in it.. 

But the background is poor in kaf image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

I hope you don't mind, but I pulled the stars out of the 1600 image, dusted the microlensing artifact (not perfect, but less distracting?), then added them back, slightly de-emphasised. It's starting to suffering a little from repeated compression. The 8300 image is still a winner, I think

 

How did you do that?  It looks marvelous!  I use of bit of morpological transformation, or a good star mask and cures--but never get such a perfect look in the stras.  Is it me or has the background been disturbed?  Maybe the stars hid the defects in the background

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

I hope you don't mind, but I pulled the stars out of the 1600 image, dusted the microlensing artifact (not perfect, but less distracting?), then added them back, slightly de-emphasised. It's starting to suffering a little from repeated compression. The 8300 image is still a winner, I think

 

You did something else--I can't go to full resolution vieiwing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, WanderingEye said:

This is very interesting, as I just bought an SXVR H18 mono camera with the KAF 8300 sensor, and my other option was the ASI1600 mono, as they were about same price secondhand...so I think I made a good choice... 😀

Depends on the FL really--matching pixel size with scope.  I must stress--anything untoward in the above images is teh result of bad processing (except the microlensing effect)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

How did you do that? 

I opened the jpg in PixInsight, duplicated it the ran Starnet++ on both. One to extract the star mask, the other to remove the stars.

Those 2 I saved and opened in paint.net (photoshop, but freeeeeee). I set the star mash on top, blend set to image burn then used a very low flow / transparent brush to drop the )( shaped light echos from the stars layer.

Finally I used a small amount of clone stamp on the background layer to remove the remaining more obvious bits. The background looks different, because using burn, the stars are quite reduced

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

I opened the jpg in PixInsight, duplicated it the ran Starnet++ on both. One to extract the star mask, the other to remove the stars.

Those 2 I saved and opened in paint.net (photoshop, but freeeeeee). I set the star mash on top, blend set to image burn then used a very low flow / transparent brush to drop the )( shaped light echos from the stars layer.

Finally I used a small amount of clone stamp on the background layer to remove the remaining more obvious bits. The background looks different, because using burn, the stars are quite reduced

Interesting.  Must get Star tools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

Sorry, it clicks through for me. I didn't reduce the size

Now I got it--sometimes it takes 10 clicks.  What did you do to the background....it looks much better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

Nothing other than removing the stars. These are the 2 'raw' files out of Starnet++ (starnet setting 64)

Ahhh--you didn't put all the stars back in.  But that shouldn't impact the background.  It has definitely been reduced, or something as there is much less variation in the dynamic range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

Could be the compression?

I don't know enough about the process to say.  I do see the utility of being able to stretch the nebula and stars separately.  Will star tools work with PI directly or is it totally separate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yawning Angel said:

Starnet (not star tools). Yes, there is a plugin:

pixinsight.com/forum/Starnet++

Thanks Alex--I remember seeing this but did not really give it much thought.  I guess I should attempt to use it......PI does not play well with my computers at times.  Scripts do not lode, and I get  memory freeze errors when using some of the dynamic processes (DBE, DC, etc.) even though I have plenty of memory.  Often, rebooting the computer fixes it (but you can see how that would be a frustrating step in anyone's workflow!--especially since I do not have the memory capacity to work in projects very often.  Sin Juan Carcenejo can't duplicate my problems, the PI team can be of no help. 

Anyway, I see the warning about freezing.  I hope  it works

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.