Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_solar_25_winners.thumb.jpg.fe4e711c64054f3c9486c752d0bcd6f2.jpg

Rodd

KAF 8300 vs ASI 1600

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 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kodak chip is better. Detail is good as well.

But the ASI is no slouch either.

N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 😀

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rodd said:

But the background is poor in kaf image

As in hot pixels? 

They should calibrate out

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

As in hot pixels? 

They should calibrate out

No--as in terrible background, you have to look at full resolution.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now after the star has been fixed I prefer this, that star would drive me mad, as they seem to you as you crop them out, if I go mono with a 1600 I would have to learn that fix.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rodd said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rodd said:

What did you do to the background

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

less.png

stars.png

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.