New ASI462mc Arrived - Discussion, Comparison & First Light

[Chris]

After an initial comparison with it's predecessor the ASI 290mc (Not the 1290 as I keep calling it), I go for first light using the ASI462mc and the Heritage 150p. Trying to capture the ISS during 90% cloud with no experience turned out to be all too much, but I did see an interesting appearance on the Moon thanks to how the sun was shining on a crater! 

  

[neil phillips]

Its a great sensitive chip. Been using the QHY version for a while now with small scopes (114 mm and 70mm ) on lunar, at 1/250 s. Gain is very low.

In the low 30%  region.  The problem with the assertion its mono like at 850nm. Is the reduced resolution. Stuck at 850nm Even in good seeing..   But its very very sensitive agreed. a good all round workhorse.

[Chris]

30 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

 

In the low 30%  region.  The problem with the assertion its mono like at 850nm. Is the reduced resolution. Stuck at 850nm Even in good seeing..   

There is that Neil, I'm glad it's got relatively fine pixels at 2.9um which helps with the resolution part at least  

Edited March 28, 2021 by Lockie

[JeremyS]

Nice job Chris 👍🏻

Made me chuckle too 👍🏻

Edited March 28, 2021 by JeremyS

[Chris]

5 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

Nice job Chris 👍🏻

Made me chuckle too 👍🏻

Thanks Jeremy, glad you liked it  

[Davey-T]

Another excellent video Chris, thanks for taking the time 👍

I use a Astronomik Pro planet 642 IR Pass filter that passes 642 / 840 with a mono camera for lunar which works well.

ATB

Dave

[happy-kat]

I've got an astronomix 742 pro planet pass filter to use with mine which allows past 1000 which is where you get 100% QE.

For Moon I'll likely be using it with the evoguide as the Moon is full frame there.

Edited March 28, 2021 by happy-kat

[Chris]

1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

Another excellent video Chris, thanks for taking the time 👍

I use a Astronomik Pro planet 642 IR Pass filter that passes 642 / 840 with a mono camera for lunar which works well.

ATB

Dave

Ah thanks Dave!  Thanks for the tip. I was looking at the Pro Planet filters and the 642 did look quite versatile. Good for H alpha as well according to the blurb   

Edited March 28, 2021 by Lockie

[happy-kat]

I picked the 742 as for this camera I felt the other filter fell short of peak QEl

[Chris]

11 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

I've got an astronomix 742 pass filter to use with mine which allows past 1000 which is where you get 100% QE.

For Moon I'll likely be using it with the evoguide as the Moon is full frame there.

 

6 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

I picked the 742 as for this camera I felt the other filter fell short of peak QEl

It's a tough one, I mean I'm sure both the 642 and 742 give good results. Looking at the QE graph, the 462mc seems to peak around 830nm so it should still be very sensitive with the 642. 

Hmm? I may have to buy both and do some testing.   

[happy-kat]

Sorry yes I just checked the curve path again and it's not 1000 but as you say a big lower for peak QE. 

[neil phillips]

14 hours ago, Lockie said:

 

It's a tough one, I mean I'm sure both the 642 and 742 give good results. Looking at the QE graph, the 462mc seems to peak around 830nm so it should still be very sensitive with the 642. 

Hmm? I may have to buy both and do some testing.   

On the mono 290. I was getting great results with a Altair planet killer IR pass. (Clavius pbase) contrary to my previous statement. was 685nm Better resolution than 850 nm. which obviously is better for progressively worse UK seeing.  Not sure i am reading your comments correctly. But are you suggesting using 642 nm with the 462 c camera ?

Edited March 29, 2021 by neil phillips

[Chris]

2 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Not sure i am reading your comments correctly. But are you suggesting using 642 nm with the 462 c camera

Thinking about testing it, I'm curious. The 642 passes wavelengths from 642nm to 840nm and the 462 cam peaks at around 830 so it should still be super sensitive using the 642 filter. The 642 seems quite versatile because it would enhance daytime Lunar and generally improve contrast....And I got a glimpse at the 462's deep sky capability when I briefly pointed it at the core of Orion, and apparently the Pro planet 642 makes for a good budget Ha filter. 

What were your thoughts Neil? 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lockie

[neil phillips]

37 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Thinking about testing it, I'm curious. The 642 passes wavelengths from 642nm to 840nm and the 462 cam peaks at around 830 so it should still be super sensitive using the 642 filter. The 642 seems quite vmersatile because it would enhance daytime Lunar and generally improve contrast....And I got a glimpse at the 462's deep sky capability when I briefly pointed it at the core of Orion, and apparently the Pro planet 642 makes for a good budget Ha filter. 

What were your thoughts Neil? 

 

Hi Chris the problem i discovered listening to Chris Go about this Chip, Is the Bayer matrix becomes transparent at 850nm. At lower wavelengths this likely will not be so. And i would assume the lower you go. The less transparent the bayer matrix becomes. You will effectively have a grid pattern on the images. Having said  that i know of software that may or may not remove ( actually attempt to subtract) this grid pattern. At some point i think i would like to try a IR742 Pass. Rather than the lower wavelenghs in the hope the grid pattern can be removed more effectively. It is just a idea at the moment. I am still waiting to get my revamped 10" Orion Newt mounted. So can not presently try this with that. I also dont have a IR742 Filter But i may try this idea. Am uncertain if it will work

Not sure if you have seen this chris go youtube vid talking about this camera. Its very interesting. But its also where he discusses the bayer pattern problem

Christopher Go talks about Planetary Inmaging - YouTube

Edited March 29, 2021 by neil phillips

[Chris]

18 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Hi Chris the problem i discovered listening to Chris Go about this Chip, Is the Bayer matrix becomes transparent at 850nm. At lower wavelengths this likely will not be so. And i would assume the lower you go. The less transparent the bayer matrix becomes. You will effectively have a grid pattern on the images. Having said  that i know of software that may or may not remove ( actually attempt to subtract) this grid pattern. At some point i think i would like to try a IR742 Pass. Rather than the lower wavelenghs in the hope the grid pattern can be removed more effectively. It is just a idea at the moment. I am still waiting to get my revamped 10" Orion Newt mounted. So can not presently try this with that. I also dont have a IR742 Filter But i may try this idea. Am uncertain if it will work

Not sure if you have seen this chris go youtube vid talking about this camera. Its very interesting. But its also where he discusses the bayer pattern problem

Christopher Go talks about Planetary Inmaging - YouTube

Hey Neil, it sounds like I'd better check out Chris's video, thanks for that  Maybe you can't just de bayer in PIPP, AutoStakkert etc like with other cams? With no filter I saw grid lines when taking AVI footage in RAW8 but using RGB24 this seemed to Debayer the footage automatically, but then left the image quite monochrome. I was impressed with the detail though. Sounds like I've got a lot to get my head around with this camera lol 

I'm guessing the issue might be that if you de-bayer for the grid pattern, it would mess up things above 850nm where effectively there isn't a Bayer matrix to be de-bayered........ if you get what I'm saying.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lockie

[neil phillips]

23 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Hey Neil, it sounds like I'd better check out Chris's video, thanks for that  Maybe you can't just de bayer in PIPP, AutoStakkert etc like with other cams? With no filter I saw grid lines when taking AVI footage in RAW8 but using RGB24 this seemed to Debayer the footage automatically, but then left the image quite monochrome. I was impressed with the detail though. Sounds like I've got a lot to get my head around with this camera lol 

I'm guessing the issue might be that if you de-bayer for the grid pattern, it would mess up things above 850nm where effectively there isn't a Bayer matrix to be de-bayered........ if you get what I'm saying.

No Chris i dont think you can just debayer the problem away. And your correct at 850nm the colour filter grid pattern becomes totally transparent. So nothing there to debayer.v Well thats my understanding.  But like you Chris just learning as i go along. Hopefully others who understand these things more may chip in at some point. For some time i have been surprised at the lack of interest about this camera. When jupiter returns at 29 degrees with a ADC this camera is going to perform well. IR850nm perfect for 29 degrees, Venus also. Now where is the mono version ?

[Chris]

23 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

No Chris i dont think you can just debayer the problem away. And your correct at 850nm the colour filter grid pattern becomes totally transparent. So nothing there to debayer.v Well thats my understanding.  But like you Chris just learning as i go along. Hopefully others who understand these things more may chip in at some point. For some time i have been surprised at the lack of interest about this camera. When jupiter returns at 29 degrees with a ADC this camera is going to perform well. IR850nm perfect for 29 degrees, Venus also. Now where is the mono version ?

Thanks Neil, I've watched about half of the livestream with Chris Go so far, and I must say it did make me feel a bit better when those involved in the live stream were struggling to get their heads around the 462 in places hehe. From what I can gather though we can basically think of the 462 as two separate cameras. A 'faux mono' with something like a 742 or 807 IR Pass, or an OSC with an IR blocking filter. Things seem a bit more confusing when we try and use the camera with no filter, and I definitely felt this when processing both RGB24 and RAW8 footage. Chris go said to record in RAW but all I can say is my RGB24 footage was better when I tried both, hence I only included the RGB24 footage in the above video. I'm slightly confused by how the de bayered footage looked so mono but maybe it's just including too much of the IR region where it's not picking up the bayer pattern? I don't know.

Summary for now. I need to buy both an IR pass and an IR block to get the most out of this camera in a way I can understand

Like you I would be very interested in other peoples thoughts about this camera, and yes a Mono version! Chris Go was even asking for one in this video! I hope they do!   

p.s. I'll be right there with you when it comes to imaging Jupiter. Just not with the ADC.   

Edited March 29, 2021 by Lockie

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, Lockie said:

Thanks Neil, I've watched about half of the livestream with Chris Go so far, and I must say it did make me feel a bit better when those involved in the live stream were struggling to get their heads around the 462 in places hehe. From what I can gather though we can basically think of the 462 as two separate cameras. A 'faux mono' with something like a 742 or 807 IR Pass, or an OSC with an IR blocking filter. Things seem a bit more confusing when we try and use the camera with no filter, and I definitely felt this when processing both RGB24 and RAW8 footage. Chris go said to record in RAW but all I can say is my RGB24 footage was better when I tried both, hence I only included the RGB24 footage in the above video. I'm slightly confused by how the de bayered footage looked so mono but maybe it's just including too much of the IR region where it's not picking up the bayer pattern? I don't know.

Summary for now. I need to buy both an IR pass and an IR block to get the most out of this camera in a way I can understand

Like you I would be very interested in other peoples thoughts about this camera, and yes a Mono version! Chris Go was even asking for one in this video! I hope they do!   

p.s. I'll be right there with you when it comes to imaging Jupiter. Just not with the ADC.   

Camera aside why no ADC Chris ? This year will be made for it

 

[Chris]

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Camera aside why no ADC Chris ? This year will be made for it

 

Ah well Neil, only because I don't own one. I've spent so much money recently I'm not even jumping into buying filters for the 462. Although I've been thinking about selling the 294 Hypercam which would free up some money for filters etc. I quite like messing with super cheap DLSR's for deep sky anyway so I probably wouldn't use the hypercam that much this year. Yeah I might put the feeler out and see if anyone would be interested in it. Then maybe  

[happy-kat]

I've only used it so far with Allskeye to grab night sky with the 150° lens. If you don't try to correct the colours when capturing it's very sensitive but stars aren't particularly clean but then I've no IR block in place but then so that and you lose the sensitivity and I liked seeing the clouds at night.

[Chris]

12 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

I've only used it so far with Allskeye to grab night sky with the 150° lens. If you don't try to correct the colours when capturing it's very sensitive but stars aren't particularly clean but then I've no IR block in place but then so that and you lose the sensitivity and I liked seeing the clouds at night.

Well if you have any thoughts after using it again feel free to pop them on this thread

[Chris]

Ok, a bit of further reading and thought and I've started out by ordering the 642 (accepting that I'll be missing around 60nm of useful range from 840nm to 900nm), and next payday I'll get the 742. I'll skip the 807 because you need a scope with at least 10" of aperture for that filter, and you really need 6" of aperture for the 742 hence why I've opted for the 642 first. I'm also curious to see how debayering will work out with the 642.

I'm looking forward to some testing : )

I actually could have justified both filters this month, but I saw FLO had some of these in stock:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/celestron-firstscope-signature-series-moon-by-robert-reeves.html

My 6 year old girls have been asking for their own telescope so there they go....As long as they let daddy review and test the scope for my channel   

 

 

[happy-kat]

The things I like are the very low power draw, can be used with an Android device, captures IR, noise isn't too bad on long exposures and dear pixel mapping can sort that element. I'd rather more of a 4:3 sensor size bias but can't have everything.