Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

To CMOS or not???


petevasey

Recommended Posts

I addition to all the advantages pointed out for CMOS over CCD here I would like to ad the fast download from a CMOS which I really love - I can put up the gain and see a live image with the CMOS when I want to focus and frame. The slow download of the ATIK460 CCD I once had (and sold in time) drove me crazy.

Edited by gorann
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gorann said:

I addition to all the advantages pointed out for CMOS over CCD here I would like to ad the fast download from a CMOS which I really love - I can put up the gain and see a live image with the CMOS when I want to focus and frame. The slow download of the ATIK460 CCD I once had (and sold in time) drove me crazy.

100% agree with this. It doesn’t sound long but waiting 10s for a frame to download is frustrating when focusing or framing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Magnum said:

Hi Pete, I own an Atik383 same sensor as your QSI and ive owned a ZWO533MC for 11 months, with good cameras that compliment each other well.

Personally I would avoid the 294MC as the effects of starburst amp glow are a complete shock to the system and contrary  to popular belief just subtracting darks doesn't completely deal with the effects of amp glow, yes the the glow disappears but what remains in that area will be greater noise, Steve Chambers from Atik has a great simple explanation and demonstration in the video below using the Atik Horizon cmos.

Now for me I couldn't see any point in buying a camera that has such strong amp glow when the latest generation of ZERO amp glow sensors are available, which is why I went for the 533. If I had more money its larger brother the 2600. It Just seems crazy to go from a CCD sensor that is so clean and glow free to a sensor that has massive glow. Also the 294's can suffer with strange coloured blotches in the Flats and lights, especially when using dual narrowband filters. 

The 533 and 2600 are as close to CCD files as ive seen from a CMOS.  I can take 15 min subs with the 533 and still not see any Amp glow. ive used the hundreds of short subs method with it and also tried my standard CCD exposure times and cant see much difference in the final stack, so I normally go for longer subs to minimise storage and processing time ( as im the laziest imager ever ). in fact for me the short subs have a rarely talked about draw back of fixed pattern banding noise that isn't present in longer subs, I recommend not going shorter than 30-60 secs if you want to see clean subs. Nearly every discussion about CMOS concentrates on the low read noise allows shorter subs to give an advantage and while in theory this is true, ive found in real word use the lack of dark current and fixed pattern noise is far more important to me. The reason for this is that even comparably high read noise of the noisest CCD cameras will easily get swamped in even the slightest light pollution by shot noise. While fixed pattern noise on the other hand does not. So if I take hundreds of 10 sec shots that all have a banding in them, when I come to stack them the pattern will actually become more evident rather than decrease hence the absolute need for dark frames to compensate ( also shown in Steves video ). If I take subs of over 60 secs each they show no discernible banding at all, hence I never use darks with my cmos camera and have never seen any benefit from using them, as long as I use long enough subs. So I simply dither my long subs and get perfectly clean results.  In short read noise isn't important to me at all, even in narrowband there is enough light pollution getting through to swamp even the highest read noise.

Finally id like to Add that the claimed higher sensitivity of cmos cameras never really manifests itself to me in the real world except when doing high frame rate planetary imaging.

Prior to the 533osc I owned an ATik428osc and I have pretty much identical subs taken with both and for the same sub lengths there was very similar signal picked up with both on faint targets, I really cant say one is better than the other, actually the only reason I switched was that the 533 is a bigger chip for the same price. My supposedly ssllooww Kodak Mono sensor  is still much faster than either.

I will probably get loads of hate now, but I prefer to go on my own real world tests than popular opinion.

Id recommend the 533 or 2600 over the 294 any day.

Lee

 

Hi, Lee

Thanks for taking so much time over your reply.  I take your point about the amp glow.  And Steve Chambers' treatise on calibration is a bit daunting!  Very interesting that you don't think the sensitivity is all that much better than CCD.  I know some people have commented about the fast download speed when focusing etc.  But for that I bin 4x4 which downloads (using the 'fast' QSI setting) in a second or so, so no problem there.  And shows up the targets very well - M27 is clearly visible in a 1 second exposure.

But although I can afford the 2600 there are a couple of downsides.  One is the size of the chip - I don't know if all my optics will have a flat field of view over that size.  To be fair, I can easily check using my Canon 700D which has an APS size chip.  But also the pixel size might be a problem.   At 3.76 um it's considerably smaller than the 5.4 um pixels on my QSI 683 so the arc-sec per pixel on my 2m fl RC10 will be 0.39.  And I often bin the QSI 2x2 when imaging on my RC10 to give an a-spp of 1.1.  It didn't used to be possible to bin OSC CCD cameras except when focusing etc. - the colour information got scrambled.  But maybe it's possible with the current crop of OSC CMOS - perhaps someone can advise?  Also of course the pixel count of the 2600 at 26.1 MP will produce much larger files than the 8.3 MP of my QSI.  And binned of course my file sizes are much smaller again, so process quickly.

All in all, particularly as I'd be using Windows XP USB2 unless I splash out on more computers, and the secondhand CCD market has already slumped, maybe I should stick with tried and true old faithful until it gives up the ghost.  Which may well be after I do 😉

Just a quick edit.  I know that a 533 will work in XP - tested with a friend's camera.  But the chip is a lot smaller than the 8300 so although I wouldn't have a flat field problem I'd lose out there.  And again the pixels are very small.   Probably best suited to short-ish focal lengths.  Maybe if I win a bit on the lottery....

Cheers,

Peter

Edited by petevasey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, petevasey said:

Hi, Lee

Thanks for taking so much time over your reply.  I take your point about the amp glow.  And Steve Chambers' treatise on calibration is a bit daunting!  Very interesting that you don't think the sensitivity is all that much better than CCD.  I know some people have commented about the fast download speed when focusing etc.  But for that I bin 4x4 which downloads (using the 'fast' QSI setting) in a second or so, so no problem there.  And shows up the targets very well - M27 is clearly visible in a 1 second exposure.

But although I can afford the 2600 there are a couple of downsides.  One is the size of the chip - I don't know if all my optics will have a flat field of view over that size.  To be fair, I can easily check using my Canon 700D which has an APS size chip.  But also the pixel size might be a problem.   At 3.76 um it's considerably smaller than the 5.4 um pixels on my QSI 683 so the arc-sec per pixel on my 2m fl RC10 will be 0.39.  And I often bin the QSI 2x2 when imaging on my RC10 to give an a-spp of 1.1.  It didn't used to be possible to bin OSC CCD cameras except when focusing etc. - the colour information got scrambled.  But maybe it's possible with the current crop of OSC CMOS - perhaps someone can advise?  Also of course the pixel count of the 2600 at 26.1 MP will produce much larger files than the 8.3 MP of my QSI.  And binned of course my file sizes are much smaller again, so process quickly.

All in all, particularly as I'd be using Windows XP USB2 unless I splash out on more computers, and the secondhand CCD market has already slumped, maybe I should stick with tried and true old faithful until it gives up the ghost.  Which may well be after I do 😉

Just a quick edit.  I know that a 533 will work in XP - tested with a friend's camera.  But the chip is a lot smaller than the 8300 so although I wouldn't have a flat field problem I'd lose out there.  And again the pixels are very small.   Probably best suited to short-ish focal lengths.  Maybe if I win a bit on the lottery....

Cheers,

Peter

If you decide to invest in something like an ASI2600 then I suggest you also get a refurbished Win 10 laptop. There must be companies in the UK selling those. Last such laptop I bought here in Sweden (a HP 14") costed 1/10th of the price for an ASI2600 and it came with Win 10pro, dual core Intel i5 processor, and some scratches on the outside shell.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gorann said:

If you decide to invest in something like an ASI2600 then I suggest you also get a refurbished Win 10 laptop. There must be companies in the UK selling those. Last such laptop I bought here in Sweden (a HP 14") costed 1/10th of the price for an ASI2600 and it came with Win 10pro, dual core Intel i5 processor, and some scratches on the outside shell.

Thanks Gorann.

I actually went down that route a few years ago when I bought a refurbished Dell D620 from Val-U-computers in the UK.  And very good it has been, including a true Serial port - very useful!  But I would actually have to buy TWO computers - I have one permanently in my Observatory and use the laptop for star parties etc.  My Obsy computer is a little Net top, for which I have a spare.  I also have a Netbook.  All Windows XP because my astro kit all works seamlessly with it.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!  Even if I went for more powerful machines, I'd probably still try to have Windows 7 - I don't like the way 10 forces upgrades which seem to always screw up drivers etc.  But of course I don't know if W7 will run USB3.  Heigh Ho!

Cheers,

Peter

Edited by petevasey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, petevasey said:

Thanks Gorann.

I actually went down that route a few years ago when I bought a refurbished Dell D620 from Val-U-computers in the UK.  And very good it has been, including a true Serial port - very useful!  But I would actually have to buy TWO computers - I have one permanently in my Observatory and use the laptop for star parties etc.  My Obsy computer is a little Net top, for which I have a spare.  I also have a Netbook.  All Windows XP because my astro kit all works seamlessly with it.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!  Even if I went for more powerful machines, I'd probably still try to have Windows 7 - I don't like the way 10 forces upgrades which seem to always screw up drivers etc.  But of course I don't know if W7 will run USB3.  Heigh Ho!

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Pete, I was resistant to giving up win7 on my net top too, but ended up buying a nice used i5 Lenovo mini pc for £120 on eBay with win10 pre installed on the SSD. The windows update has bitten me though, I had everything disabled even within the group Policy editor, but still after the first month it somehow broke my Sky6 tell api ascot plugging from connecting to the mount, took me 2 days to fix it and im not sure what I did actually fixed it in the end. Thankfully its been ok ever since. Thought wildly I also got an identical machine for my mate and that broke the same driver about 1 month after mine, and even though I tried all the same things ive never bee able to get it working again, so he has to use carter de ciel now.

I have no need for future updates as its purely a capture machine which I control on my home network vie Remote Desktop.

Good thing is this machine runs so fast, it boots in about 4 secs and I can stack about 100 ASI 533 subs in less than a minute. kept the net top as a backup, as that still runs all the cams ok on win7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do run my Mesu 200 and PHD2 on a Win 7 laptop (that is never on the net) but for the cameras I use Win 10 laptops and have them in airplane mode (since I have had them shutting down to upgrade). Then of course, to complicate it all I do all my processing on a Mac.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

100% agree with this. It doesn’t sound long but waiting 10s for a frame to download is frustrating when focusing or framing.  

I honestly dont notice a lot of difference there either, as I get initial focus with both with 4x4 binning in which case both are pretty instant, then  drop down to 1x1 binning for final tweak yes that takes several seconds but only takes 2 or 3 subs the get final focus, as for framing targets I also use 4x4 the CCD shows more in 5 secs than the cmos shows in 5 secs.   I run 1 camera on each  machine at same time, never find the CCD really slows me down much, but im all manual focus , maybe if I had auto focussers then it might be very time consuming waiting for it to do its stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Magnum said:

I honestly dont notice a lot of difference there either, as I get initial focus with both with 4x4 binning in which case both are pretty instant, then  drop down to 1x1 binning for final tweak yes that takes several seconds but only takes 2 or 3 subs the get final focus, as for framing targets I also use 4x4 the CCD shows more in 5 secs than the cmos shows in 5 secs.   I run 1 camera on each  machine at same time, never find the CCD really slows me down much, but im all manual focus , maybe if I had auto focussers then it might be very time consuming waiting for it to do its stuff.

I dunno if that’s my experience of the CMOS showing less than the CCD.  In my 2-3 years with several KAF8300s then an overlap to CMOS using both for a while then now full CMOS, I honestly can’t think of a single advantage.  Some things are equal, but I’ll never go out any buy another CCD. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gorann said:

I do run my Mesu 200 and PHD2 on a Win 7 laptop (that is never on the net) but for the cameras I use Win 10 laptops and have them in airplane mode (since I have had them shutting down to upgrade). Then of course, to complicate it all I do all my processing on a Mac.......

Yeah I process on my Mac indoors too. since moving to win 10 which gave me Remote Desktop I actually stack my images on the capture machine in Maxim via Remote Desktop from my Mac indoors, then drag onto they usb stick and close everything down remotely, then just walk out to retrieve the USB stick.  next day I can mess around stretching it in Maxim on my Macs win7 VM, then drag that to the Mac desktop to process in windows. 😛 I like to make things implicated but al works really well, and means I can get out of Windows ASAP, and back to the Mac where im most happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tooth_dr said:

I dunno if that’s my experience of the CMOS showing less than the CCD.  In my 2-3 years with several KAF8300s then an overlap to CMOS using both for a while then now full CMOS, I honestly can’t think of a single advantage.  Some things are equal, but I’ll never go out any buy another CCD. 

I mean in Maxim which has the auto screen stretch like other programs, as soon as the ccd downloads I can instantly see the target even faint ones, but with the cmos I can only see the stars and maybe a hint of the brightest parts of nebulas, o have to do a full DDP stretch to see if im in the correct place, so thats more time consuming than ive lost on the ccd slower down load times. maybe if I used SGP the auto-stretch would work better, I dont know.

dont get me wrong I do like the ASI533

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding focusing etc. times, surely most capture software can do regions of interest?  I generally focus for imaging using a Bahtinov mask and the excellent Bahtinov Grabber program.  Far quicker than autofocus routines and very accurate.  And if I had download time issues I would just put an ROI window (sub frame in Maxim DL) over the test star which considerably reduces the download time. 

Cheers,

Peter

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This talk of 10-30 sec download times is completely alien to me, as i never had a CCD as a new astrophotographer. What i can take away from this is that this is another reason why astrophotography is becoming more forgiving and beginner friendly without the need for maybe such extreme cashflow to keep the hobby going (still expensive though). This thread makes CCDs sound very observatorey while CMOS is pretty plug and play, and not that different from DSLRs with actual live views. Focusing with 0.05 fps sounds like a nightmare for manual focusers, especially if the scope is not in rough focus already. I took the live-ish view for granted!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Atik 16200 takes a lengthy 18 seconds to download a full 1xBin frame, so I 2xBin for platesolving and running autofocus which speeds up things considerably.

When I switched over from Mac to Windows, solely for the purpose of data acquisition, I ran a few tests with CCDciel and got in touch with the developer, Patrick, with a few ideas based on my experience using (and having been a beta tester for the old Microprojects Equinox Image OSX software).

Patrick was not only open to new ideas/features, he was very helpful and happy to help implement them (as long as I was happy to help test!)

My best idea was to make use of the long download of each light frame of my ‘new to me’ Atik - allowing the software to send the dither command to the mount as soon as CCDciel recorded that the exposure had ended.

I always gave the mount 20 seconds to dither and settle before starting the next exposure. Now the 18 seconds for my Atik to download is used efficiently to perform that task, so I only ‘waste’ an extra 2 seconds for the mount to settle. In fact the exposure could start immediately, I have chosen to add that extra time just so the there is no USB conflict between the download and the guide exposures….

I’m sure the new CMOS cameras are ‘better’ than the sensor in my camera, but the argument of download speed is somewhat mitigated for me. Even if I changed sensor to one that downloaded in a second or so, I’d still want another 10 just to allow the guiding to settle…. so that means I’m currently only loosing out by 8-9 seconds, nothing in the grand scheme of things when each exposure is 10-20 minutes.

And thinking about it, if you’re running 2-5 minute CMOS exposures and dithering after each, then waiting for the mount to settle, the difference between CMOS and CCD, purely in the ‘download speed’ argument is a none issue…..

Damian

Edited by TakMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

This talk of 10-30 sec download times is completely alien to me, as i never had a CCD as a new astrophotographer. What i can take away from this is that this is another reason why astrophotography is becoming more forgiving and beginner friendly without the need for maybe such extreme cashflow to keep the hobby going (still expensive though). This thread makes CCDs sound very observatorey while CMOS is pretty plug and play, and not that different from DSLRs with actual live views. Focusing with 0.05 fps sounds like a nightmare for manual focusers, especially if the scope is not in rough focus already. I took the live-ish view for granted!

not sure how you have come to that conclusion, seems you have ignored what's been said about 4x4 binning and region of interest, both of which can allow for sub 1 second downloads with even the slowest CCD cameras, not to mention that Sony CCD's are much quicker anyway. Although I have an observatory I still focus all of my cameras manually and frame my targets manually, no issue at all. im usually up and running quicker than my friends using auto focusers and plate solving .

Edited by Magnum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TakMan said:

I always gave the mount 20 seconds to dither and settle before starting the next exposure. Now the 18 seconds for my Atik to download is used efficiently to perform that task, so I only ‘waste’ an extra 2 seconds for the mount to settle. I fact the exposure could start immediately, I have chosen to add that extra time just so the there is no USB conflict between the download and the guide exposures….

I’m sure the new CMOS cameras are ‘better’ than the sensor in my camera, but the argument of download speed is somewhat mitigated for me. Even if I changed sensor to one that downloaded in a second or so, I’d still want another 10 just to allow the guiding to settle…. so that means I’m currently only loosing out by 8-9 seconds, nothing in the grand scheme of things when each exposure is 10-20 minutes.

And thinking about it, if you’re running 2-5 minute CMOS exposures and dithering after each, then waiting for the mount to settle, the difference between CMOS and CCD, purely in the ‘download speed’ argument is a none issue…..

Damian

Yes exactly, dithering is beneficial in my view for any camera to get the best image, My mount takes 15 secs to settle after a dither, so the full frame download time is irrelevant for me wether im using the fast cmos or slow ccd, they both have to wait for the guider to settle anyway. Plus I have the main computer handling the guiding and dithering and capture from the cmos, then the other PC handles the CCD,  ive calculated the required delay on each so they stay in sync all night . so cmos and ccd running in perfect harmony 😛  

Edited by Magnum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

not sure how you have come to that conclusion, seems you have ignored what's been said about 4x4 binning and region of interest, both of which can allow for sub 1 second downloads with even the slowest CCD cameras, not to mention that Sony CCD's are much quicker anyway. Although I have an observatory I still focus all of my cameras manually and frame my rtargets manually, no issue at all. im usually up and running quicker than my friends using auto focusers and plate solving LOL

Still, additional hoops to jump through to get things going. Clear advantage to CMOS as it does not need any special tricks to reduce download times. I focus with NINAs HFR calculations in basically real time, takes no time at all, i don't think i could change the ROI in NINA. This is something that could cause gray hairs in very cold temperatures, as refocusing happens often. Last winter when it was -20 i was refocusing every few minutes for a good 30 minutes after starting imaging. Now of course the solution is to let the scope cool down before, but since i prefer driving in a car that is not -20 degrees inside, that was not possible.

Just a beginners perspective, more experienced users will definitely have a solution to everything mentioned and see CCD vs CMOS differences as trivial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Still, additional hoops to jump through to get things going. Clear advantage to CMOS as it does not need any special tricks to reduce download times. I focus with NINAs HFR calculations in basically real time, takes no time at all, i don't think i could change the ROI in NINA. This is something that could cause gray hairs in very cold temperatures, as refocusing happens often. Last winter when it was -20 i was refocusing every few minutes for a good 30 minutes after starting imaging. Now of course the solution is to let the scope cool down before, but since i prefer driving in a car that is not -20 degrees inside, that was not possible.

Just a beginners perspective, more experienced users will definitely have a solution to everything mentioned and see CCD vs CMOS differences as trivial.

Binning and ROI are not special tricks, imagers use both features with cmos anyway( just simple toggles in all the capture programs). Ok faster is always nice, but id say its at the bottom of the list for most imagers over more important factors except for planetary imaging, even then I still use ROI when capturing planets as it still increases speed for cmos just as it does with CCD. thats just my option after 25 years, but yes maybe for beginner it would be more important. Now you have me thinking back to when I started using slide film in the 90s and had to develop the film myself, find only 1 frame was good at best, then take slide projector the society meetings to display the pics 😛 . not sure how I bothered with all that now.

P.S. didnt mean to argue every point, I had my Covid Booster yesterday and feel so ill all I can manage to do is sit staring at this page 😛 

Edited by Magnum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Magnum said:

Binning and ROI are not special tricks, imagers use both features with cmos anyway( just simple toggles in all the capture programs). Ok faster is always nice, but id say its at the bottom of the list for most imagers over more important factors except for planetary imaging, even then I still use ROI when capturing planets as it still increases speed for cmos just as it does with CCD. thats just my option after 25 years, but yes maybe for beginner it would be more important. Now you have me thinking back to when I started using slide film in the 90s and had to develop the film myself, find only 1 frame was good at best, then take slide projector the society meetings to display the pics 😛 . not sure how I bothered with all that now.

P.S. didnt mean to argue every point, I had my Covid Booster yesterday and feel so ill all I can manage to do is sit staring at this page 😛 

Its a miracle anyone ever bothered with film astrophotography, that takes some next level willpower and dedication. Digital cameras must feel like magic from a fantasy world after waiting for film to develop only to find out you were not in focus. 😆

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my ASI2600s or ASI6200 I have never seen any need for dithering. I thought that was to suppress things like walking noise and they do not have that as far as I can tell, even if I often stretch my images really hard to catch IFN. The images still move a little bit over the night and I usually have about a hundred frames to stack so maybe that creates some natural dithering since I do not see hot pixels either after stacking and integrating (Linear Fit Clipping in PI).

Edited by gorann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that dithering not only helped imagers with CCD tech - hot/cold pixels, column defects etc, but fixed pattern noise and banding for those using CMOS.

I recollect reading either on here or CN that banding (and perhaps fixed pattern noise, although perhaps it is one and the same..?) could be more of an issue if using very short sub exposures (say 60 seconds) with CMOS based cameras and so a ‘big’ dither was more of a requirement….

A bigger dither (in my own experience), would require a reasonable amount of settle time (this is purely to acknowledge my argument with regards to download times being in the most part a non-issue). I run my mount with 2-3 second exposures, so it takes time for PHD2 to adjust the guide star to the new lock position and steady the guiding. Perhaps a Mesu would be quicker, but whatever.

I fully appreciate that CMOS is the way forward, more sensitive, lower nose thresholds, etc. I just find the argument that CMOS is ‘better’ than CCD from a download perspective rather nonsensical…..

A bit like those that peddle the idea that PixInsight is so much better than good ole Ps because it’s, amongst other things…. ‘maths based’. All I ever see is equations thrown around as if to justify that it must be…. ‘better’ ….

For some reason, both the CCD/CMOS and PI/Ps arguments remind me of the old Amiga/Atari ST playground battles and for some reason this old advert….

But perhaps that’s just me!

An argument for another thread and another day!

Damian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has got involved in this topic.  Lots of useful feedback.  But I think I've rather boxed myself into a corner here, simply because of the wide range of focal lengths I use, ranging from 420 to 2000 mm.  With  a pixel size of 3.76 um  (ASI533 and ASI2600), I will be severely oversampled on my RC10 - at 2000 mm FL it's 0.39 a-s/pixel.  The ASI294 with 4.63 um pixels is slightly better at 0.48 a-s/pixel, but still very oversampled given my average seeing of between 2 and 3 arc-secs.  The 5.4um on my QSI683 is still undersampled at 0.56 a-s/pixel, but of course it's a monochrome camera so I can bin it , then 1.12 a-s/pixel is ok, and no problem unbinned at my shorter focal lengths (420, 650 and 950 mm).

So unless I take a chance on the oversampling not causing problems, OSC CMOS is out of the question for my 'big gun", there just don't seem to be any CMOS chips with large enough pixels. 

Guess I'll be sticking with my QSI 683.

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2021 at 21:40, TakMan said:

I fully appreciate that CMOS is the way forward, more sensitive, lower nose thresholds, etc. I just find the argument that CMOS is ‘better’ than CCD from a download perspective rather nonsensical…..

I dont think anyone would genuinely argue that as a single reason to switch but It’s just another side benefit of CMOS.  For the first time I can do decent lunar imaging with my deep sky setup without swapping anything overdue to the short download times - not possible with the CCD it replaced. 

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.