ZWO/Player One IMX 585 Sensor Image Showcase

[bottletopburly]

8 hours ago, Icearcher said:

Thanks A Million, thats amazing.

I think you just answered a bunch of questions I didnt even have.

Out of interest,  any idea how much the cam and lens with the ZWO connector weighs?

If I go the Player one version, Im thinking Ill just connect it via the 1/4" hole on the back but worried it might be too heavy all up.

Thanks again

Chris

Zwo585mc, lens adapter and lens weighs 418 grams or 14 3/4 oz .

[Mognet]

First light on mine last night. Being new to dedicated astro cameras and Astroberry it was more about experimentation than good images. It's a definite step up from my DSLR, even if I don't know what I'm doing yet!

Image is 65 frames of 8.7 seconds at gain 400. Probably far from the right settings, but I had a few issues with driving Astroberry via the tablet. Rough processing with DSS and Gimp

Currently using a Nikkor 35mm 1.8G camera lens while debating what scope to get to go with it

Light pollution also by me. I'd left the conservatory light on so I could see where Keeva the kitten was in the garden

Edited January 22, 2023 by Mognet
Extra info

[vernmid]

Rosette Nebula from last night

Imaged with ASI585MC on Evoguide 50ED and AZ GTI

100x180s lights.

All got pretty frosty 🥶

Pleased with this one from such a small rig

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by vernmid

[PeterC65]

Some images from Thursday and Friday night, taken with the 72mm APO / Uranus-C EEVA setup using 4s exposures and x400 gain and around 50-80 live stacked frames, tinkered with just a little the following day using Topaz DeNoise and Affinity Photo ...

My best view yet of the Flame and Horsehead Nebulae, taken using the x0.6 Reducer as the faint target really benefits from a faster scope.

The Heart Nebula which needs the x0.6 Reducer to fit into the field of view. I could just make out the heart shape on the night and the image processing has improved that and brought out the detail in the bright centre.

M33, without the reducer and my best view yet of this favourite target.

M42, without the reducer and at the end of Friday's session so it was well placed above the SE horizon. I even resorted to my reading glasses to check out the filament and dust cloud detail on the 4K monitor! This image is after 12 minutes of stacking, so about 180 frames, which is a long time by my normal EEVA standards. The image post processing really crisps it up and brings out even more of the detail.

M74, just a little galaxy so heavily cropped. This would be better observed using the Explorer 150PDS so it's on the list for next time.

M81 & M82, another favourite target. I love the detail in M81, those colours and that structure, and the very different lace structure of M81.

NGC1893, the Letter Y Cluster which also has some nice nebulosity. This is a new one for me. I seem to be getting better at seeing faint nebulosity since I started manually adjusting the histogram mid-level control.

NGC2174, the Monkey Head Nebula, another one that benefitted from tweaking of the histogram mid-level.

NGC7635, the Bubble Nebula, well named. The bubble shape really popped out on the night but I love this clean post processed image.

And finally, NGC7789, Caroline's Rose Cluster. Since learning about this cluster of yellow stars it's become a firm favourite and not one that gets much of a mention, so I like to post my images of it!

 

[Ratlet]

Not strictly related to this camera, but I've noticed that a fair few of the images I take with my 533 sensor, I end up cropping to basically the same scale as the 585 sensor.  Could probably have saved myself a few quid and just got a 585!

[PeterC65]

20 hours ago, Ratlet said:

Not strictly related to this camera, but I've noticed that a fair few of the images I take with my 533 sensor, I end up cropping to basically the same scale as the 585 sensor.  Could probably have saved myself a few quid and just got a 585!

And with the IMX585 you get more, smaller, pixels across the longer side (3840 vs 3008).

[MichaelBibby]

Sorry to derail the thread, but can anyone tell me if this adapter (which allows you to screw a 1.25" filter into m42 thread on the ZWO camera body, but so that the camera can still be connected to an m42 imaging train) work for the player one camera's (specifically Uranus-C)? Any guidence here appreciated. I have an existing 1.25" uv ir cut filter and am looking for a way to connect it to my imaging train with a Starizona Nexus CC/reducer. I understand that if the filter is added after the coma corrector then the back spacing will have to be increased by about 1mm (to 56mm) to compensate for the change in focal length caused by the filter in the light path.

UPDATE: Looking at the thread on the camera body, there isn't enough room to fit both an adapter for the filter and another m42 extension so it looks like this adapter won't work.

https://www.testar.com.au/products/zwo-t2-1-25-filter-adapter?variant=38122570547392&utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Google Shopping feed app&utm_content=ZWO T2 1.25" FILTER ADAPTER&utm_campaign=gs-2019-12-27&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gclid=Cj0KCQiA8t2eBhDeARIsAAVEga1Nxrpms_1oa77naDzWPryX8W3HAqUoj1kPddcKIECSVOKETMOG0RIaAlJJEALw_wcB

Edited February 1, 2023 by MichaelBibby

[Adam J]

On 30/01/2023 at 11:13, MichaelBibby said:

Sorry to derail the thread, but can anyone tell me if this adapter (which allows you to screw a 1.25" filter into m42 thread on the ZWO camera body, but so that the camera can still be connected to an m42 imaging train) work for the player one camera's (specifically Uranus-C)? Any guidence here appreciated. I have an existing 1.25" uv ir cut filter and am looking for a way to connect it to my imaging train with a Starizona Nexus CC/reducer. I understand that if the filter is added after the coma corrector then the back spacing will have to be increased by about 1mm (to 56mm) to compensate for the change in focal length caused by the filter in the light path.

UPDATE: Looking at the thread on the camera body, there isn't enough room to fit both an adapter for the filter and another m42 extension so it looks like this adapter won't work.

https://www.testar.com.au/products/zwo-t2-1-25-filter-adapter?variant=38122570547392&utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Google Shopping feed app&utm_content=ZWO T2 1.25" FILTER ADAPTER&utm_campaign=gs-2019-12-27&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gclid=Cj0KCQiA8t2eBhDeARIsAAVEga1Nxrpms_1oa77naDzWPryX8W3HAqUoj1kPddcKIECSVOKETMOG0RIaAlJJEALw_wcB

Yes it will work, not sure what you think that there will not be sufficient room??

[PeterC65]

To other users of the Player One Uranus-C ...

My camera has been replaced to resolve the ROI problem but I get a lot of what appear to be hot pixels when using binning. With 2x2 binning these can be largely removed using the SharpCap hot pixel removal feature, but with 3x3 binning they make the image unusable, and with 4x4 binning they sit part way between the 2x2 and 3x3 settings.

I've done some investigation and whether I use hardware binning or software binning, sum or average binning, doesn't seem to make a difference.

Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have a fix?

 

[Adam J]

7 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

To other users of the Player One Uranus-C ...

My camera has been replaced to resolve the ROI problem but I get a lot of what appear to be hot pixels when using binning. With 2x2 binning these can be largely removed using the SharpCap hot pixel removal feature, but with 3x3 binning they make the image unusable, and with 4x4 binning they sit part way between the 2x2 and 3x3 settings.

I've done some investigation and whether I use hardware binning or software binning, sum or average binning, doesn't seem to make a difference.

Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have a fix?

 

Don't bin during capture in lots of Sony sensors binning during capture will result in 10bit A/D instead of 12bit bin after in software, it's no different. 

[PeterC65]

8 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

To other users of the Player One Uranus-C ...

My camera has been replaced to resolve the ROI problem but I get a lot of what appear to be hot pixels when using binning. With 2x2 binning these can be largely removed using the SharpCap hot pixel removal feature, but with 3x3 binning they make the image unusable, and with 4x4 binning they sit part way between the 2x2 and 3x3 settings.

I've done some investigation and whether I use hardware binning or software binning, sum or average binning, doesn't seem to make a difference.

Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone have a fix?

 

I've also asked this question on its own thread. The "hot pixels" I was seeing may be telegraph noise rather than hot pixels (they were not fixed in position), made much more apparent because I was using a Barlow (less signal so noise is more apparent). Not a camera issue anyway!

38 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Don't bin during capture in lots of Sony sensors binning during capture will result in 10bit A/D instead of 12bit bin after in software, it's no different. 

I think this may be a consequence of using hardware binning at the camera, and may not be the case when using software binning.

 

[Stuart1971]

2 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I've also asked this question on its own thread. The "hot pixels" I was seeing may be telegraph noise rather than hot pixels (they were not fixed in position), made much more apparent because I was using a Barlow (less signal so noise is more apparent). Not a camera issue anyway!

I think this may be a consequence of using hardware binning at the camera, and may not be the case when using software binning.

 

There is not such thing as hardware binning a CMOS camera, only CCD cameras have that option, with CMOS it’s always binned by the software you process in, or by the firmware built into the camera during image capture, , the outcome should and probably will not be any different…but it’s not hardware like in a CCD camera, the sums of pixels are just added or averaged in the software either during capture or by the processing software after…

[vlaiv]

14 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I think this may be a consequence of using hardware binning at the camera, and may not be the case when using software binning.

Yes, like @Stuart1971 pointed out - technically it is not hardware binning - but rather "on camera" / "on chip" or "firmware" binning, as opposed to software binning - which is performed after capture.

If we want to be pedantic about it - both are software type binning - but one is performed by camera firmware and other we perform at our leisure after capture.

Hardware binning is not mathematical operation like software binning - but is rather "putting together electrons from multiple pixels prior to readout". It can only be performed with CCD type sensors because of hardware architecture. CMOS have A/D conversion at each pixel and no way of combining electrons from multiple pixels.

CCD have one A/D (per row, or per sensor - depends on type) and electrons are "marshaled"  to A/D converter from each pixel. It is during this time that they can be "poured" into same well and combined to perform hardware addition - or binning.

[Stuart1971]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Yes, like @Stuart1971 pointed out - technically it is not hardware binning - but rather "on camera" / "on chip" or "firmware" binning, as opposed to software binning - which is performed after capture.

If we want to be pedantic about it - both are software type binning - but one is performed by camera firmware and other we perform at our leisure after capture.

Hardware binning is not mathematical operation like software binning - but is rather "putting together electrons from multiple pixels prior to readout". It can only be performed with CCD type sensors because of hardware architecture. CMOS have A/D conversion at each pixel and no way of combining electrons from multiple pixels.

CCD have one A/D (per row, or per sensor - depends on type) and electrons are "marshaled"  to A/D converter from each pixel. It is during this time that they can be "poured" into same well and combined to perform hardware addition - or binning.

What you said…. ^ 😂 I did not explain it quite as well….👍🏻

Edited February 11, 2023 by Stuart1971

[PeterC65]

17 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

There is not such thing as hardware binning a CMOS camera, only CCD cameras have that option, with CMOS it’s always binned by the software you process in, or by the firmware built into the camera during image capture, , the outcome should and probably will not be any different…but it’s not hardware like in a CCD camera, the sums of pixels are just added or averaged in the software either during capture or by the processing software after…

Hardware binning is just how its referred to in SharpCap which is why I used that term. As you mention, it will be done by firmware in the camera.

Edited February 11, 2023 by PeterC65

[Stuart1971]

2 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

Hardware binning is just how its referred to in SharpCap. As you mention, it will be done by firmware in the camera.

I am just not sure why you need to BIN at all, are the pixels far too small for your optics…?? What is your imaging scale…?

Edited February 11, 2023 by Stuart1971

[PeterC65]

2 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

I am just not sure why you need to BIN at all, are the pixels far too small for your optics…?? What is your imaging scale…?

Please read the separate thread for more details. I only posted the question on here because Uranus-C owners are more likely to see it and I was concerned that it might be an issue with the camera (it probably isn't).

 

[Adam J]

6 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

 

I think this may be a consequence of using hardware binning at the camera, and may not be the case when using software binning.

 

It's not really hardware binning. It can't do real hardware binning. It's a firmware read mode thing. By the time you soft bin it, then it's post stacking so 16-bit or even 32-bit depending. Always bin in software unless it's true hardware binning. 

 

 

[Richard Wesson]

I am considering buying one of hese cameras. However, I am not sure whether to go for the ZWO offering or the Player One model. The latter boasts 'passive cooling', but I wondered if this really was a significant factor and offered better temeprature control than the ZWO offering. The pros for the ZWO are potentially lower price, and of course easier customer service as would be buying from a UK retailer!

Any thoughts would be appreciated. 

[PeterC65]

7 hours ago, Richard Wesson said:

I am considering buying one of these cameras. However, I am not sure whether to go for the ZWO offering or the Player One model. The latter boasts 'passive cooling', but I wondered if this really was a significant factor and offered better temperature control than the ZWO offering. The pros for the ZWO are potentially lower price, and of course easier customer service as would be buying from a UK retailer!

Any thoughts would be appreciated. 

I bought the Player One version after much deliberation. I have mixed feelings as to whether it was the right decision, meaning there probably isn't much in it.

The passive cooling feature probably doesn't take more than a few degrees off the temperature. My camera temperature is usually not much above the ambient temperature, even when it's outside in the cold. I'm not sure what the situation would be for the ZWO version.

My main reason for choosing the Player One version was because it switches to High Conversion Gain mode at a gain of x180 rather than x250, and since Low Conversion Gain mode isn't much use I thought this would be an advantage. As it happens I mostly use a gain of x400. The gain of my camera will go up to x800, although x650 is the maximum practical gain. I've heard that the gain of the ZWO version doesn't go quite as high, so together with the higher LCG / HCG switching point, it may have a smaller usable gain range.

Another plus for the Player One model is the hexagonal shape which makes orientating the sensor very easy (not to be underestimated).

I've had need of support from Player One and they were great so I wouldn't worry about that. There are a lot more people using the ZWO version though and so you are more likely to be able to get advice.

The other thing to consider is whether you ever plan to add more of the ZWO infrastructure, as the ASIair computers will only work with ZWO cameras. I use my Player One version perfectly happily with SharpCap, but via USB.

 

[Richard Wesson]

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I bought the Player One version after much deliberation. I have mixed feelings as to whether it was the right decision, meaning there probably isn't much in it.

The passive cooling feature probably doesn't take more than a few degrees off the temperature. My camera temperature is usually not much above the ambient temperature, even when it's outside in the cold. I'm not sure what the situation would be for the ZWO version.

My main reason for choosing the Player One version was because it switches to High Conversion Gain mode at a gain of x180 rather than x250, and since Low Conversion Gain mode isn't much use I thought this would be an advantage. As it happens I mostly use a gain of x400. The gain of my camera will go up to x800, although x650 is the maximum practical gain. I've heard that the gain of the ZWO version doesn't go quite as high, so together with the higher LCG / HCG switching point, it may have a smaller usable gain range.

Another plus for the Player One model is the hexagonal shape which makes orientating the sensor very easy (not to be underestimated).

I've had need of support from Player One and they were great so I wouldn't worry about that. There are a lot more people using the ZWO version though and so you are more likely to be able to get advice.

The other thing to consider is whether you ever plan to add more of the ZWO infrastructure, as the ASIair computers will only work with ZWO cameras. I use my Player One version perfectly happily with SharpCap, but via USB.

 

Thanks for that. No plans whatsoever to use ASIAIR! Don't like the idea of being tied to one brand of hardware - find a mini pc run headless does the job well enough.

[PeterC65]

22 minutes ago, Richard Wesson said:

Thanks for that. No plans whatsoever to use ASIAIR! Don't like the idea of being tied to one brand of hardware - find a mini pc run headless does the job well enough.

I totally agree.

Whatever version you buy, I think IMX585 based cameras are great and l would choose one again.

 

[Space Cowboy]

The asi585mc has caught my eye. My prime focus is always planetary imaging but I do like to dabble in lunar, solar and DSO ( short exposure on alt/az mount).  I've used my ASI 224mc in the past but amp glow and the small sensor makes DSO work difficult.

Will I lose out on my planetary work if I replace 224 with 585? The slower frame rate of the 585 is my main concern. 200fps slower at 320x240 and over 100 less at 640x 480. 

[Space Cowboy]

I've ordered the QHY-5-lll-585c camera which comes with a IR 850 filter so Venus will be my first target.

[PeterC65]

57 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

I've ordered the QHY-5-lll-585c camera which comes with a IR 850 filter so Venus will be my first target.

It will be good to hear how you get on with the QHY variant of the IMX585.

Where did you buy it from? I can't find a UK based supplier.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by PeterC65