Want a step up from qhy5liic, what colour camera would you recommend?

[yelsac]

As above really, I've been using the qhy5liic for a while & have really enjoyed it but I'd like to get more detail & sharpness with the planets. Not wanting to get all the filters etc so really want a colour camera rather than a mono.

My setup- I use two different scopes for imaging 127 mak & 250p with 2.5 barlow & sometimes an extention if the seeing is really good (not often), all on a NEQ6.

Just wondered what would be a good upgrade & worth buying

[Varavall]

Hi

A good upgrade would be to the QHY5III462C at around £219 with IR850nm and IR block filters or £249 with methane, IR pass and UV/IR block filters. At IR it acts virtually as a mono camera and makes an excellent guide camera and with the filter makes an excellent colour planetary camera. I love it purely for guiding, but soon will put it through it's paces when the planets are at the meridian at a reasonable hour.

I made the move QHY5-lI-C to the QHY5III462C.

Adrian

Edited September 8, 2022 by Varavall
Added comment

[yelsac]

 

2 hours ago, Varavall said:

Hi

A good upgrade would be to the QHY5III462C at around £219 with IR850nm and IR block filters or £249 with methane, IR pass and UV/IR block filters. At IR it acts virtually as a mono camera and makes an excellent guide camera and with the filter makes an excellent colour planetary camera. I love it purely for guiding, but soon will put it through it's paces when the planets are at the meridian at a reasonable hour.

I made the move QHY5-lI-C to the QHY5III462C.

Adrian

Hi Adrian

Thanks for your reply, thats really interesting i was waiting for ZWO recommendations not QHY5. I will have a look into that one.

Have to be honest I was looking at ZWO ASI290MC & other ZWO models wasn't sure how they match up against QHY5. I see most seem to go towards ZWO.

Andrew 

[Varavall]

18 minutes ago, yelsac said:

I see most seem to go towards ZWO.

Hi Andrew

Because they want to integrate with ASIair, and QHY's don't work with them. I also have the ZWO ASI1600MM so I am not anti-ZWO, but I don't want to be limited to just using ZWO.  Disparate products can be run through the Pegasus Powerboxes for example. The QHY has a smaller form factor so depending on the setup that may be an advantage. As they say, you pays your money and takes your choice!

[newbie alert]

On 08/09/2022 at 17:07, yelsac said:

 

Hi Adrian

Thanks for your reply, thats really interesting i was waiting for ZWO recommendations not QHY5. I will have a look into that one.

Have to be honest I was looking at ZWO ASI290MC & other ZWO models wasn't sure how they match up against QHY5. I see most seem to go towards ZWO.

Andrew 

If you was looking at the 290( also a excellent camera) then the 462 is a excellent candidate, same pixel size, or you could look at the newer 662,it has lower read noise, bigger sensor and bigger well depth, but lower FPS, have a look at the zwo spec but don't dismiss Qhy, player one out of the equation, it all depends what you want to do with it, don't see the point of a bigger sensor if you're cropping out or using the ROI feature, especially at the expense of FPS

https://compare.astronomy-imaging-camera.com/

[yelsac]

On 08/09/2022 at 14:45, Varavall said:

Hi

A good upgrade would be to the QHY5III462C at around £219 with IR850nm and IR block filters or £249 with methane, IR pass and UV/IR block filters. At IR it acts virtually as a mono camera and makes an excellent guide camera and with the filter makes an excellent colour planetary camera. I love it purely for guiding, but soon will put it through it's paces when the planets are at the meridian at a reasonable hour.

I made the move QHY5-lI-C to the QHY5III462C.

Adrian

Hi Adrian 

Just wondered if you have had a go with the 462 on planetary? Just wondering what the difference in picture size would be with exactly the same setup from using your QHY5-lI-C.

Noticed the 462 Pixel Size is smaller at 2.9um x 2.9um whereas the other one is 3.75um x 3.75um. Not sure what difference that would equal in the size of the image.

[Varavall]

2 minutes ago, yelsac said:

Just wondered if you have had a go with the 462 on planetary?

Not yet. I am waiting for the planets to be at a good altitude at a reasonable hour (I like my sleep) so I progamme my setup for DSO's to work while I'm asleep. Now when the next Moon comes I will start with the planets anew.  So in a couple of weeks or so, I will have the answer. In the meantime it's a fantastic guide camera!

[yelsac]

1 hour ago, Varavall said:

Not yet. I am waiting for the planets to be at a good altitude at a reasonable hour (I like my sleep) so I progamme my setup for DSO's to work while I'm asleep. Now when the next Moon comes I will start with the planets anew.  So in a couple of weeks or so, I will have the answer. In the meantime it's a fantastic guide camera!

Brilliant I look forward to hearing how you get on & what you think about image size, clear skies 👍

[Varavall]

1 hour ago, yelsac said:

Brilliant I look forward to hearing how you get on & what you think about image size, clear skies 👍

In the meantime take a look at this thread 

 

[vlaiv]

There are only few things that define good planetary camera:

- High QE

- low read noise

- ability to do fast frame rates

Other things are not really that important.

Only thing that concerns me with ASI462 is lower QE. It is designed to have high QE around 820nm and that means less QE in visible range

(green is around 85% of the max QE and max absolute QE is estimated to be around 80% so absolute QE in green is around 80% * 0.85 = 68% - that is not very high).

I'd recommend ASI462 (or QHY or some other version) to people that are interested in IR planetary (or IR guiding), but there are probably higher QE cameras in visible part of spectrum than that one.

Maybe ASI662 for example (peak QE in green around 91%)?

Or if blue QE is important, then maybe ASI678 (peak QE in blue around 83%)?

 

[yelsac]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

There are only few things that define good planetary camera:

- High QE

- low read noise

- ability to do fast frame rates

Other things are not really that important.

Only thing that concerns me with ASI462 is lower QE. It is designed to have high QE around 820nm and that means less QE in visible range

(green is around 85% of the max QE and max absolute QE is estimated to be around 80% so absolute QE in green is around 80% * 0.85 = 68% - that is not very high).

I'd recommend ASI462 (or QHY or some other version) to people that are interested in IR planetary (or IR guiding), but there are probably higher QE cameras in visible part of spectrum than that one.

Maybe ASI662 for example (peak QE in green around 91%)?

Or if blue QE is important, then maybe ASI678 (peak QE in blue around 83%)?

 

Hi Vlaiv

Thanks for the reply, I've been looking at what others are able to get with a similar setup to mine. I use a skywatcher 250p Reflector f4.7 for planetary with a QHY5L-iic & a 2.5 Barlow & wanted to get better quality images.

I've seen ones who use the QHY5III462C with a 245MM Orion f6.3 ( not quite the same scope but similar) who are able to get outstanding images & they seem to be a lot larger than what I get with my QHY5L-iic.

Just trying to understand if that's down to the smaller pixel size or maybe more FPS & better sensitivity. 

So really interested in anyone who has had both cameras & experienced the difference between them.

yelsac

 

[yelsac]

15 hours ago, Varavall said:

In the meantime take a look at this thread 

 

Wow that's really interesting, can't believe the quality difference between the two cameras & ring nebula & whirlpool galaxy amazing, thanks for that 😀

[vlaiv]

12 minutes ago, yelsac said:

Hi Vlaiv

Thanks for the reply, I've been looking at what others are able to get with a similar setup to mine. I use a skywatcher 250p Reflector f4.7 for planetary with a QHY5L-iic & a 2.5 Barlow & wanted to get better quality images.

I've seen ones who use the QHY5III462C with a 245MM Orion f6.3 ( not quite the same scope but similar) who are able to get outstanding images & they seem to be a lot larger than what I get with my QHY5L-iic.

Just trying to understand if that's down to the smaller pixel size or maybe more FPS & better sensitivity. 

So really interested in anyone who has had both cameras & experienced the difference between them.

yelsac

 

Main way to get good images is to understand how planetary imaging works.

Pixel size is not important at all.

You can get the same size image as those that you've seen from Neil if you use barlow and some tricks in processing (like increasing size with drizzle factor) - but those result in empty resolution.

Some people simply choose to make larger image as it is easier for them to process or look at - but reality is, telescope can't resolve image at that scale (or rather - every telescope has limit of what it can resolve)

Let me show you by using one of the images @neil phillips produced:

And the same image that has been reduced x2 in size:

Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image? Bottom image looks properly sharp, and top image just looks like scaled up version of bottom image without additional detail.

I'm just writing all of this to show that it is not the size of image that determines level of captured detail. It is aperture of the telescope that is limiting factor.

If you wish - you can certainly do as Neil does - and use barlow and drizzling to produce zoomed in version of the image. However that won't produce sharpness that is expected on that scale.

Back to planetary imaging - here are key tips:

- yes, get better camera with higher QE, faster frame rates and less read noise. That will help

- choose barlow to match pixel size (or larger if you want to get larger image, but in my view that hampers your results). For OSC / color imaging, best F/ratio for given pixel size is pixel size * 4 - so for 3.75um pixel size that is F/15, for 2.9um pixel size that is F/11.6 and so on.

- keep exposure length short, like 5ms. Don't use histogram to set exposure length so that image is "bright enough". Stacking will make sure you get image that can be made bright enough, individual frames don't need to be. Point of short exposure is to freeze the seeing so that you don't add more blur to your image.

- get plenty of frames - few tens of thousands. This is why fast camera helps. Use ROI to limit amount of data you record (640x480 is enough for planets). Use USB3.0 computer that is capable of recording that amount of data in real time (use SSD for storage).

- Optimize your imaging environment in the same way planetary observers optimize their. Let the scope be cooled down. Be patient and wait for periods of best seeing (check seeing forecast so you know what to expect, or learn to judge seeing by eye). Don't shoot over large bodies that accumulate heat over day and radiate heat during night - meaning paved roads, large bodies of water, houses that use heating during night. Wait for planet to be sufficiently high in the sky.

- When stacking select only few best percent of frames for stacking (use AS!3)

- rest is down to careful processing / wavelets / deconvolution / etc - that is simply something you practice

[neil phillips]

 ---Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image?---

Maybe its old age. But I can see many of the tiny, smaller features in the 1.5 x that I point blank cannot see in the reduced scale. Not just a couple of features either, but many. I will go further. The shape of many of the tiny features are also far easier to see in the 1.5x image compared to the 2x reduced. And this is on a 30 " 4 k monitor? Also. I have many other images where the detail is sharper. where the effect of being able to see much smaller finer detail is even more pronounced with larger image. Sorry Vlaiv, I have to disagree, its similar to when I was capturing a storm on Neptune. I had to resize it considerably to see the storm properly. At capture size it was hardly visible at all. I had a blink comparison on it. Saw it moving. So, the feature was also real and not noise. It was posted on the BAA Neptune section many years ago. Btw I removed that image I thought the gaussian blur was hiding some of the fine detail. But still my points stand

Edited September 24, 2022 by neil phillips

[neil phillips]

38 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Main way to get good images is to understand how planetary imaging works.

Pixel size is not important at all.

You can get the same size image as those that you've seen from Neil if you use barlow and some tricks in processing (like increasing size with drizzle factor) - but those result in empty resolution.

Some people simply choose to make larger image as it is easier for them to process or look at - but reality is, telescope can't resolve image at that scale (or rather - every telescope has limit of what it can resolve)

Let me show you by using one of the images @neil phillips produced:

And the same image that has been reduced x2 in size:

Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image? Bottom image looks properly sharp, and top image just looks like scaled up version of bottom image without additional detail.

I'm just writing all of this to show that it is not the size of image that determines level of captured detail. It is aperture of the telescope that is limiting factor.

If you wish - you can certainly do as Neil does - and use barlow and drizzling to produce zoomed in version of the image. However that won't produce sharpness that is expected on that scale.

Back to planetary imaging - here are key tips:

- yes, get better camera with higher QE, faster frame rates and less read noise. That will help

- choose barlow to match pixel size (or larger if you want to get larger image, but in my view that hampers your results). For OSC / color imaging, best F/ratio for given pixel size is pixel size * 4 - so for 3.75um pixel size that is F/15, for 2.9um pixel size that is F/11.6 and so on.

- keep exposure length short, like 5ms. Don't use histogram to set exposure length so that image is "bright enough". Stacking will make sure you get image that can be made bright enough, individual frames don't need to be. Point of short exposure is to freeze the seeing so that you don't add more blur to your image.

- get plenty of frames - few tens of thousands. This is why fast camera helps. Use ROI to limit amount of data you record (640x480 is enough for planets). Use USB3.0 computer that is capable of recording that amount of data in real time (use SSD for storage).

- Optimize your imaging environment in the same way planetary observers optimize their. Let the scope be cooled down. Be patient and wait for periods of best seeing (check seeing forecast so you know what to expect, or learn to judge seeing by eye). Don't shoot over large bodies that accumulate heat over day and radiate heat during night - meaning paved roads, large bodies of water, houses that use heating during night. Wait for planet to be sufficiently high in the sky.

- When stacking select only few best percent of frames for stacking (use AS!3)

- rest is down to careful processing / wavelets / deconvolution / etc - that is simply something you practice

Both images are now the same

Edited September 24, 2022 by neil phillips

[neil phillips]

37 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Main way to get good images is to understand how planetary imaging works.

Pixel size is not important at all.

You can get the same size image as those that you've seen from Neil if you use barlow and some tricks in processing (like increasing size with drizzle factor) - but those result in empty resolution.

Some people simply choose to make larger image as it is easier for them to process or look at - but reality is, telescope can't resolve image at that scale (or rather - every telescope has limit of what it can resolve)

Let me show you by using one of the images @neil phillips produced:

And the same image that has been reduced x2 in size:

Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image? Bottom image looks properly sharp, and top image just looks like scaled up version of bottom image without additional detail.

I'm just writing all of this to show that it is not the size of image that determines level of captured detail. It is aperture of the telescope that is limiting factor.

If you wish - you can certainly do as Neil does - and use barlow and drizzling to produce zoomed in version of the image. However that won't produce sharpness that is expected on that scale.

Back to planetary imaging - here are key tips:

- yes, get better camera with higher QE, faster frame rates and less read noise. That will help

- choose barlow to match pixel size (or larger if you want to get larger image, but in my view that hampers your results). For OSC / color imaging, best F/ratio for given pixel size is pixel size * 4 - so for 3.75um pixel size that is F/15, for 2.9um pixel size that is F/11.6 and so on.

- keep exposure length short, like 5ms. Don't use histogram to set exposure length so that image is "bright enough". Stacking will make sure you get image that can be made bright enough, individual frames don't need to be. Point of short exposure is to freeze the seeing so that you don't add more blur to your image.

- get plenty of frames - few tens of thousands. This is why fast camera helps. Use ROI to limit amount of data you record (640x480 is enough for planets). Use USB3.0 computer that is capable of recording that amount of data in real time (use SSD for storage).

- Optimize your imaging environment in the same way planetary observers optimize their. Let the scope be cooled down. Be patient and wait for periods of best seeing (check seeing forecast so you know what to expect, or learn to judge seeing by eye). Don't shoot over large bodies that accumulate heat over day and radiate heat during night - meaning paved roads, large bodies of water, houses that use heating during night. Wait for planet to be sufficiently high in the sky.

- When stacking select only few best percent of frames for stacking (use AS!3)

- rest is down to careful processing / wavelets / deconvolution / etc - that is simply something you practice

I should add other than that. I agree with everything else you're pointing out. 

[vlaiv]

24 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

 ---Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image?---

Maybe its old age. But I can see many of the tiny, smaller features in the 1.5 x that I point blank cannot see in the reduced scale. Not just a couple of features either, but many. I will go further. The shape of many of the tiny features are also far easier to see in the 1.5x image compared to the 2x reduced. And this is on a 30 " 4 k monitor? Also. I have many other images where the detail is sharper. where the effect of being able to see much smaller finer detail is even more pronounced with larger image. Sorry Vlaiv, I have to disagree, its similar to when I was capturing a storm on Neptune. I had to resize it considerably to see the storm properly. At capture size it was hardly visible at all. I had a blink comparison on it. Saw it moving. So, the feature was also real and not noise. It was posted on the BAA Neptune section many years ago. Btw I removed that image I thought the gaussian blur was hiding some of the fine detail. But still my points stand

My post was not meant to provoke an argument on image size. I fully understand your preference for larger scale image.

It is easier for you to view it like that and probably to process as well.

I was just trying to point out that physics says that no additional detail will be captured after certain image size, and that it is sensible not to capture larger image than that. One can certainly choose to capture larger image (or make it larger in software - by use of drizzle or resampling) for other reasons / convenience in either processing or viewing, but capturing larger image by use of barlow does reduce quality of capture in terms of SNR given that there is limited time window in which capture is done and we can't arbitrarily boost SNR by throwing more imaging time at it, and one should be aware of that when reaching informed decision on image scale they want to use.

[yelsac]

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Main way to get good images is to understand how planetary imaging works.

Pixel size is not important at all.

You can get the same size image as those that you've seen from Neil if you use barlow and some tricks in processing (like increasing size with drizzle factor) - but those result in empty resolution.

Some people simply choose to make larger image as it is easier for them to process or look at - but reality is, telescope can't resolve image at that scale (or rather - every telescope has limit of what it can resolve)

Let me show you by using one of the images @neil phillips produced:

And the same image that has been reduced x2 in size:

Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image? Bottom image looks properly sharp, and top image just looks like scaled up version of bottom image without additional detail.

I'm just writing all of this to show that it is not the size of image that determines level of captured detail. It is aperture of the telescope that is limiting factor.

If you wish - you can certainly do as Neil does - and use barlow and drizzling to produce zoomed in version of the image. However that won't produce sharpness that is expected on that scale.

Back to planetary imaging - here are key tips:

- yes, get better camera with higher QE, faster frame rates and less read noise. That will help

- choose barlow to match pixel size (or larger if you want to get larger image, but in my view that hampers your results). For OSC / color imaging, best F/ratio for given pixel size is pixel size * 4 - so for 3.75um pixel size that is F/15, for 2.9um pixel size that is F/11.6 and so on.

- keep exposure length short, like 5ms. Don't use histogram to set exposure length so that image is "bright enough". Stacking will make sure you get image that can be made bright enough, individual frames don't need to be. Point of short exposure is to freeze the seeing so that you don't add more blur to your image.

- get plenty of frames - few tens of thousands. This is why fast camera helps. Use ROI to limit amount of data you record (640x480 is enough for planets). Use USB3.0 computer that is capable of recording that amount of data in real time (use SSD for storage).

- Optimize your imaging environment in the same way planetary observers optimize their. Let the scope be cooled down. Be patient and wait for periods of best seeing (check seeing forecast so you know what to expect, or learn to judge seeing by eye). Don't shoot over large bodies that accumulate heat over day and radiate heat during night - meaning paved roads, large bodies of water, houses that use heating during night. Wait for planet to be sufficiently high in the sky.

- When stacking select only few best percent of frames for stacking (use AS!3)

- rest is down to careful processing / wavelets / deconvolution / etc - that is simply something you practice

Wow thats really in depth.....

Lots for me to think about really appreciate your comments 👍

[yelsac]

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Both images are now the same

Neil

As I've said before absolutely love your images....

So with these two images is the smaller one the original taken from the pipp 640x480 video? When you increase the size from the original do you always 1.5 drizzle in AutoStakket or do you ever resize the image in PS or Image Analyser?

Also I've never used the winjupos for derotation is it easy to use? Normally I only take 3min max avi's of Jupiter so how long a video can you take using winjupos?

Sorry so many questions, learning all the time! 🤔

[neil phillips]

2 minutes ago, yelsac said:

Neil

As I've said before absolutely love your images....

So with these two images is the smaller one the original taken from the pipp 640x480 video? When you increase the size from the original do you always 1.5 drizzle in AutoStakket or do you ever resize the image in PS or Image Analyser?

Also I've never used the winjupos for derotation is it easy to use? Normally I only take 3min max avi's of Jupiter so how long a video can you take using winjupos?

Sorry so many questions, learning all the time! 🤔

I have resized on registax before on a few occasions. But mostly doing drizzle on AS/3 lately. Not always though. Sometimes straight stacks. drizzle can create noise itself. So you have to watch. Chris go has said he believes it produces a more accurate stack on lunar. Though I have not seen any evidence for this. But I know of top planetary guys who do drizzle also. Then downsize. Plenty of tutes online about winjupos. It's quite easy once you got the basics going. As for the max time. I am unsure. But for video de rotation. I don't do longer than 6 mins for Jupiter. Much longer can be done on image de rotation I've seen twenty thirty min runs. But there is a limit. As the edge starts to lose detail. 

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

My post was not meant to provoke an argument on image size. I fully understand your preference for larger scale image.

It is easier for you to view it like that and probably to process as well.

I was just trying to point out that physics says that no additional detail will be captured after certain image size, and that it is sensible not to capture larger image than that. One can certainly choose to capture larger image (or make it larger in software - by use of drizzle or resampling) for other reasons / convenience in either processing or viewing, but capturing larger image by use of barlow does reduce quality of capture in terms of SNR given that there is limited time window in which capture is done and we can't arbitrarily boost SNR by throwing more imaging time at it, and one should be aware of that when reaching informed decision on image scale they want to use.

Not making an argument Vlaiv. Especially when there is nothing to argue about. You said and I Quote

---Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image?---

All I was doing was replying to your question to another member or members. Especially as you were using two of my images to ask such said question. I thought it would not be out of place for me to answer it. 

And the answer is yes I can see many features in the larger image that I cannot see in the smaller image. People are allowed to disagree with you from time to time Vlaiv. We are all friends here so just answering your question. 

[vlaiv]

1 minute ago, neil phillips said:

Not making an argument Vlaiv. Especially when there is nothing to argue about. You said and I Quote

---Now question is - can you see a feature in above image that you can't see in smaller image?---

All I was doing was replying to your question to another member or members. Especially as you were using two of my images to ask such said question. I thought it would not be out of place for me to answer it. 

And the answer is yes I can see many features in the larger image that I cannot see in the smaller image. People are allowed to disagree with you from time to time Vlaiv. We are all friends here so just answering your question. 

But of course, I was just trying to point out that I wasn't either trying to start an argument on image size.

I mentioned you and used your images because OP first referenced someone with F/6.3 scope that makes excellent large images, so I figured that it must be you.

I do appreciate that some people see the difference between above two images. I personally don't. In fact I don't see the difference even if I enlarge reduced image to be comparable to original and them mathematically subtract the two. Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.

[neil phillips]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

But of course, I was just trying to point out that I wasn't either trying to start an argument on image size.

I mentioned you and used your images because OP first referenced someone with F/6.3 scope that makes excellent large images, so I figured that it must be you.

I do appreciate that some people see the difference between above two images. I personally don't. In fact I don't see the difference even if I enlarge reduced image to be comparable to original and them mathematically subtract the two. Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.

Well, that's fine Vlaiv. We will have to just disagree on that. Though I am surprised you are saying that. When it's not one tiny feature I can see on the larger image That I cannot see on the smaller image. But many in fact.

Even the shape of some tiny detail is completely lost on the smaller image ?

I will let other members see if they can find tiny detail on the large image that's getting completely lost on the smaller image or not. And or its correct shape. I tried to explain this to you before. When we have had such discussions. But we didn't agree then either.

As for this quote 

------Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.------

All I can say is rubbish. I can tell the difference between noise and tiny features Vlaiv. If you cannot then wow. Anyway, as I said. I agree with everything else you have said. So at least we agree on something. Time to move on. I answered your question. Even though I don't agree. We can't always agree.

[yelsac]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

But of course, I was just trying to point out that I wasn't either trying to start an argument on image size.

I mentioned you and used your images because OP first referenced someone with F/6.3 scope that makes excellent large images, so I figured that it must be you.

I do appreciate that some people see the difference between above two images. I personally don't. In fact I don't see the difference even if I enlarge reduced image to be comparable to original and them mathematically subtract the two. Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.

 

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Well, that's fine Vlaiv. We will have to just disagree on that. Though I am surprised you are saying that. When it's not one tiny feature I can see on the larger image That I cannot see on the smaller image. But many in fact.

Even the shape of some tiny detail is completely lost on the smaller image ?

I will let other members see if they can find tiny detail on the large image that's getting completely lost on the smaller image or not. And or its correct shape. I tried to explain this to you before. When we have had such discussions. But we didn't agree then either.

As for this quote 

------Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.------

All I can say is rubbish. I can tell the difference between noise and tiny features Vlaiv. If you cannot then wow. Anyway, as I said. I agree with everything else you have said. So at least we agree on something. Time to move on. I answered your question. Even though I don't agree. We can't always agree.

Oh dear I seem to have opened a can of worms here......

Well I know we don't always agree which I suppose keeps life interesting but I really appreciate both of your comments & imput. You both have so much experience that is so valuable to ones like me, so many thanks for your advice.

Clear skies

[Varavall]

5 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I'd recommend ASI462 (or QHY or some other version) to people that are interested in IR planetary (or IR guiding), but there are probably higher QE cameras in visible part of spectrum than that one.

Maybe ASI662 for example (peak QE in green around 91%)?

Or if blue QE is important, then maybe ASI678 (peak QE in blue around 83%)?

Hi

That's all very interesting. Could you post images you have made with each of those cameras so we can see what you are getting at?