ASI485MC questions

[Ags]

I am imaging the planets this year with an ASI485MC and C6. The camera pixels are 2.9ųm, so superficially the native focal ratio of F10 should be fine. Due to the bayer matrix the blue and red pixels are actually spaced every 5.8ųm, so am I correct in using a barlow to increase the focal ratio to around F20?

Secondly, I am thinking of imaging the Moon in daylight as I have a limited view of the sky and want to image the Moon in its older phases which I can't do by night. For this project I am thinking of getting an 850nm IR pass filter and using the sensor in mono mode. Would this work?

Here is the light curve of the ASI485MC:

And here us my best Jupiter so far this year:

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ags

[JeremyS]

That is a very good image Agnes

[ONIKKINEN]

Have taken plenty of images of Jupiter not as detailed as yours with a bigger scope, so its a pretty good picture in my book.

54 minutes ago, Ags said:

The camera pixels are 2.9ųm, so superficially the native focal ratio of F10 should be fine. Due to the bayer matrix the blue and red pixels are actually spaced every 5.8ųm, so am I correct in using a barlow to increase the focal ratio to around F20?

If you are stacking with Autostakkert!3 the difference in actual resolution between mono and OSC does not apply, or in other terms only applies to SNR but not the actual resolving capability. AS!3 uses bayer drizzle to plug the gaps between the pixels which works well for planetary because of mostly random seeing making sure that pretty much every frame is well dithered at the single pixel or subpixel level and the fact that the end result will likely still have hundreds or thousands of frames to stack = no shortage of SNR.

The ideal f/ratio for lucky imaging uses the formula: f_ratio=pixelsize x4 so f/11.6 for 2.9 micron pixels which is pretty close to the f/10 the scope is now. The 2x barlow would go way too far, but in theory might capture a bit more than your current setup. But i would say seeing this time was not the best it could be and the focal length is not to blame for the end result this time and so the barlow would probably not help.

[Ags]

Ok, I will try ditching the barlow next time.