Narrowband with OSC

[tooth_dr]

I took some Sii data a couple of nights ago using an IMX571 OSC camera.  I used a Chroma 3nm Sii filter and took 48 x 300s subs - 4 hours

Stretched in APP, otherwise unprocessed, saved as JPEG.

There is a UVIR blocking filter in the OSC camera that isnt present in the mono, may have an effect at 672nm depending on how well it's made.  The QE% is less than 50% at this deep red colour in the sensor in general (mono and colour).   Would there be much of an advantage swapping to mono.

 

 

Adam

 

[tooth_dr]

Four hours of Oiii on same night with mono camera:

[scotty38]

49 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

 Would there be much of an advantage swapping to mono.

 

 

Wouldn't the advantage be that you'd be using every pixel to capture the Sii in the mono versus just the red pixels in the colour?

[tooth_dr]

36 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Wouldn't the advantage be that you'd be using every pixel to capture the Sii in the mono versus just the red pixels in the colour?

Of course. But I’m wondering how does that translate to actual data presentation.  That Sii above looks quite decent. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by tooth_dr

[Stuart1971]

16 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Of course. But how does that translate to actual data presentation.  That Sii above looks quite decent 

I would agree it does look very decent indeed, and with maybe a 1/3 more exposure time than the mono, they would be very comparable….so is it worth getting the mono camera, or imaging for 1/3 longer, with dedicated narrowband filters with a OSC camera…..🤔🤔 you got me thinking now…

[scotty38]

13 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Of course. But how does that translate to actual data presentation.  That Sii above looks quite decent 

Ah ok I see what you're asking now, apologies for missing the point. I can't imagine the lack of UV/IR making much difference looking at the numbers but....

Agreed the Sii does look decent regardless. Do you have the Sii equivalent from the mono or is your post just a typo re Oiii?

[Stuart1971]

1 minute ago, scotty38 said:

Ah ok I see what you're asking now, apologies for missing the point. I can't imagine the lack of UV/IR making much difference looking at the numbers but....

Agreed the Sii does look decent regardless. Do you have the Sii equivalent from the mono or is your post just a typo re Oiii?

Oh yes, I never spotted that, there different filters used….🤔

[tooth_dr]

38 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Ah ok I see what you're asking now, apologies for missing the point. I can't imagine the lack of UV/IR making much difference looking at the numbers but....

Agreed the Sii does look decent regardless. Do you have the Sii equivalent from the mono or is your post just a typo re Oiii?

I don’t have the equivalent Sii data with the mono camera, but I posted Oiii because it’s normally weak too (unlike Ha). Not a great comparison but all I had to hand.

Bit of a faff pulling apart the mono optical train cos angle and position will need realigned with the second scope on the dual rig, but might be worth doing for a comparison.  Almost forgot will need some clear skies too 🤪

[scotty38]

Ha yes clear sky 😃

Appreciate the faff involved so yes if it can be gathered more easily I'm with you.