Rodd Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 This is merely an experiment to see if a respectable image can be rendered with very little data in two channels. The Ha channel (green) has sufficient data--114 300 sec subs--almost 10 hours. However, the OIII has only 3 hours and SII only 45 minutes. It was very challenging to render this without copious chromatic noise. Looking forward to getting more OIII and SII. The second channel is a bicolor (HOO). I am bored, I guess 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan potts Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it? Alan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollypenrice Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 1 hour ago, alan potts said: My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it? Alan That is an odd effect, certainly. The nearest I've seen to this in my own imaging came from a QSI camera whose data, when stretched hard, showed a kind of grid pattern of banding, the bands maybe 20 pixels wide and aligned with the frame. It created a square look from the glow around bright stars, not unlike this. I don't know what caused it but I seem to think it was discussed in QSI circles and was fixed by a firmware update. Perhaps something to do with how the chip was read. Otherwise, I like the images. My rendition also created that colour of OIII glow round the outside of the Jellyfish. Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooth_dr Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 2 hours ago, alan potts said: My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it? Alan You mean the big star with the square diffraction pattern? That’s caused by a microlensing effect inherent to the 1600MM. If its something else then I don’t see it, the stars look round to me on the phone here 🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 28, 2022 Author Share Posted November 28, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, alan potts said: My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it? Alan Yes-get a new camera. The 1600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars. It sucks. The 2600 and 6200 do not suffer so Edited November 28, 2022 by Rodd wrong camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 28, 2022 Author Share Posted November 28, 2022 4 hours ago, ollypenrice said: That is an odd effect, certainly. The nearest I've seen to this in my own imaging came from a QSI camera whose data, when stretched hard, showed a kind of grid pattern of banding, the bands maybe 20 pixels wide and aligned with the frame. It created a square look from the glow around bright stars, not unlike this. I don't know what caused it but I seem to think it was discussed in QSI circles and was fixed by a firmware update. Perhaps something to do with how the chip was read. Otherwise, I like the images. My rendition also created that colour of OIII glow round the outside of the Jellyfish. Olly It’s a microlensing artifact caused by the 1600 sensor. The stt 8300 was a much better camera after all. But it had something wrong with it. I have had very bad luck with cameras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 28, 2022 Author Share Posted November 28, 2022 6 hours ago, alan potts said: My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it? Alan Unless you refer to something other than the big squares around the 2 bright stars? My fsq had been fixed, but it still is not right. Small stars show astigmatism. I am told it’s due to the small modern pixels. Sounds like bunk to me for a scope advertised as redesigned for digital imaging. I am in the process of negotiating a buy back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallemikken Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 49 minutes ago, Rodd said: The 2600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars. I didn't belive square stars existed, but obviously they do! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmo39 Posted November 28, 2022 Share Posted November 28, 2022 Think the answer to that is yes! both nice renditions to my eyes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 28, 2022 Author Share Posted November 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Rallemikken said: I didn't belive square stars existed, but obviously they do! I meant 1600 sensor--unfortunately they do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan potts Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 17 hours ago, Rodd said: Yes-get a new camera. The 1600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars. It sucks. The 2600 and 6200 do not suffer so It really does detract from your fine work which is as good as anyone's on the site in my eye's. The 2600 appears to be a lovely camera, I would like one but they don't seem to be a free gift in Cornflakes as yet. Alan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan potts Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 21 hours ago, tooth_dr said: You mean the big star with the square diffraction pattern? That’s caused by a microlensing effect inherent to the 1600MM. If its something else then I don’t see it, the stars look round to me on the phone here 🤷♂️ No it was just the two bright stars, , I struggle to see how they can market a camera that does that, not dirt cheap either, ruins quality work. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 29, 2022 Author Share Posted November 29, 2022 7 hours ago, alan potts said: t really does detract from your fine work which is as good as anyone's on the site in my eye's. The 2600 appears to be a lovely camera, I would like one but they don't seem to be a free gift in Cornflakes as yet. Thanks Alan, I am humbled. And yes, the expense is what has been preventing me from upgrading to the 2600. I would really like the 6200, but I would have to purchase 50 mm filters, and a set of good 50 mm unmounted filters cost more than the 6200 camera! The 2600 is more within reach as I would not need new filters. Maybe Santa will live up to his reputation this year!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan potts Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 1 hour ago, Rodd said: Thanks Alan, I am humbled. And yes, the expense is what has been preventing me from upgrading to the 2600. I would really like the 6200, but I would have to purchase 50 mm filters, and a set of good 50 mm unmounted filters cost more than the 6200 camera! The 2600 is more within reach as I would not need new filters. Maybe Santa will live up to his reputation this year!! The trouble is with you, you have some of the very best gear money can buy and that deserve to have the very best cameras, tell the lady indoors Alan says it alright. I would love one of the FSQ's that you use so well but they are close to 7 grand now and that before you look at any reducer options. I imagine without checking the 6200 is the full frame version. I guess if you stretch that far there isn't many more things you can buy, but then they will bring something out, they always do. I'm considering a 2600 myself. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarsG76 Posted November 29, 2022 Share Posted November 29, 2022 On 28/11/2022 at 14:30, Rodd said: This is merely an experiment to see if a respectable image can be rendered with very little data in two channels. The Ha channel (green) has sufficient data--114 300 sec subs--almost 10 hours. However, the OIII has only 3 hours and SII only 45 minutes. It was very challenging to render this without copious chromatic noise. Looking forward to getting more OIII and SII. The second channel is a bicolor (HOO). I am bored, I guess I'd say that this experiment is a success... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 29, 2022 Author Share Posted November 29, 2022 26 minutes ago, alan potts said: The trouble is with you, you have some of the very best gear money can buy and that deserve to have the very best cameras, tell the lady indoors Alan says it alright. I would love one of the FSQ's that you use so well but they are close to 7 grand now and that before you look at any reducer options. I imagine without checking the 6200 is the full frame version. I guess if you stretch that far there isn't many more things you can buy, but then they will bring something out, they always do. I'm considering a 2600 myself. Alan Yes. The 6200 is full frame. The 2600 sensor and the 6200 are the same. One is just bigger. The expense of a full frame with filter wheel and filters is as much as the fsq 😦 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodd Posted November 29, 2022 Author Share Posted November 29, 2022 20 minutes ago, MarsG76 said: I'd say that this experiment is a success... Thanks. I was surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now