Head to Head - TOA vs FSQ

[Rodd]

I don't know why I do this...boredom, I guess.  I just can't get enough data! This one was not planned.  I had imaged the Jelly fish years ago with the TOA 130 and STT-8300 camera, and I just finished an image taken with the FSQ 106 and ASI 1600.  They were of the same target, and despite the FOV difference, they included the same thing.  A couple of things to point out.  The TOA was reduced by .7x for a focal length of 700 mm, while the FSQ was reduced by .6x for a focal length of 318 mm.  The TOA image was captured using a CCD with 5.4 um pixels, and the FSQ image was captured using a CMOS camera with 3.8 um pixels.  So really totally different systems--one a triplet with a CCD and one a Petzval with CMOS.  Ironically--the same filters were used for both images - Astrodon 3um.  The images were registered to the FSQ crop.  This gives the TOA an advantage and doesn't penalize the FSQ (upsampling is a penalty, really).  The FSQ image is inherently handicapped in this case as it is an aggressive crop from a full image of the Jelly Fish, where as the TOA image is pan image of just this portion of the target--just downsized to the FSQ size, with a slight edge artifact where the datasets did not intersect.  

I have mixed feelings about this comparison--normally, when I compare images like this from these two scopes--and even the C11EDge with the TOA, very little difference is usually apparent--especially with narrowband.  But in this case, its different, and that gives me pause--maybe there something not right with the FSQ, after all.   There is an obvious resolution difference.  The TOA image is much sharper.  That being said, I think the TOA image was taken a bit further than it should have been, as there are small scale sharpening artifacts visible when zoomed.  Also--there is a seeming difference in signal strength--with a definite edge to the TOA, as there is much greater detail in the faint extensions at upper left. However, I shot the FSQ image Ha during a 100% Moon.  I do not recall the conditions for the TOA shoot.  Also, processing can be a work here.  Not sure.  I do know that when I look at the TOA image, I do feel as if I am standing over the line, so to speak--each time I find myself searching for evidence that I had crossed it--hoping to find none.  I always find it.  When  viewing the FSQ image, I do not feel this way.  

Final thought--I do not know what these images will look like after I post--how big they will be, how big they will become upon opening.  we'll see.

 

FSQ 106 with 0.6x reducer and ASI 1600-17.5 hours at a pixel scale of 2.44 arcsec/pix

TOA 130 with .7x reducer and STT 8300, 15.5 hours at a pixel scale of 1.59 arc sec/pix-edge artifact from registration with FSQ image

 

[Sunshine]

WOW! these are simply amazing, I wish i could contribute an imaging opinion but to me, everything technical about these may as well be in a foreign language. What I do see which jumps out at me is the 

increased sharpness and detail present in the TOA image,  but it also has more purple stuff in there (not sure if purple is good or not). Amazing work in any case, it is inspiring!.

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

WOW! these are simply amazing, I wish i could contribute an imaging opinion but to me, everything technical about these may as well be in a foreign language. What I do see which jumps out at me is the 

increased sharpness and detail present in the TOA image,  but it also has more purple stuff in there (not sure if purple is good or not). Amazing work in any case, it is inspiring!.

Thanks Sunshine. My processing skills were not as good back then so there are things about the TOA image that could be better. The purple being one of them. 

[Sunshine]

2 minutes ago, Rodd said:

The purple being one of them. 

My sweet innocence when it comes to imaging matters is just adorable, isn't it? 🤣

[Rodd]

50 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

My sweet innocence when it comes to imaging matters is just adorable, isn't it? 🤣

You were right on the money here!

[simmo39]

Both look amazing to me but not to keen on the purple so much in the second image.

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, simmo39 said:

Both look amazing to me but not to keen on the purple so much in the second image.

If I still had the data I could reprocess. But, alas, t’was on a storefront as he device that failed (dropping it on a tile floor probably didn’t help)

[MartinB]

There are so many variables it isn't really possible to use it to compare the 2 scopes, or the 2 cameras.  Both cracking images though!

[Rodd]

46 minutes ago, MartinB said:

There are so many variables it isn't really possible to use it to compare the 2 scopes, or the 2 cameras.  Both cracking images though!

True--but what we are comparing are the images