Hi!
I have started using my QHY410C camera, however, there is some confusion about the settings in N.I.NA.:
1.) As per QHY specs the 410C uses a 14bit A/D-converter - however I assume the fits-file created by the camery is written in 16bit format, correct?
So in the NINA settings I enter 16bit for the file settings, right?
Using a 14bit setting in NINA results ia a somewhat noisy image, which does not look right.
2.) This is a tricky one: As per QHY specs the 410C has 5.94x5.94um size pixels (also per SONY specs for the IMX410 sensor).
However, the pixel size automatically adopted by NINA from the QHY SDK-driver states 5.96x5.96um size pixels?!
And yes, I am using the lates QHY SDK-driver (all-in-one-driver package 20241227); and, alas, the same was the case when using an earlier SDK-driver from January 2024.
While this seems to have no impact on the image itself, the data in the fits-header is wrong, which could lead to plate solving or stacking issues.
Any help and insights are highly appreciated!
Thanks & CS!
Chris
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
As far as I know if the ADC is 14 bit you should enter 14 bits in the settings but normally NINA sets that according to the info provided by the drivers. Now, is a matter of record that QHY's drivers can be somewhat, what shall I say, odd so I'm not really sure there. You can try to override the spe'd pixel size in NINA, and it should find its way into the FITS header. Not the a difference of 0.33% makes any practical difference anywhere…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
NINA is at 16 bits for my 585 and I've never seen any reason to change that. I have another QHY camera where the detected pixel size is a bit off from specs (1.49 verses 1.5) but it's never really affected anything.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hello fellow IMX410 user!
Yes, you are correct that despite the A/D converter being 14 bit, it is a 16 bit output. You will run 16 bits FITS.
I could be wrong, but the reason the 14 bit output is noisy is because its taking an interpolated 14 to 16 bit file and reducing that back to 14 bit using the interpolated values. I wish I could output 14 bit direct from the camera, but on the contrary, I really, really wish the camera would have been equipped with a 16, or even 18 bit ADC from default. (I'll see about doing something evil in the future after I monochrome convert this camera.)
The pixel size being wierd doesn't matter too much, I've seen conflicting numbers from A7III, ASI2400, and QHY410C, which all use the same sensor. I've gotten 5.91um from my A7III, 5.94 from ASI2400 and now I've seen 5.96 from your 410C. I'm thinking there is a margin of error of +-.03um. Part of me thinks that could be a QHY SDK typo, as newer 533/571/455/461/411 sensors all use 3.76um arrays, makes me wonder if someone that wrote the code after looking at the chart said "three point seven… wait no, five point nine six!"
I think that because it is such a small value your platesolving wont be so affected, .02um is not a very large size difference in regards to sampling, in my mind it will likely give you the same results as a correct number in the end.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thanks very much Andrea, Tony & V!
I consider this issue as solved.
Chris
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
V:
Hello fellow IMX410 user!
Yes, you are correct that despite the A/D converter being 14 bit, it is a 16 bit output. You will run 16 bits FITS.
I could be wrong, but the reason the 14 bit output is noisy is because its taking an interpolated 14 to 16 bit file and reducing that back to 14 bit using the interpolated values. I wish I could output 14 bit direct from the camera, but on the contrary, I really, really wish the camera would have been equipped with a 16, or even 18 bit ADC from default. (I'll see about doing something evil in the future after I monochrome convert this camera.)
The pixel size being wierd doesn't matter too much, I've seen conflicting numbers from A7III, ASI2400, and QHY410C, which all use the same sensor. I've gotten 5.91um from my A7III, 5.94 from ASI2400 and now I've seen 5.96 from your 410C. I'm thinking there is a margin of error of +-.03um. Part of me thinks that could be a QHY SDK typo, as newer 533/571/455/461/411 sensors all use 3.76um arrays, makes me wonder if someone that wrote the code after looking at the chart said "three point seven... wait no, five point nine six!"
I think that because it is such a small value your platesolving wont be so affected, .02um is not a very large size difference in regards to sampling, in my mind it will likely give you the same results as a correct number in the end. I would love to see some details on the mono conversion. I always feel a bit ripped off that companies charge more for mono versions verses the color versions of the same camera.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
14 bit images are usually right-shifted to fit in 16-bit words, not interpolated. Just look at the BZERO word value in the FITS header. Acid-stripping/solvent-stripping the outer layer from a sensor isn't for the faint of hearts and may well ruin everything.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
14 bit images are usually right-shifted to fit in 16-bit words, not interpolated. Just look at the BZERO word value in the FITS header. Acid-stripping/solvent-stripping the outer layer from a sensor isn't for the faint of hearts and may well ruin everything. Just wondering if the methods have improved past the caveman stage.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
There are a couple of outfits in the US that do the conversion but not sure they'll take an astro-camera.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
There are a couple of outfits in the US that do the conversion but not sure they'll take an astro-camera. I've already solved the logistics of it and the one I've decided to go through will accept the camera, there is no deletarious effects of the conversion, and it does not damage the sensor, only removes the CFA and the CFA alone through anti-adhesive. 1200$ though, so not cheap whatsoever. Either this or waiting for IMX810 from A9III to be put in an astrocam body.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
