Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Use this section to discuss "standard" Baader/Coronado/ Lunt SolarView/ Daystar, etc… filters, cameras and scopes. No mods, just questions/ answers and reviews.
barnstorm
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:41 pm
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 584 times

Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by barnstorm »

Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Let me start out by saying this is not a technical review and conditions did not allow me to do an apples-to-apples comparison. I have been doing astrophotography since the FILM days but I am not an expert on Solar imaging, I am just getting back in since the last cycle.
I have been using a number of cameras with my Coronado 90mm SolarMax “1” Single Stack. My favorite has been the Altair Hypercam 174 and the ZWO ASI-174. I just purchased and received a Player One Apollo-M IMX432. I don’t have the equipment to run both cameras at the same time, nor to autofocus. Additionally, the only day I had to image in the 10-day forecast had poor seeing and clouds. So what good is this post? I have run into some issues and I think some of these experiences may at least be of interest to others.

My primary motivation for purchasing the Apollo-M IMX432 is that it has a deep well and I would like to have a greater dynamic range especially for images with surface features and prominences. My secondary motivation is to allow me to have a camera that can do a full disk image of the sun. My experience processing with the ZWO ASI-174 FAR outweighs my single experience with the Apollo-M IMX432 so the first concept (dynamic range) cannot be determined by my present skill set. I am willing to provide my data via a DropBox link to anyone interested in using my data. Please keep in mind that the same scope and etalon settings were used the sky was changing constantly and I cannot guarantee the exact same focus acuity. I was able to confirm that with my Coronado Solar Max 90mm Single Stack with a 15mm Blocking Filter the ZWO-ASI 174 does NOT give a full disk (see photos) but the Apollo-M IMX432 does with lots of room to spare.

I had some issues getting the Apollo-M IMX432 up and running with FireCapture (more information on this later) and when using a 3x Explore Scientific Barlow I did experience Newton’s Rings (but not without the Barlow, more info later). Once I had the Apollo-M IMX432 I found that I had good FPS but not quite as good as the ZWO-ASI 174. I ran both at MAX RESOLUTION (129fps(ish)/160fps(ish)). In lucky imaging, FPS is a big deal. The Apollo-M IMX432 does present a larger chip so using ROI may perhaps more closely level the playing field but I have to have the opportunity to test this.

Unboxing. The Apollo-M IMX432 comes with a USB-3 cable, a guide cable, a set of hex wrenches for tilt adjustment, and interestingly a lens dust blower bulb. The manual is in digital form. As I do with all of my cameras I immediately installed a IR/UV cut-off filter to help keep dust off of the sensor AR window. My ZWO cameras do not have tilt-adjustment built into the cameras nor did they include the duster. The threads bound up and offered uneven resistance to my IR filters on all of the three ZWO camera nosepieces but were smooth consistent and firm for the Apollo-M IMX432. I acquired the Altair used so I cannot fairly use that as a comparison. Fit and finish is of equal apparent quality with all of the cameras.

Troubleshooting and First Light. After the Apollo-M IMX432 arrived I loaded all of the native and ASCOM drivers from the Player One download page. First I tried the camera with FireCapture and was astonished to see a 5-6 FPS! I had to use ASCOM to connect to the camera as FireCapture newest standard version of the software does not support native PlayerOne drivers. I tried the camera with SharpCap and found it ran at 99FPS full resolution and 200+ with a small ROI. I sent an email to PlayerOne support and posted my problem on the PlayerOne Facebook Group. When I found people on the FB group were using the FireCapture Beta version and it had native driver support I installed the current beta version and got 120-130ish FPS. PlayerOne support did answer my email an hour or so later which was great especially for a Friday night after 6pm. I also found that in 8-bit mode the Apollo-M IMX432 did not produce proper greyscale previews, this was fixed when running in 16-bit mode. This is no issue I assume because you would want 16-bit mode to take advantage of the deepwell/dynamic range.

The next morning there was poor seeing, haze and clouds but since this was the best forecast for the foreseeable future I had to take what I could get. As mentioned previously with the direct eyepiece attachment I got a full disk of the sun with plenty of room to spare. I swapped cameras and got a partial disk with the ZWO ASI-174. The ZWO image had better surface features HOWEVER, it was not a fair comparison due to weather and the manual focus under poor conditions. With the image stretched both showed spicules on the limb and prominences.

After adding the 3x Barlow the Apollo-M IMX432 showed Newton’s rings the ZWO ASI-174 does not. I used the camera tilt function and that removed ½ of the rings but because of the declining seeing conditions and the 20 Degree (F) temps, I decided to not work on fine adjustment at this time. The surface details of both cameras seem comparable, I hope to be able to try again under constant viewing conditions.

In conclusion, I cannot yet tell if the Apollo-M IMX432 will offer better images of the sun's surface combined with prominences but now at least I have a full disk option without using a focal reducer. This will help me for not only imaging but also outreach. Even if the deep well/large pixel tradeoff does not pay off the current low price of this camera makes it a keeper at least for me.
IMG_1664.jpg
IMG_1664.jpg (136.28 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1663.jpg
IMG_1663.jpg (130.14 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1653.jpg
IMG_1653.jpg (119.7 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1651.jpg
IMG_1651.jpg (69.12 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1650.jpg
IMG_1650.jpg (72.06 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1649.jpg
IMG_1649.jpg (41.77 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1646.jpg
IMG_1646.jpg (78.17 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1643.jpg
IMG_1643.jpg (48.74 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1642.jpg
IMG_1642.jpg (51.42 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1641.jpg
IMG_1641.jpg (99.1 KiB) Viewed 6713 times
IMG_1640.jpg
IMG_1640.jpg (101.95 KiB) Viewed 6713 times




ZWO:
PS_zwo_imgg1_stretch2.jpg
PS_zwo_imgg1_stretch2.jpg (716.55 KiB) Viewed 6705 times
PS_color_iMGG_ZWO_Limb_Surface.jpg
PS_color_iMGG_ZWO_Limb_Surface.jpg (937.45 KiB) Viewed 6705 times
PlayerOne
flyerIMGG1.jpg
flyerIMGG1.jpg (343.57 KiB) Viewed 6705 times
IMgG_Play1_surface.jpg
IMgG_Play1_surface.jpg (531.34 KiB) Viewed 6705 times


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

Thanks for the unbox review, very informative! Hopefully you will be able to add more comparison as conditions allow.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
Montana
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 34560
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
Location: Cheshire, UK
Has thanked: 17667 times
Been thanked: 8789 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Montana »

Really helpful, thank you :bow2

Alexandra


torsinadoc
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 1640 times
Been thanked: 878 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by torsinadoc »

Nice review. Mine arrived this week. I purchased it to use with my quantum. Your tip on firecapture is very helpful


User avatar
solarchat
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4359
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:10 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 1315 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by solarchat »

i’ve been using it for about a month now and love it. FireCapture beta on the Player One website is the version to use as you found out
Sean Wang has been very helpful with all issues and the Apollo camera series is now the official imaging camera of the Charlie Bates Solar Astronomy Project.

I also love the built in sensor tilt mechanism.


Stephen W. Ramsden
Atlanta, GA USA
Founder/Director Charlie Bates Solar Astronomy Project
http://www.solarastronomy.org
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Hi,

Interesting but I wonder about the pixel size of 9µm. Is it not a bit too big ?

My cameras have 4.4µm and 2.9µm.

Speed is a nice feature to have but not the most important.

IMHO ...

;)


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
PDB
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Belgium
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by PDB »

rsfoto wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:59 pm Hi,

Interesting but I wonder about the pixel size of 9µm. Is it not a bit too big ?

My cameras have 4.4µm and 2.9µm.

Speed is a nice feature to have but not the most important.

IMHO ...

;)
Hello Rainer,

you have a point there, but it all depends ... (as usual there is a yes and a no ;) )

This is an interesting camera, and very well suited for imaging behind a solid etalon, or with barlow. The 9µ pixels are huge, so to get the resolution out of it, that matches the telescopes resolving power, you need to image at minimal f/31 for H-Alfa (f/41 under best conditions) In green or blue it will even be higher.

Frame rate: well it is important, but also consider that with these slow f/rates, exposure will be longer and you might not be abel to get these rates because of exposure length (eg for 170fps, your max exposure time will be around 6ms.) So depends how high the QE of the camer is and gain setting (no idea how the gain will infuence the noise in this camera)

Regards,

Paul


None of my posts or images may be shared on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media other than SolarChat without permission.
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

... you need to image at minimal f/31 for H-Alfa (f/41 under best conditions) ...
Hi Paul,

Sorry but I do not understand above explanation ... f/31 or f/41 tells me nothing, Sorry, apart from a mathematical operation of focal length versus entrance aperture.

For me when using that pixel size it makes sense longer focal length but f/31 or f/41 does not mean that. For me coming from terrestrial photography it just tells me that my exposure time will be huge compared to f/12 or f/6 ...

If I have a telescope, only that one, with 1000 mm focal length and a diameter of 130mm that for me is f/7.7 ( this would be a Takahashi TOA 130 :lol: ) and so I get a certain resolution in seconds per pixel. Now if I stop down to f/31 ( I put a plate with an opening of 32.3mm in front of the scope) and my focal length is the same, it does not change at all, my resolution will stay the same but my exposure time goes through the roof and so I still have the same problem as before because I do not resolve any better as if I would sue a 4.4µm or a 2.9µm pixel size.

For example in my current setup I have by pure coincidence a resolution of 1" arcsecond per pixel with my 4.4µm pixel camera. If I now put a 9µm pixel sized camera my resolution will change to 2.05" arcseconds per pixel eg. half the resolution I had before.

Maybe I do not understand this :? :? :?


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Hi,

Another way of thinking could be as following.

The Sun has a diameter of 1´392.680 km and a virtual average diameter of 30' arcminutes or 1800" arcseconds which would then traduce to my setup to a resolution of ~ 774 km per pixel.

So using a camera with 9µm pixel size would give me only 1548 km per pixel resolution.

The incognita is: Do we see it ?

Would an experiment solve this eg. I am using a 2X teleconverter and I could next time just take it off and then resize the resulting image to my actual image sze taken with 2X teleconverter ?

For example my full disk from January 17th has a diameter of 1938 /without spicules of the limb) ... and according to my planetarium software the Sun had a virtual diameter of around 1951" arcseconds ... and a radius of 696.000 km which gives me a theoretical resolution of 718.3 km per pixel :mrgreen:
Sun,20220117_15h02m.JPG
Sun,20220117_15h02m.JPG (147.92 KiB) Viewed 6606 times
I see I have too much free time and have nothing better to do then this :lol: :lol: :lol:


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
Wjdrijfhout
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:39 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Wjdrijfhout »

rsfoto wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:31 pm For me when using that pixel size it makes sense longer focal length but f/31 or f/41 does not mean that.
This is an interesting point. Coming from deep sky astrophotography and new in solar imaging, I would assume the same thing. Pixel-scale is dependent on focal length and pixel-size, not on aperture and thus not on focal ratio. But on the solar imaging forums I have seen this statement more often, that a certain camera with a certain pixel-size works best at a certain f-ratio at a certain wavelength. Is this something that is specific to solar imaging? Would someone be able to explain this for solar imaging?

NB, this is different than required f/ratio for use with heated etalons like the quark, where a parallel light beam is required for best performance, which is indeed dependent on aperture.


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

Wjdrijfhout wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:03 am Would someone be able to explain this for solar imaging?
It's all down to Nyquist sampling theory. I wrote an article on it you can find on my website:

https://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.com/ ... pling.html


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
christian viladrich
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2713 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by christian viladrich »

Wjdrijfhout wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:03 am
rsfoto wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:31 pm For me when using that pixel size it makes sense longer focal length but f/31 or f/41 does not mean that.
This is an interesting point. Coming from deep sky astrophotography and new in solar imaging, I would assume the same thing. Pixel-scale is dependent on focal length and pixel-size, not on aperture and thus not on focal ratio. But on the solar imaging forums I have seen this statement more often, that a certain camera with a certain pixel-size works best at a certain f-ratio at a certain wavelength. Is this something that is specific to solar imaging? Would someone be able to explain this for solar imaging?

NB, this is different than required f/ratio for use with heated etalons like the quark, where a parallel light beam is required for best performance, which is indeed dependent on aperture.
There are two different concepts :
- pixel-scale : this one depends on pixel size and on focal length. This is simply the angular size covered on the sky by one pixel.
- optimal sampling : this one is completely different. The concept is related to high resolution imaging (solar, lunar, planetary). The idea is to find what is the optimal pixel-scale to be used to detect the very finest details showed by the telescope. If the pixel scale is not fine enough, the detail are not detected. If the pixel scale is too fine, exposure time is too long.

In can be shown that the optimal sampling only depends on pixel size and on f-ratio.


Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

marktownley wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:50 am
Wjdrijfhout wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:03 am Would someone be able to explain this for solar imaging?
It's all down to Nyquist sampling theory. I wrote an article on it you can find on my website:

https://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.com/ ... pling.html
Hi Mark,

Thanks for the article. Now using the formula the ideal focal length for my 4.4 µm pixel sized camera would be 804mm and I am using 900mm and so if I understood correctly I am oversampling, right ?

Constant = 2000
pixel size = 4.4 µm
aperture = Coronado SM60 = 60 mm
lambda = H-alpha = 656.283

and so 2000 x 4.4 x 60 / 656.283 = 804.5 mm

This is all very interesting but we have to use what we have unless we would start all over and buy the exact hardware and stitch it together. I started the way around and bought telescopes first and then a few years later I started with Solar imaging.

Now by pure coincidence looking for some specifications of my telescopes I found the term Dawes limit. How does this now affect the Nyquist theorem ?

The native resolution of the FSQ 85ED according to the Dawes limit calculation is 116 / 85 = 1.36" arcseconds ...

Then according to Dawes limit calculation the FSQ 85ED stopped down with the entrance aperture of the Coronado SM60 and Dawes limit calcualtion would be a resolution of 116 / 60 = 1.93" arcseconds.

So, now I am even more confused ...

:lol:


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
PDB
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Belgium
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by PDB »

Rainer,

it is fairly simple. If your scope has a resolution 1.93" then according to Nyquist you need to sample for 1.93/2 = 0.82"
This will give a focal lenght of 206*PixelSize/0.82
So in your case 206*4.4/0.82 = 1105 and fratio f/13
(tried to answer this earlier with an example, but the reply got lost somewhere in the internet :evil: )

See this diagram pixel size vs f-number
(an easy approximation just take pixel size * 5 to get a good f-number)
Screenshot at 2022-01-22 18-25-29.png
Screenshot at 2022-01-22 18-25-29.png (155.3 KiB) Viewed 6536 times
Regards from a very cloudy Mortsel area)

Paul


None of my posts or images may be shared on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media other than SolarChat without permission.
Wjdrijfhout
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:39 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Wjdrijfhout »

Thank you both for your explanations, and great article on your website, Mark. That helped a lot to understand it all. Quite honestly, I have found the concept of optimal sampling also in deep sky imaging always challenging and the trade-offs between aperture, pixel-size, field of view, focal lengths etc difficult to comprehend.

Based on your feedback, I've been playing around with the various formulas that Mark is referring to on his website. Based on that I am trying to summarise it in the attached graph for myself as follows:
- The maximum theoretical resolution of an optical system is dependent on Aperture and wavelength (blue in the graph, right axis)
- The maximum imaging resolution of a given setup is dependent on focal length and pixel-size (red in the graph, left axis)
- Any resolution has a cut-off value in terms of seeing. It doesn't get better than the atmosphere allows.

A decent seeing is about 2, perhaps up to 3 arcsec. Applying Nyquist, makes optimal sampling in the range of 1-2 arcsecs.

For Deep-Sky astrophotography, apertures of telescopes are often in the 100-130 range, and with reflectors they easily go up to 200-300mm. Most systems therefore will not be limited by the theoretical resolution of their aperture and it becomes a game of focal length and camera pixels. A 500-1000mm focal length and 3.8 um pixels (the red line) will get you right in the proper area.

For solar imaging, apertures are often in the 50-100mm range. And the wavelength of interest is often 656 (blue dotted line). Now aperture will have the biggest effect on final resolution. At any targeted resolution, for a given camera and a certain wavelength, the f-ratio is constant (all curves have the same shape). Since wavelength is constant at 656nm (apart from CaK of course), this means that the camera then determines the f-ratio.

It can become confusing when thinking that f-ratio is a stand-alone requirement. Let's assume that a given system would ideally need an f-ratio of 15. That does not mean that a lens of 150mm with an aperture of 10mm will give good images. Neither requirements for a minimal aperture, nor minimal focal length are met to support a resolution that is anywhere close to seeing conditions.

So coming back to the thread here, it looks like the 9 um pixels of the IMX432 in a 750mm scope with aperture of 65mm (f/11) would get to 2.5 arcsec sampling, which is slightly undersampled. Increasing focal length won't help much, because it would become the aperture that is limiting the resolution. Increasing aperture won't help much either, as the pixel scale would be limiting. Changing both to for example 1800mm and 165mm respectively (still f/11) would get a resolution of 1 arcsec, on the brink of oversampling. But then, this is not a realistic scenario, because there's not a whole lot solar scopes that can have an aperture of 165mm.

Again, since this is a challenging matter, there are likely mistakes in the above assumptions and conclusions, so feel free to point those out.
Screenshot 20220122 2.png
Screenshot 20220122 2.png (297.23 KiB) Viewed 6529 times


User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Hi Paul,

Thanks and so
So in your case 206*4.4/0.82 = 1105 and fratio f/13
I need to move my H-alpha filter onto my TOA 130 but then I can not make those mosaics :( as easy as now ...

Since day one after being born you need to daily make compromises :lol:

Do you still live in Mortsel ?

regards Rainer

PD Sorry for hijacking the original post


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

I don't know if OP has a quark available? If so that double stacking the SM90 with it and using the Apollo - M would be a dream. The 9um pixels are a perfect match at Quark focal ratios, but at its native focal length and full disk the Apollo is under sampling quite considerably.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
christian viladrich
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2713 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by christian viladrich »

Wjdrijfhout, your general approach is OK, with the following complements.

The rational for optimal sampling in deep-sky imaging is not exactly the same as for high resolution imaging (lunar, solar, planetary).

For deep-sky imaging, the main determinant for the calculation of optimal sampling is the seeing. Seeing can be 1 arcsec in excellent sites, 2 arsec in good sites, 3 arsec in average site, etc. The term "seeing" refers here to long exposure seeing.
On the basis of the seeing hypothesis, you can calculate the optimal sampling = seeing / 2 or 3 pixels (or even 4 pixels with CMOS low noise sensors).

For solar hig resolution imaging we play a different game. We use very short exposure time to freeze the seeing, and we use lucky imaging to select the very best frames in a video file. We want to beat the seeing. In other words, we chose the sampling on the basis of the theoritical resolution of the telescope (and not on average seeing condition at the site). This way, we are prepared to take advantage of the very short moments of good seeing. But we are not lucky all the time ;-)

If we push further the analysis, experience shows that the factor for optimal sampling is about 3.5x. This means that the angular field covered by 3.5 pixels should be equal to the resolving power of the telescope, or S = RP /3.5

If you play with the math, we find something like : S = Lambda / ( 16.6 D)
with
S = optimal sampling (arsec/pixel)
lambda : wavelength in nm
D = diameter of the telescope in mm


Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

christian viladrich wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:00 pm Wjdrijfhout, your general approach is OK, with the following complements.

The rational for optimal sampling in deep-sky imaging is not exactly the same as for high resolution imaging (lunar, solar, planetary).

For deep-sky imaging, the main determinant for the calculation of optimal sampling is the seeing. Seeing can be 1 arcsec in excellent sites, 2 arsec in good sites, 3 arsec in average site, etc. The term "seeing" refers here to long exposure seeing.
On the basis of the seeing hypothesis, you can calculate the optimal sampling = seeing / 2 or 3 pixels (or even 4 pixels with CMOS low noise sensors).

For solar hig resolution imaging we play a different game. We use very short exposure time to freeze the seeing, and we use lucky imaging to select the very best frames in a video file. We want to beat the seeing. In other words, we chose the sampling on the basis of the theoritical resolution of the telescope (and not on average seeing condition at the site). This way, we are prepared to take advantage of the very short moments of good seeing. But we are not lucky all the time ;-)

If we push further the analysis, experience shows that the factor for optimal sampling is about 3.5x. This means that the angular field covered by 3.5 pixels should be equal to the resolving power of the telescope, or S = RP /3.5

If you play with the math, we find something like : S = Lambda / ( 16.6 D)
with
S = optimal sampling (arsec/pixel)
lambda : wavelength in nm
D = diameter of the telescope in mm
Hi Christian,

I have read a few time you post but do not understand it.

For easier understanding below the numbers of my set up

Diameter is aperture is a Coronado SM 60 = 60mm
My camera has 4.4µm pixels
Resolving power according to Dawes Limit if that is what you mean here = 116 / 60 = 1.93"

and so what do you mean by optimal sampling ¿? :shock:


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
nfotis
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:01 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by nfotis »

Maybe a bit irrelevant, but this sensor looks also interesting (and the IMX533 mono, but that's another cost bracket)

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products ... _Flyer.pdf

N.F.


torsinadoc
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 1640 times
Been thanked: 878 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by torsinadoc »

Nice comparison. I was able to test the IMX 432 yesterday with my Lunt 100 font DS etalon->102F11 refractor-> TZ-3- quantum. Seeing was terrible. Firecapture had no issues handling 16 bit data. There were no dropped frames. So far I really like this camera with longer FL setup. In single stack (quantum) I was able to achieve up to 212 FPS (8bit) in a smaller FOV.

Image2022-01-23-1733_1-U-Hydrogen Alpha-Sun2.8_56_lapl5_ap1426FINAL by Torsinadoc, on Flickr

Image2022-01-23-1727_9-U-Hydrogen Alpha-Sun_lapl5_ap4894FINAL by Torsinadoc, on Flickr

Image2022-01-23-1722_8-U-Hydrogen Alpha-Sun_lapl5_ap3212FINAL by Torsinadoc, on Flickr


christian viladrich
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2713 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by christian viladrich »

Hello Rainer,

With a SM60, the calculation goes like this :

Resolving power in green light (Dawes criterium) = 116/60 = 1.93 arsec

Resolving power in red light = 136.8 / 60 = 2.38 arsec, this one in the resolution in Ha.

Optimal sampling = S= 2.38 /3.5 = 0.65 arsec/pixel

The optimal sampling will allow to detect the finest details provided by the SM60. If the sampling is larger (e.g. 1 arcsec) the finest details won't appear. If the sampling is smalle (e.g. 0.4 arsec/pixel), then you have no more detail and the field covered by the camera is smaller.

The next question is what focal length you need to have 0.65 arsec/pixel ?

You can use the formula F = 206 p / s
with F = focal length in mm
p = pixel size in micron
s = sampling in arcsec/pixel

It comes : F = 206 x 4.4 x / 0.65 = 1394 mm


Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

christian viladrich wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:07 am Hello Rainer,

With a SM60, the calculation goes like this :

Resolving power in green light (Dawes criterium) = 116/60 = 1.93 arsec

Resolving power in red light = 136.8 / 60 = 2.38 arsec, this one in the resolution in Ha.

Optimal sampling = S= 2.38 /3.5 = 0.65 arsec/pixel

The optimal sampling will allow to detect the finest details provided by the SM60. If the sampling is larger (e.g. 1 arcsec) the finest details won't appear. If the sampling is smalle (e.g. 0.4 arsec/pixel), then you have no more detail and the field covered by the camera is smaller.

The next question is what focal length you need to have 0.65 arsec/pixel ?

You can use the formula F = 206 p / s
with F = focal length in mm
p = pixel size in micron
s = sampling in arcsec/pixel

It comes : F = 206 x 4.4 x / 0.65 = 1394 mm
Hi Christian,

Thank you very much. From where comes the factor 136.8 for red light ?

So I would need to stop down my SM 60 to 39mm in order to keep my 900mm focal length and get the most detail. Correct ?

:bow2


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

rsfoto wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:00 pm
So I would need to stop down my SM 60 to 39mm in order to keep my 900mm focal length and get the most detail. Correct ?
I wouldn't do that, especially as you don't have issues with poor seeing. I would get another camera with smaller pixels that samples more efficiently.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

marktownley wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 7:45 pm
I wouldn't do that, especially as you don't have issues with poor seeing. I would get another camera with smaller pixels that samples more efficiently.
Hi Mark,

Great advice for a retiree living on a tight budget ... :cool:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another problem is that the software I am using eg. LuCam recorder and its ability to apply in real time a false colour mask helps me to get in one single shot prominences, filaprom and filaments but this software only accepts Lumenra and The Imagin Source cameras for that specific purpose ...

:( :( :( :( :( :(


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

Tee hee hee Rainer. I thought you would say something like that when i posted it :D :D :D

So, your other option, use a barlow to bring the effective focal length closer to 1300mm and take more panels to make your full disk mosaic ;)


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

marktownley wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:49 pm Tee hee hee Rainer. I thought you would say something like that when i posted it :D :D :D

So, your other option, use a barlow to bring the effective focal length closer to 1300mm and take more panels to make your full disk mosaic ;)
Hi Mark,

Guess what ? I have another CANON teleextender which is a 1.4X capable of being stacked on the already existing 2X, and that would mean I get 1260 mm missing just 134mm of focal length in order to reach 1394 mm ... missing ~ 10%

But making a full disc with that focal length is quite a big job. I need to calculate what that would mean ... I will come back later to this suggestion ...

:bow2

Rainer


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

At the end of the day it's all about finding a workable balance :)


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Hi,

I did the Step Down test and you can take a look here ...

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=34602

at the end of the message


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
User avatar
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by cmas »

So, what is the current understanding with this Apollo m-max: What is the max frate with full resolution at 12 bit mode and in high speed mode? Or is it the same regardless of the bit depth? And does the bit depth really matter in solar H-alpha.

I am wondering if this camera is better in image quality using mica based etalons with 3-4x telecentrics compared to imx174? First hand experience is welcomed!


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

cmas wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:31 pm So, what is the current understanding with this Apollo m-max: What is the max frate with full resolution at 12 bit mode and in high speed mode? Or is it the same regardless of the bit depth? And does the bit depth really matter in solar H-alpha.

I am wondering if this camera is better in image quality using mica based etalons with 3-4x telecentrics compared to imx174? First hand experience is welcomed!

I dont know much about cameras, but the big advantage of the Apollo m-max seems to be that you dont need to use a reducer with mica etalons. Saves lenses while keeping the f-ratio at the etalon high. If a closer look is wanted you can do it with barlows in front of the etalon. The real interesting feature is the quantum efficiency in the red spectrum compared to the 174mm, which means you dont need as much gain as with the 174mm as far as i understand.

On the downside compared with the 174mm i see a reduced pixelamount.. but is that an actual downside?
Also the speed of the camera seems to be limited to around 130 fps with full resolution. And im asking myself why dont these new cameras support usb 3.1 or 3.2?
I think usb 3.0 is not really up anymore to modern demands and chip capabilities nowadays.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:26 pm
cmas wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:31 pm So, what is the current understanding with this Apollo m-max: What is the max frate with full resolution at 12 bit mode and in high speed mode? Or is it the same regardless of the bit depth? And does the bit depth really matter in solar H-alpha.

I am wondering if this camera is better in image quality using mica based etalons with 3-4x telecentrics compared to imx174? First hand experience is welcomed!

I dont know much about cameras, but the big advantage of the Apollo m-max seems to be that you dont need to use a reducer with mica etalons. Saves lenses while keeping the f-ratio at the etalon high. If a closer look is wanted you can do it with barlows in front of the etalon. The real interesting feature is the quantum efficiency in the red spectrum compared to the 174mm, which means you dont need as much gain as with the 174mm as far as i understand.

On the downside compared with the 174mm i see a reduced pixelamount.. but is that an actual downside?
Also the speed of the camera seems to be limited to around 130 fps with full resolution. And im asking myself why dont these new cameras support usb 3.1 or 3.2?
I think usb 3.0 is not really up anymore to modern demands and chip capabilities nowadays.
So i have ASI174, is it worthy to upgrade to Apollo-M or even any Player One 174 sensor equivalent?


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

TareqPhoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 4:58 am
Dennis wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:26 pm
cmas wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:31 pm So, what is the current understanding with this Apollo m-max: What is the max frate with full resolution at 12 bit mode and in high speed mode? Or is it the same regardless of the bit depth? And does the bit depth really matter in solar H-alpha.

I am wondering if this camera is better in image quality using mica based etalons with 3-4x telecentrics compared to imx174? First hand experience is welcomed!

I dont know much about cameras, but the big advantage of the Apollo m-max seems to be that you dont need to use a reducer with mica etalons. Saves lenses while keeping the f-ratio at the etalon high. If a closer look is wanted you can do it with barlows in front of the etalon. The real interesting feature is the quantum efficiency in the red spectrum compared to the 174mm, which means you dont need as much gain as with the 174mm as far as i understand.

On the downside compared with the 174mm i see a reduced pixelamount.. but is that an actual downside?
Also the speed of the camera seems to be limited to around 130 fps with full resolution. And im asking myself why dont these new cameras support usb 3.1 or 3.2?
I think usb 3.0 is not really up anymore to modern demands and chip capabilities nowadays.
So i have ASI174, is it worthy to upgrade to Apollo-M or even any Player One 174 sensor equivalent?
I will have a look because i want to make that 95% QE work for me compared with the ~45% of the 174. Though i might have to use barlows in front of the telecentric of the quark to really go in up close.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by cmas »

TareqPhoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 4:58 am
Dennis wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:26 pm
cmas wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:31 pm So, what is the current understanding with this Apollo m-max: What is the max frate with full resolution at 12 bit mode and in high speed mode? Or is it the same regardless of the bit depth? And does the bit depth really matter in solar H-alpha.

I am wondering if this camera is better in image quality using mica based etalons with 3-4x telecentrics compared to imx174? First hand experience is welcomed!

I dont know much about cameras, but the big advantage of the Apollo m-max seems to be that you dont need to use a reducer with mica etalons. Saves lenses while keeping the f-ratio at the etalon high. If a closer look is wanted you can do it with barlows in front of the etalon. The real interesting feature is the quantum efficiency in the red spectrum compared to the 174mm, which means you dont need as much gain as with the 174mm as far as i understand.

On the downside compared with the 174mm i see a reduced pixelamount.. but is that an actual downside?
Also the speed of the camera seems to be limited to around 130 fps with full resolution. And im asking myself why dont these new cameras support usb 3.1 or 3.2?
I think usb 3.0 is not really up anymore to modern demands and chip capabilities nowadays.
So i have ASI174, is it worthy to upgrade to Apollo-M or even any Player One 174 sensor equivalent?
You will not gain anything in real life by changing Zwo to PO with the same sensor. Yes, there is the tilt adapter in PO but I doubt that a bit different passive cooling system will provide to be really useful. I was thinking of updating to Apollo max, but in my setup I get good images with f/30 and imx174 even if the critical sampling is theoretically f/22 for that sensor. Based on this, I decided to benefit from higher frame rate compared to Apollo max and continued with my asi174mm and I've been happy. But if your setup is much more than f/30 then use reducer after the Quark or similar or consired Apollo max. With higher QE your exposure times should drop but if you are somewhere around 6 ms or less, I would not worry about it as you can get max fps of imx174 to compensate in a way.


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

cmas wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:34 am
TareqPhoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 4:58 am
Dennis wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:26 pm


I dont know much about cameras, but the big advantage of the Apollo m-max seems to be that you dont need to use a reducer with mica etalons. Saves lenses while keeping the f-ratio at the etalon high. If a closer look is wanted you can do it with barlows in front of the etalon. The real interesting feature is the quantum efficiency in the red spectrum compared to the 174mm, which means you dont need as much gain as with the 174mm as far as i understand.

On the downside compared with the 174mm i see a reduced pixelamount.. but is that an actual downside?
Also the speed of the camera seems to be limited to around 130 fps with full resolution. And im asking myself why dont these new cameras support usb 3.1 or 3.2?
I think usb 3.0 is not really up anymore to modern demands and chip capabilities nowadays.
So i have ASI174, is it worthy to upgrade to Apollo-M or even any Player One 174 sensor equivalent?
With higher QE your exposure times should drop but if you are somewhere around 6 ms or less, I would not worry about it as you can get max fps of imx174 to compensate in a way.
You forget that not only exposuretimes are affected..
With similar exposuretime you dont need to use so much gain anymore - significantly i think. Which means you dont have to stack as many pictures as before to get a similar result. So in theory framerate should be more than compensated. Additionally the harddrive will have more space since the reduced frames taken.
As soon as i have the Apollo-Max i will tell you if it rocks or not : )


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by cmas »

Sure. Let us know! Then there is also the matter of matching the pixel size with rest of the setup. And resolution of the sensor affecting the image size. Indeed Apollo M is interesting but I did not find enough reasons to change the camera at this point with too little data around. Maybe when you share us enough info :)


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

I will have a look because i want to make that 95% QE work for me compared with the ~45% of the 174. Though i might have to use barlows in front of the telecentric of the quark to really go in up close.
Hi Dennis,

From where do you have those QE values ? Are you comparing IMX 174 from Player One to IMX 174 from ZWO ?

While ZWO gives the QE as an abolute number with 77% Player one is giving a relative QE number, eg. Player One takes the 77% as 1 and raises all other values accordingly ...


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

Hello Rainer,

seems i was taken wrong about the absolute QE values.
i took these informations for the comparison, hope they are comparable if we assume 1=77% at the 432 graph:
So the 174mm gets around 49% at 650nm, while the 432 gets around 0,74% at the same wavelength.
Attachments
playerone.PNG
playerone.PNG (184.2 KiB) Viewed 4709 times
174mm.PNG
174mm.PNG (112.72 KiB) Viewed 4709 times


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Hi Dennis,

I fuinally found a decent page qith QE values for Sony image sensors and there is the IMX 432 (3rd generation) with a QE of 77.25% @560nm and the IMX 174 (1st generation) with a QE of 77.2% @510nm.

Looking for the interested 650nm the IMX 174 has 50.82% and the IMX has 63.9%

Have fun herewith https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/sony ... pregius-s/


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:22 pm Hi Dennis,

I fuinally found a decent page qith QE values for Sony image sensors and there is the IMX 432 (3rd generation) with a QE of 77.25% @560nm and the IMX 174 (1st generation) with a QE of 77.2% @510nm.

Looking for the interested 650nm the IMX 174 has 50.82% and the IMX has 63.9%

Have fun herewith https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/sony ... pregius-s/
Thank you. So the difference is not that big. Still a bit puzzled how it fits to the graph shown on the player one page (around 95% of something at 650nm).
Nevertheless the camera might be useful for using with my c9 once i get a d-erf for it.
Will see if i keep the trusty 174mm.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Dennis wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:29 pm
rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:22 pm Hi Dennis,

I finally found a decent page qith QE values for Sony image sensors and there is the IMX 432 (3rd generation) with a QE of 77.25% @560nm and the IMX 174 (1st generation) with a QE of 77.2% @510nm.

Looking for the interested 650nm the IMX 174 has 50.82% and the IMX has 63.9%

Have fun herewith https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/sony ... pregius-s/
Thank you. So the difference is not that big. Still a bit puzzled how it fits to the graph shown on the player one page (around 95% of something at 650nm).
Nevertheless the camera might be useful for using with my c9 once i get a d-erf for it.
Will see if i keep the trusty 174mm.
Hi Dennis,

I do not know but if you take the IMX 432 curve maximum of 77.25% at 560nm and put that as 100% then the 63.9% at 650nm will be ~82.7%.

Dreisatz 77.25 = 100 wieviel ist 63.9 ?


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 pm
Dennis wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:29 pm
rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:22 pm Hi Dennis,

I finally found a decent page qith QE values for Sony image sensors and there is the IMX 432 (3rd generation) with a QE of 77.25% @560nm and the IMX 174 (1st generation) with a QE of 77.2% @510nm.

Looking for the interested 650nm the IMX 174 has 50.82% and the IMX has 63.9%

Have fun herewith https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/sony ... pregius-s/
Thank you. So the difference is not that big. Still a bit puzzled how it fits to the graph shown on the player one page (around 95% of something at 650nm).
Nevertheless the camera might be useful for using with my c9 once i get a d-erf for it.
Will see if i keep the trusty 174mm.
Hi Dennis,

I do not know but if you take the IMX 432 curve maximum of 77.25% at 560nm and put that as 100% then the 63.9% at 650nm will be ~82.7%.

Dreisatz 77.25 = 100 wieviel ist 63.9 ?
Hi Rainer,
yes, but the imx 432 curve in the above picture (not in the picture of the link) is showing 95% (of 77.25%) at 650nm. This would be 0.95 * 77.25 = 73.4%.
Not the same like in your link.

hab ich nen Denkfehler?


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Dennis wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:30 am
rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 pm
Dennis wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:29 pm

Thank you. So the difference is not that big. Still a bit puzzled how it fits to the graph shown on the player one page (around 95% of something at 650nm).
Nevertheless the camera might be useful for using with my c9 once i get a d-erf for it.
Will see if i keep the trusty 174mm.
Hi Dennis,

I do not know but if you take the IMX 432 curve maximum of 77.25% at 560nm and put that as 100% then the 63.9% at 650nm will be ~82.7%.

Dreisatz 77.25 = 100 wieviel ist 63.9 ?
Hi Rainer,
yes, but the imx 432 curve in the above picture (not in the picture of the link) is showing 95% (of 77.25%) at 650nm. This would be 0.95 * 77.25 = 73.4%.
Not the same like in your link.

hab ich nen Denkfehler?
Hallo Dennis,

Well, I do not know from where did Player One get the curve they are using.

I am just using the info on the page I linked and that seems to be reliable ? information. One never knows how the Marketing departments work ...

Frag Ihn doch mal ?


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
fedele
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 10:34 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by fedele »

I buyed the apollo max 1 month ago' but not yet tested with Quark Cromo and Fs60cb (full disk amd grab and go) and TSA120
But i buyed also a Neptune in substitution of an asi224 and i don t like it for my bad approche to sharpcap thta i don like and i m not expert in. I had also aquisition problems.
I like instead Asistudio for its semplicity.... so i want to give to apollo m a possibility, but probably i will exange this with the asi 174


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

fedele wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:59 am I buyed the apollo max 1 month ago' but not yet tested with Quark Cromo and Fs60cb (full disk amd grab and go) and TSA120
But i buyed also a Neptune in substitution of an asi224 and i don t like it for my bad approche to sharpcap thta i don like and i m not expert in. I had also aquisition problems.
I like instead Asistudio for its semplicity.... so i want to give to apollo m a possibility, but probably i will exange this with the asi 174
You dont like the player one cameras because they dont work with Asistudio?
I would be surprised if it was supported.
Cant wait for mine to arrive.. i sure know what to do with it : )


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

rsfoto wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:59 pm
Hallo Dennis,

Well, I do not know from where did Player One get the curve they are using.

I am just using the info on the page I linked and that seems to be reliable ? information. One never knows how the Marketing departments work ...

Frag Ihn doch mal ?
[/quote]

Hallo Rainer,

for now this chip remains a little mystery to me.
So far on the internet i didnt find consistent information about the maximum framerate. And i found 3 different values for the peak QE value for the imx432 ranging from 70% - 80%. QE curves i also found around 3 different.
I didnt find proper answers in forums about what the maximum fps is with 10 bit or 12 bit.
Nevertheless im curious enough to just try and find out myself.

(Habe ihn gefragt, noch keine Antwort)


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by marktownley »

Maybe the camera manufacture who is active on this forum will clarify?


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

I think i finally found a proper QE curve for the chip. This curve makes sense and would mean that i get around 22% more QE than with the 174mm in H-A. Should be interesting for very high focal ratios like i do.

https://www.axiomoptics.com/products/c-blue-one/
Attachments
432.PNG
432.PNG (69.38 KiB) Viewed 4568 times


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
rsfoto
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 6160
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:30 pm
Location: San Luis Potosi, México
Has thanked: 9410 times
Been thanked: 5568 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by rsfoto »

Dennis wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 5:19 pm I think i finally found a proper QE curve for the chip. This curve makes sense and would mean that i get around 22% more QE than with the 174mm in H-A. Should be interesting for very high focal ratios like i do.

https://www.axiomoptics.com/products/c-blue-one/
I find it interesting that SONY as the producer can not publish a QE curve diagramm ...

... or does this also depend on the UV/IR filter or protection glass which are located before the chip itself ?

:? :? :?


regards Rainer

Observatorio Real de 14
San Luis Potosi Mexico

North 22° West 101°
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Player One Apollo-M IMX432, unbox, and ZWO ASI-174 comparison.

Post by Dennis »

the apollo max just arrived, tmr i will test it at the sun.

What i can say so far about the fps (i have a fast PC with fast ssds):

8 bit: 126 fps average with datatransfer of around 220 mb/s (why not more fps?)
12 bit: 109 fps average with datatransfer of around 370 mb/s (much closer to the usb3.0 maximum)

It seems the camera is designed to work natively with 12 bit mode.

Will keep you updated about how it performs tmr.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
Post Reply