2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Hi guys!
Last weekend i have tested Valery's (@Valtori) Solar Spectrum Observer Series 1,5 0.3A filter and compared it with my Quark Combo.
Setup: Aries ERF, C11hd, Baader TZ3, SolSpec/Quark, asi174mm. To keep comparison clear i didn't even move mirror focusing knob.
SolSpec was 3 times brighter(10ms@150gain vs 20ms@240gain) if compare best tuner positions, but during capture Quark looks more contrast.
Processing results:
Just 100 frames in stack is enough for SolSpec to have excellent SNR, whereas 800 frames stack of quark is still quite noisy.
SolSpec still looks little bit wider, but it's high transmittance makes it much better than quark.
Here is very similar processing, best single frames and flats:
Quark combo Solar Spectrum Quark combo best frame Solar Spectrum best frame Quark combo flat Solar Spectrum flat Setup
Last weekend i have tested Valery's (@Valtori) Solar Spectrum Observer Series 1,5 0.3A filter and compared it with my Quark Combo.
Setup: Aries ERF, C11hd, Baader TZ3, SolSpec/Quark, asi174mm. To keep comparison clear i didn't even move mirror focusing knob.
SolSpec was 3 times brighter(10ms@150gain vs 20ms@240gain) if compare best tuner positions, but during capture Quark looks more contrast.
Processing results:
Just 100 frames in stack is enough for SolSpec to have excellent SNR, whereas 800 frames stack of quark is still quite noisy.
SolSpec still looks little bit wider, but it's high transmittance makes it much better than quark.
Here is very similar processing, best single frames and flats:
Quark combo Solar Spectrum Quark combo best frame Solar Spectrum best frame Quark combo flat Solar Spectrum flat Setup
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- ffellah
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 11172
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:46 pm
- Location: Westport, CT USA
- Has thanked: 9145 times
- Been thanked: 6027 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
An interesting comparison, Csve, thank you.
Franco
Franco
- pedro
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 12256
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 8:26 pm
- Location: Portugal
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 6578 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Great comparison. The SolarSpectrum 0.3A wins hands down
Pedro Re'
https://pedroreastrophotography.com/
https://pedroreastrophotography.com/
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42274
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20442 times
- Been thanked: 10248 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Excellent results and looks a great place to observe for good seeing.
Maybe you can describe the post processing you did to get from the raw solar spectrum image to the finished result.
Maybe you can describe the post processing you did to get from the raw solar spectrum image to the finished result.
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!
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34563
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17672 times
- Been thanked: 8793 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Very interesting!!
I have exactly the same as you C11 / ARIES ERF / SS 0.3A / TZ3 / ASI174 and I use gain 120 and get 8-9 ms. So very close to your settings. I also noticed that my images weren't very noisy compared to when I use the same set up with WL and CaK. This I don't understand, I thought my ASI174 was really noisy, but not with the Solar Spectrum. Any thoughts?
It is great to see these comparisons and really helps. I love the observation point and I think it wonderful you can meet friends and observe together
Superb images too!! I hope you had good fun
Alexandra
I have exactly the same as you C11 / ARIES ERF / SS 0.3A / TZ3 / ASI174 and I use gain 120 and get 8-9 ms. So very close to your settings. I also noticed that my images weren't very noisy compared to when I use the same set up with WL and CaK. This I don't understand, I thought my ASI174 was really noisy, but not with the Solar Spectrum. Any thoughts?
It is great to see these comparisons and really helps. I love the observation point and I think it wonderful you can meet friends and observe together
Superb images too!! I hope you had good fun
Alexandra
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks.marktownley wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:05 pm Maybe you can describe the post processing you did to get from the raw solar spectrum image to the finished result.
It's very simple this time, to make better comparison.
1. Deconvolution in AI5 2. Some pixel math in pixinsight (all further processing in PI):
Code: Select all
($T-mean($T))*(0.05/sdev($T))+0.5
3. Moving peak to 0.25 intensity with histogram transformation 4. Doubling local contrast at histogram peak That's all. I also usually make HDR at setp 3.5, but it is not fine for contrast comparison of 2 different ethalons.
The procedure was absolutely identical for both images despite initial contrans and brightness difference.
Last edited by Csve on Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks.
Asi174 still have quite large well capacity at gain 120, if you fill it, single image SNR is quite high.
Local seeing is very important i believe. Forest surface should be even better, as it heats less than grass field, but some turbulence can appear on the border.
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- MAURITS
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:37 pm
- Location: Belgium
- Has thanked: 2412 times
- Been thanked: 4787 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks for the comparation Csve, this is exactly what I hoped to see.
I am very interested in the Solar Spectrum 0,3A too.
My Quark's are very very good but not the image quality as the Solar Spectrum.
I am very interested in the Solar Spectrum 0,3A too.
My Quark's are very very good but not the image quality as the Solar Spectrum.
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Quark image is worse than i expected. I'll try to repeat comparison this Saturday.
Last weekend we also (with LeoD) have compared Lunt LS80 double stack and this SolSpec in 130mm refractor. Results coming soon.
Last weekend we also (with LeoD) have compared Lunt LS80 double stack and this SolSpec in 130mm refractor. Results coming soon.
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- MAURITS
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 8507
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:37 pm
- Location: Belgium
- Has thanked: 2412 times
- Been thanked: 4787 times
- Contact:
-
- Almost There...
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:13 pm
- Location: London, England
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 1487 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
This is very interesting. Is the major difference the higher transmittance, therefore a shorter exposure time and lower gain?
It also looks like the quark may also have some additional optical imperfections (slightly worse focus). The bandwidth does not look very different between the two etalons.
It also looks like the quark may also have some additional optical imperfections (slightly worse focus). The bandwidth does not look very different between the two etalons.
-
- Almost There...
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:43 pm
- Has thanked: 1071 times
- Been thanked: 1985 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
I'd like to see the 0.3Å solar spectrum compared to a Daystar Quantum 0.3Å
The Quark is known to be a more budget friendly point and an easier way for those who own the right type of scope to be able to try out solar.
The Quark is known to be a more budget friendly point and an easier way for those who own the right type of scope to be able to try out solar.
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
I think so.
So do I, but i know nobody who has quantum in Moscow.
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- DeepSolar64
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 18829
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:19 am
- Location: Lowndesville S.C.
- Has thanked: 17581 times
- Been thanked: 16697 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Nice images and comparison and what a wonderful observing site!!
James
James
Lunt 8x32 SUNoculars
Orion 70mm Solar Telescope
Celestron AstroMaster Alt/Az Mount
Meade Coronado SolarMax II 60 DS
Meade Coronado SolarMax II 90 DS
Meade Coronado AZS Alt/Az Mount
Astro-Tech AT72EDII with Altair solar wedge
Celestron NexStar 102GT with Altair solar wedge
Losmandy AZ8 Alt/Az Mount
Sky-Watcher AZGTI Alt-Az GoTo mount
Cameras: ZWO ASI178MM, PGR Grasshopper, PGR Flea
Lunt, Coronado, TeleVue, Orion and Meade eyepieces
Visual Observer
" Way more fun to see it! "
Orion 70mm Solar Telescope
Celestron AstroMaster Alt/Az Mount
Meade Coronado SolarMax II 60 DS
Meade Coronado SolarMax II 90 DS
Meade Coronado AZS Alt/Az Mount
Astro-Tech AT72EDII with Altair solar wedge
Celestron NexStar 102GT with Altair solar wedge
Losmandy AZ8 Alt/Az Mount
Sky-Watcher AZGTI Alt-Az GoTo mount
Cameras: ZWO ASI178MM, PGR Grasshopper, PGR Flea
Lunt, Coronado, TeleVue, Orion and Meade eyepieces
Visual Observer
" Way more fun to see it! "
- Carbon60
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 14209
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:33 pm
- Location: Lancashire, UK
- Has thanked: 8418 times
- Been thanked: 8165 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
An interesting and useful comparison. Thanks for the PI Pixel Math equation. I’ll give this a try.
Stu.
Stu.
H-alpha, WL and Ca II K imaging kit for various image scales.
Fluxgate Magnetometers (1s and 150s Cadence).
Radio meteor detector.
More images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/solarcarbon60/
Fluxgate Magnetometers (1s and 150s Cadence).
Radio meteor detector.
More images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/solarcarbon60/
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks. This site is near the SVO Airport. 55.933500, 37.403505DeepSolar64 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:31 am Nice images and comparison and what a wonderful observing site!!
James
You’re welcome
Don't forget to fine tune the constants:
0.05 - Resulting histogran width
0.5 - Resulting histogran center
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
- Rusted
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:00 am
- Location: Central Denmark
- Has thanked: 8016 times
- Been thanked: 1938 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks you for sharing these comparisons.
The first Quark image simply looks out of focus to me.
While the SS is sharply focused.
The first Quark image has lots of over-sharpening & noise artefacts.
Typical of poorer seeing demanding extra processing to bring out missing detail.
Was there a difference in timing between capturing these two images?
EDIT: I see there was. 04.35-05.19. 44 minutes difference is not minor.
The overall background detail is "messy" on the Quark. Sharp on the SS.
The flecking on the spot penumbra easily shows the clearest difference between the two.
Just my personal opinion. Feel completely free to disagree.
Forgive me for being a complete and utter pedant.
It seems obtuse to have your telescope looking directly over a bare earth track.
When you have a huge field of naturally cool plants to choose from.
The bare earth will produce ground currents out of all proportion to the cooler, surrounding foliage.
I'd avoid pointing the telescope over that tree too.
Its vertical height enjoys greater solar heating [and convection] than the lowly plants.
The first Quark image simply looks out of focus to me.
While the SS is sharply focused.
The first Quark image has lots of over-sharpening & noise artefacts.
Typical of poorer seeing demanding extra processing to bring out missing detail.
Was there a difference in timing between capturing these two images?
EDIT: I see there was. 04.35-05.19. 44 minutes difference is not minor.
The overall background detail is "messy" on the Quark. Sharp on the SS.
The flecking on the spot penumbra easily shows the clearest difference between the two.
Just my personal opinion. Feel completely free to disagree.
Forgive me for being a complete and utter pedant.
It seems obtuse to have your telescope looking directly over a bare earth track.
When you have a huge field of naturally cool plants to choose from.
The bare earth will produce ground currents out of all proportion to the cooler, surrounding foliage.
I'd avoid pointing the telescope over that tree too.
Its vertical height enjoys greater solar heating [and convection] than the lowly plants.
http://fullerscopes.blogspot.dk/
H-alpha: Baader 160mm D-ERF, iStar 150/10 H-alpha objective, 2" Baader 35nm H-a, 2" Beloptik KG3,
Lunt 60MT etalon, Lunt B1200S2 BF, Assorted T-S GPCs or 2x "Shorty" Barlow, ZWO ASI174.
H-alpha: Baader 160mm D-ERF, iStar 150/10 H-alpha objective, 2" Baader 35nm H-a, 2" Beloptik KG3,
Lunt 60MT etalon, Lunt B1200S2 BF, Assorted T-S GPCs or 2x "Shorty" Barlow, ZWO ASI174.
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:46 am
- Location: Derbyshire UK
- Has thanked: 3295 times
- Been thanked: 1887 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
I agree about the tree. Had the same issue at the start of my session today. Also a big gravel pile a bit later.
-
- Im an EXPERT!
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:51 pm
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
I also agree with Rusted's points.
Just thinking though what are we trying to prove?
Is it that the Quark is good for the money, ore something else.
Quarks are just good seconds and random, Just depends on what you want out of one, In the right hands and with a good setup they can be made to give very good results.
The Solar Spectrum on the other hand is a first grade unit that when setup, you also need a TZ, is over thirteen times the price of a Quark.
Should we not really be testing like for like and see how the Solar Spectrum compares to a Daystar Quantum 0.3A?
Rod
Just thinking though what are we trying to prove?
Is it that the Quark is good for the money, ore something else.
Quarks are just good seconds and random, Just depends on what you want out of one, In the right hands and with a good setup they can be made to give very good results.
The Solar Spectrum on the other hand is a first grade unit that when setup, you also need a TZ, is over thirteen times the price of a Quark.
Should we not really be testing like for like and see how the Solar Spectrum compares to a Daystar Quantum 0.3A?
Rod
- Csve
- The Sun?
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:08 am
- Location: Russia, Moscow region
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Dirt road and single trees impacts seeing much less than asphalt and buildings.Rusted wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:51 am It seems obtuse to have your telescope looking directly over a bare earth track.
When you have a huge field of naturally cool plants to choose from.
The bare earth will produce ground currents out of all proportion to the cooler, surrounding foliage.
I'd avoid pointing the telescope over that tree too.
Its vertical height enjoys greater solar heating [and convection] than the lowly plants.
I just placed telescope at a good plane area with low grass, there is no such place on the other side of the road. Perfectionism is not the best policy.
Just comparison, make your own conclusion.
That would be great.
My gallery: AstroBin DeepSkyHosting
-
- Oh, I get it now!
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:39 am
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 28 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Price of Quantum 0.3A (??mm) is almost $17k. SS SO 1-5 (25mm) 0.3A is $8k. RG18 0.3A is less than $3k here in USA. Quark is $1200. TZ-3/4 are $400. More like 4x the price of a quark and with 0.3A (plus guaranteed quality) not (maybe) 0.5A and lackluster QC. I think an ION comparison would be a better comparison for money spent.RodAstro wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 10:08 am I also agree with Rusted's points.
Just thinking though what are we trying to prove?
Is it that the Quark is good for the money, ore something else.
Quarks are just good seconds and random, Just depends on what you want out of one, In the right hands and with a good setup they can be made to give very good results.
The Solar Spectrum on the other hand is a first grade unit that when setup, you also need a TZ, is over thirteen times the price of a Quark.
Should we not really be testing like for like and see how the Solar Spectrum compares to a Daystar Quantum 0.3A?
Rod
PS I'm fully biased and have a RG18 on order
Not trying to argue, just pointing out the prices..
Lunt 80Tha B1800, Lunt Ca2K B1200, Solar Spectrum RG18 0.3A, Skywatcher EvoStar 150, ASI 1600MM & 174MM
-
- Almost There...
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 1640 times
- Been thanked: 878 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Thanks for the comparison and the PI equation!
-
- Im an EXPERT!
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:51 pm
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: 2021.07.17 SolarSpectrum 0.3A vs QuarkCombo (C11-TZ3)
Hi
Sorry I didn't realise there was a smaller Solar Spectrum didn't pop up when I googled it.
Big price differences over here though Quark £995, Solar Spectrum RG18 £4699, Solar spectrum 46mm 0.3A £13,349, Daystar Quantum SE 0.3A £9.958.
I still want the 46mm Solar Spectrum though as I could Just get a full solar disk through it at f30.
Cheers Rod
Sorry I didn't realise there was a smaller Solar Spectrum didn't pop up when I googled it.
Big price differences over here though Quark £995, Solar Spectrum RG18 £4699, Solar spectrum 46mm 0.3A £13,349, Daystar Quantum SE 0.3A £9.958.
I still want the 46mm Solar Spectrum though as I could Just get a full solar disk through it at f30.
Cheers Rod