QHYCCD

First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)

lzr

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2016, 09:16:42 pm »
Hello ColgS3b

please give me your email address or send me an email.I will give you remote assistance...quickly find and fix.

Best Regards!
Lee(lzr@qhyccd.com)

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2016, 09:40:38 pm »
The team at QHY has addressed many of the original issues I was having.  This is of course a beta test, and I am glad that I got to help shake things out.  The latest QHY5-III 185C that I have is behaving much better in SharpCap. 
Fixed:
Frame rate drop off when the lens cap was put on (had made getting dark captures tricky)
Frame rate drop off when moving ROI

Attached is a 15 second dark frame at 71 deg F (scaled by 50% due to upload restriction).  Settings were:
Offset=10
Gain=30
White Bal (B)=255
White Bal (G)=77
White Bal (R)=86
The blue channel needs to be pushed pretty high in order to get a good color balance.  Consequently, the left side AMP glow is mostly blue. And, the usual caveat applies in that this non-cooled camera isn't really meant for long exposures.

Here are some frame rate values (1ms exposure, 500 frames, USB =1):
Resolution__Frame Rate (Raw 16)Frame Rate (RGB)
1920x120064.137.6 (frames dropped)
1600x120065.755.2 (frames dropped)
1280x102480.2102.7
960x600133.1182.3
640x480162.8222.3
These numbers were from my HDD-based desktop computer, which is probably why I had some frame drops at the higher resolution.  I might repeat the test with a SSD laptop.  Anyhow, it is performing much better.

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2016, 07:17:45 pm »
I can confirm that Firecapture is working with the 185C.  Getting color balance is a bit tricky since I seem to have a fair bit of IR in the room I was imaging.  Big storms are bringing some cold weather, so I don't know when I will get out next.

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2017, 09:02:27 pm »
Why do the clear skies have to be on work nights?
I used the ISIS package to get some read noise tests done. 70F/21C. Raw16 fits files taken with SharpCap, offset set at 15.
The offset exposures were at 1/16000s with the cap on, and flats were done against my glowing iPad screen.
gainread noise (e-)
013.44
54.23
102.12
151.79
201.46
251.30
301.22
351.12
401.03
Now, perhaps using my iPad for the flats wasn't the best idea, but it did provide an even illumination without flickering.  I'm not sure if the high read at 0 gain was due to my offset being set to low, so I might revisit the test another day.  If I am motivated enough, I might take the camera out on a cold night and get data at a different temperature.

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2017, 07:58:56 pm »
QHY doesn't have any noise numbers posted for the 185 yet, but I went searching.  Somewhat interesting, my read noise numbers are a fair bit better than those for the ZWO ASI185MC at higher gain. While the gain axis is scaled differently, its noise barely get below 1.5 e-, while my QHY5III-185C faired better. Same chip, but maybe different quality?

QiuHY

  • *****
  • 4833
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2017, 11:19:43 pm »
QHY doesn't have any noise numbers posted for the 185 yet, but I went searching.  Somewhat interesting, my read noise numbers are a fair bit better than those for the ZWO ASI185MC at higher gain. While the gain axis is scaled differently, its noise barely get below 1.5 e-, while my QHY5III-185C faired better. Same chip, but maybe different quality?


Hello,

Maybe. But I am definitely sure that our thermal noise control and the amp glow control is much better.

Best regards,
Qiu Hongyun
Qiu Hongyun

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2017, 08:15:05 am »
Hello ColgS3b,  ;)

Many thanks for your report.

Just one question : Is anti-amp glow activated for the 15 sec dark frame
you have posted ?

Please, Could you just post one dark with anti-amp glow activated and
one with anti-amp glow OFF to compare ?

I have an ASI 185 and amp glow is too much important to use it for short exposure.
IMX 185 remains a very good sensor, large with 2.4 Mpix, 'big' pixels (compared to
IMX 178...), and low readout noise. And no interesting new sensor from Sony last 2
years...

Many thanks.

Albéric

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2017, 09:10:39 pm »
I can provide a couple different photos.  I have let the camera warm up a bit on my office, 70F/21C, by having it take 15s frames for a while before saving these image.  Using SharpCap 2.9.3055.0.  Color Space is RGB24 with a white balance for my office of R=45, G=68, B=189.  Max Gain in this version is 48, but I am only testing to 40.  I'll share the 5th of 5 images captured.

rgb24_Gain20_Offset10_AmpOn_15s
Gain = 20, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = On, 15 sec exposure

rgb24_Gain20_Offset10_AmpOff_15s
Gain = 20, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = Off, 15 sec exposure

rgb24_Gain30_Offset10_AmpOn_15s
Gain = 30, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = On, 15 sec exposure

rgb24_Gain30_Offset10_AmpOff_15s
Gain = 30, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = Off, 15 sec exposure

rgb24_Gain40_Offset10_AmpOn_15s
Gain = 40, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = On, 15 sec exposure

rgb24_Gain40_Offset10_AmpOff_15s
Gain = 40, Offset = 10, Amp Noise Reduction = Off, 15 sec exposure

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dk8cbpxklnw0so/QHY5III-185C-darks-2017-03-18.zip?dl=0

To me, the difference is subtle.  The glow is fixed to the left side.  At 15, there are hot pixels dispersed across the field.  Let me know if there is more data you would like to see.  What does the ASI 185 image look like?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 09:14:19 pm by ColgS3b »

QiuHY

  • *****
  • 4833
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2017, 10:47:25 am »
Hello,

         I update a SDK version and improve the QHY185C performance a little and fixed a bug that the exposure time calculation. Please help me to test it:


 1.  Fixed a image problem that there is some uncommon color dot appear in the image
 2.  Improve the FPS to maxium 96FPS @ 1920*1200 in 8bit , usb_traffic=0
 3.  Fixed the wrong exposure time calculate.


        For the amp control I will do a future test to see if it is well controlled.

        This is the x32 qhyccd.dll. You can copy it to the SharpCAP folder and try it.  You can download it at http://note.youdao.com/noteshare?id=5de1538098e8ec4940917a714a94ddff

       


Best regards,
Qiu Hongyun
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 10:53:00 am by QiuHY »
Qiu Hongyun

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2017, 04:03:20 pm »
1.  Fixed a image problem that there is some uncommon color dot appear in the image
 2.  Improve the FPS to maxium 96FPS @ 1920*1200 in 8bit , usb_traffic=0
 3.  Fixed the wrong exposure time calculate.

Thanks. I am unsure about the "uncommon color dot" problem.  I confirm 96FPS @1920*1200, RGB24 and RAW8, usb_traffic=0.  A capture of 100 frames resulted in an effective 21FPS on my desktop HDD.  For a RAW16 capture, the 68FPS is posible, effective 22FPS on my HDD.  I'll edit this post when I get SSD numbers.

Exposure times seem accurate.

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2017, 06:54:26 am »
Hi ColgS3b,
Hi Qiu,

I'm always interested in a solution to use IMX 185 at "full power" including deep sky
imaging in short exposure at high gain. On the paper IMX185 is a better sensor than
IMX 178, each pixel surface is nearly 2.5x higher, SNR1s index of IMX 185 is 2x better
than IMX 178 and both sensors have the same readout noise at medium/high gain.
The only main problem is the very significant amp glow of IMX 185 at medium/high gain.   :(

With ASI 185 I tried with short exposures of 1 or 2 sec but even with cooling and
use of darks it's nearly impossible to remove all amp glow. Moreover a large part of
image is concerned and removing amp glow signal means removing the faintest stars,
nebulas and galaxies.
So if an effective solution exist to remove amp glow directly as for IMX 174, please
keep me informed !   

I've made 15 sec exposure darks with my ASI 185 cooled camera.
Here I can't choose the Offset value. And I try cooled and uncooled darks.
Cooling reduce a little bit amp glow but it's clearly not the solution.
 


Albéric
« Last Edit: March 26, 2017, 06:56:25 am by xs_man »

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2017, 12:32:12 pm »
Yes, I think I saw something like that Amp glow on the CloudyNights forums, perhaps posted by you.  The ASI 185 seems to have glow on 3 of the 4 sides plus some banding.  I have tried 2 of the QHYIII-185C, and they both have glow on the left side, as seen in my previous images.  Since it is only on the left, I can do a 1600x1200 Region of Interest on the right, and that pretty much crops out the glow for "medium" gain < 30 (max is 48).  At gain = 40 and 15s, there is too much glow leaking across the sensor for my tastes, so I'm sticking with lower gain and exposure times.

Re: First evaluation of QHY5-III 185 C (color uncooled)
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2018, 07:39:55 pm »
Well, it has been a while, but I finally got a telescope (Celestron C8) that can really make use of this camera.  Here are images of Jupiter (a few weeks after opposition) and Saturn (a couple of weeks before opposition) during a full moon.  Capture was with SharpCap, 500 frames, and processing with Registax.  Framerates were over 40fps across a USB3 connection to the laptop.

For Jupiter, you can make out 3 of the moons - Io, Europa, and Ganymede on the edge, from right to left.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 07:41:26 pm by ColgS3b »