Altair 290M sensor analysis has dramatically changed
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:49 pm
Robin,
When SharpCap 3.1 Beta was released October 2017 I jumped on the bandwagon. I kept up with each minor revision and on January 9, 2018 I ran sensor analysis on my new Altair 290M (see attachment entitled "Altair GP290M Sensor Analysis MONO12 2018-01-09.png".) Afterwards I used The Brain a few times but after joining AAVSO I acquired sufficient confidence to make imaging decisions on my own.
Fast forward to present day. I visited the Altair website and discovered that sensor analysis dramatically changed (see attachment entitled "Altair GP290M Sensor Analysis MONO12 2019-04-03 Altair Website.jpg".)
Honestly this wouldn't have been a big deal if the definition of "Gain 100" and "Gain 200" remained the same but what's happened is that "Gain 100" now describes the characteristics of "Gain 200", and "Gain 200" now describes "Gain 400". The key point I want to make is that I continued to use that original sensor analysis to make decisions regarding gain and full well depth.
I just ran Craig Stark's method for measuring gain by using flats described here:
http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/article ... D_SNR3.pdf
Sure enough what I thought was "Gain 200" is actually "Gain 400". How and when did this happen?
Brian
When SharpCap 3.1 Beta was released October 2017 I jumped on the bandwagon. I kept up with each minor revision and on January 9, 2018 I ran sensor analysis on my new Altair 290M (see attachment entitled "Altair GP290M Sensor Analysis MONO12 2018-01-09.png".) Afterwards I used The Brain a few times but after joining AAVSO I acquired sufficient confidence to make imaging decisions on my own.
Fast forward to present day. I visited the Altair website and discovered that sensor analysis dramatically changed (see attachment entitled "Altair GP290M Sensor Analysis MONO12 2019-04-03 Altair Website.jpg".)
Honestly this wouldn't have been a big deal if the definition of "Gain 100" and "Gain 200" remained the same but what's happened is that "Gain 100" now describes the characteristics of "Gain 200", and "Gain 200" now describes "Gain 400". The key point I want to make is that I continued to use that original sensor analysis to make decisions regarding gain and full well depth.
I just ran Craig Stark's method for measuring gain by using flats described here:
http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/article ... D_SNR3.pdf
Sure enough what I thought was "Gain 200" is actually "Gain 400". How and when did this happen?
Brian