I incremented through the 110-123ms and 188-200ms in 1ms increments and noticed no jumps, just an ever-so-slightly decreasing mean at each step as I made the exposure time faster. So while not an exhaustive survey of the camera's entire range of exposure times, there does seem to be this on 60ms gap where specified exposure time does not seem to translate into the camera driving the sensor accordingly.
I'll send an email to the SDK folks at QHY and let them know about this, and see what they say.
QHY 294c
-
admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13339
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:52 pm
- Location: Vale of the White Horse, UK
- Contact:
Re: QHY 294c
Hi,
yes, that sounds like the best thing - the sensor analysis does tend to find these odd bugs in cameras - I also had someone find a similar one with ZWO cameras having stepped exposures between 1s and 2s, so now the entire sensor analysis tries to complete with exposures < 1s. Unfortunately avoiding a small ranging in the 0.1 to 0.2s area is much harder.
cheers, Robin
yes, that sounds like the best thing - the sensor analysis does tend to find these odd bugs in cameras - I also had someone find a similar one with ZWO cameras having stepped exposures between 1s and 2s, so now the entire sensor analysis tries to complete with exposures < 1s. Unfortunately avoiding a small ranging in the 0.1 to 0.2s area is much harder.
cheers, Robin