ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

Lulu105
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 10:30 am

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#41

Post by Lulu105 »

I think I got the point

sharpcap 3.2 detect the camera as a native 46MPX, so HCG is always "on"
In that condition bin 2 = 11mpx camera version and you can go up to bin 4

In sharpcap 4.0 the camera is detected
- either with 46MPX and so HCG is always "on" and in that condition bin 2 = 11mpx camera version and you can go up to bin 3 only
- either with 11MPX and so HCG is "off" bellow gain 120 and you can go up to bin 2 only

Am I right?
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:52 pm
Location: Vale of the White Horse, UK
Contact:

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#42

Post by admin »

Hi,

that is how it is supposed to work (but I don't have one of these cameras, so I have to rely on reports from other users).

cheers,

Robin
GaryS
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Boston, USA/Jackson Hole, USA

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#43

Post by GaryS »

Hi Robin
I received a new ASI294MM pro a few weeks ago. When I connect it in Sharpcap, it defaults to bin 1. When I try for another bin setting, all that Sharpcap offers is bin 3.

I did a linearity test yesterday at the default bin 1 and reached saturation at 63,500 adu rather than the 16,000 adu that ZWO shows on their website for that unlocked’ mode.

Any idea what’s going on? I’m about to return the camera…
Happy Holidays !
Gary
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:52 pm
Location: Vale of the White Horse, UK
Contact:

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#44

Post by admin »

Hi Gary,

SharpCap splits the binning modes in the camera in a slightly different way

1) Readout mode 47 megapixel - bin 1 & bin 3 - this will get you the unlocked high resolution and ~16K full well (corresponds to bin 1 & 3 on other software)
2) Readout mode 11 megapixel - bin 1 and bin 2 - this gets you the original low resolution mode at ~64k full well (corresponds to bin 2 & 4 on other software)

Two reasons for this - one is that SharpCap's sensor analysis really isn't designed to cope with the drastic change in behaviour as the binning is altered, but is designed around cameras having various read modes. Two is that I think that sticking this into the binning of the camera was a bit of a dirty hack on the part of ZWO - I prefer the separate read modes.

Anyway, I suspect that your camera is fine.

cheers,

Robin
GaryS
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Boston, USA/Jackson Hole, USA

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#45

Post by GaryS »

Sorry Robin but I'm lost.

Sharpcap offers me only Bin 1 (the default) and Bin 3 (an option) - no Bin2 option shows up.
Based on your note, I have only the option of high resolution and the shallower 14.7K FW mo option for that nice 64K adu FW. Yet, recall that with Bin 1, I'm getting 63k adu from yesterday's linearity test. I took the images using SC's default Bin 1 and analyzed the ADU level (average across the entire image) in Maximdl.

This camera's main job is photometry so I need to get all this on pixel size, FW and image sizes pretty well nailed down. I respect your annoyance over ZWO's approach to this. Unless I can figure out how to take advantage of the ZWO description of 'Bin2' specs, I won't be able to use SC (my favorite sw by far) for photometry captures with this camera...

Thanks for any further clarifications or suggestions you can offer..
Gary
GaryS
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Boston, USA/Jackson Hole, USA

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#46

Post by GaryS »

Hi Robin:

I was fooling around with this again in SC and noticed the read mode can be changed - never noticed that before. When I change to the 11 MP, Bin 2 was enabled as an option - is this the crux of the matter? When I want/need to work with a 63k FW, I select 11MP and Bin 2 - correct?

So, I see that with 11 MP selected along with Bin 1, I would get the deeper FW that I saw in my linearity testing yesterday. The thing is, I'm certain I didn't change the read mode(never previously noticed it) from its default at 47MP prior to the test. How could I have gotten a 63K FW?

Gary
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:52 pm
Location: Vale of the White Horse, UK
Contact:

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#47

Post by admin »

Hi Gary,

in general you should either use

11 Megapixel , bin 1 - this is the equivalent of the default mode for the 294MC camera and should show the high FWD, 14 bit images. This should match the upper set of graphs on this page : https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/pr ... i294mm-pro

or

47 megapixl, bin 1 - this is the full resolution of the camera - 12 bit images, should be about 14.4k FWD, should match the lower set of graphs on the same page.

In 47 megapixel, you can get bin 1 and bin 3, but no bin 2 or bin 4 (since both of those activate the 11 megapixel mode if you send them to the camera)
In 11 megapixel you can get bin 2 in SharpCap, but no other binning levels apart from 1

If you got high FWD measurements in 47MP mode then check what bit depth readout you got - if some other controls are digitally adjusting the camera pixel values after readout then that can fool the bit depth measurement, which then has follow on effects. On a colour camera, the white balance can do this, not sure what could on the mono.

cheers,

Robin
GaryS
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Boston, USA/Jackson Hole, USA

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#48

Post by GaryS »

Ok, thank you Robin.

So I understand that, basically, Sharpcap uses Bin 1 as a default mode whereas ZWO set the camera up with Bin 2 as the default with the ability to be switchable to Bin 1 with certain penalties. A bit confusing to my humble brain but I know how to work with the camera now and appreciate your time and patient explanation.

Onward and sideways as they say...
Safe and relaxing Holidays!
Gary
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13122
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:52 pm
Location: Vale of the White Horse, UK
Contact:

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#49

Post by admin »

Hi Gary,

I think you are right about the default - I hadn't thought about it that way (and I don't have a 294MM to test with, so I hadn't seen it in action to spot the anomoly of the wrong initial mode).

cheers,

Robin
GaryS
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Boston, USA/Jackson Hole, USA

Re: ZWO ASI294MM Pro SDK Update

#50

Post by GaryS »

Hi
When I was trying to make my first flats on the 294MM using SC, I noticed the image storage location flashing across the top of the screen and it said something like "e77Draasd20003d0df....darkflat...". This is just a jibbarish version of what I saw but the important point is that it appeared to be saving individual dark flat frames during the flat creation process. When the process was completed, I had a single Master Flat frame and multiple folders with 47 'DarkFlat' frames each (I selected 41 raw flats to be created). I understand from the manual that SC makes a number of bias or dark flats thats equal to the number of flat frames that the user selects. Is this correct?

So some other questions:

1. When I went to create the Flats, I had no choices except how many flat frames to make. I could not choose 'mono' (seemed pre-selected) could not choose whether to subtract Bias (which I wanted and also seemed 'pre-selected but not changeable) or to subtract dark flats. So, why are these choices no longer available to choose among ?

2. Why would SC produce flat darks when 'subtract bias' was pre-selected on the menu?

3. If SC can produce and leave in my temp folder, the flat darks which I had not selected, could it instead leave the raw flats and bias frames that were supposed to have been subtracted from the flats by SC? It would be nice to access to those raw frames.

At this point I am uncertain whether Bias or dark flats were subtracted from the raw 4 second flats. The frames are labeled 'dark flats' but they were created at a very short exposure, one I'd expect of bias frames rather than at the exposure of my 4 sec flats. I believe that 4 secs, in this case,is the exposure that dark flats should have been made at. Thanks for anyn help folks can provide in clearing up my confusion on the above.
Cheers,
Gary

log:
Log_2022-01-02T12_36_38-7236.log
(624.78 KiB) Downloaded 45 times
Post Reply