“Hamlet's Ghost Sighted in Frontenac, KS,” by Vincent Czyz - ghost sighted

 2024-07-30 08:36:30

Say we are imaging under decent skies with an f/5 scope and we swamp read noise x5 with a 2 minute sub, well now with the f/15 scope that turns into an 18 minute sub. How many off the shelf mounts can do that reliably even if we know how to make the most out of our guiding gear?

Most galaxies are very small in angular size - maybe dozen of arc minutes at most. That is about 700px or less across the image of galaxy if one samples at highest practical sampling rates for amateur setups - which is 1"/px.

Confocal microscopyppt

If I use my 8" Newt and its dedicated coma corrector, with my ASI2600 camera, it gives me a resolution of 1.02" per pixel. If I was to use 100mm refractor with a similar focal length, and therefore a similar pixel scale, would the bigger aperture of the Newtonian give me any benefit?

In principle - above three are equivalent bar some minute differences that have to do with interpolation when aligning the subs for stacking (mostly academic arguments - no practical difference).

Advances in spinning disk technology have allowed for the development of the spinning-disk confocal microscope, which has allowed researchers to use lower light levels and obtain more accurate cell phyiology with lower fluorophore concentrations. For example, a fluorophore can become excited on illumination and the light emitted is proportional to the strength of the incident excitation, but the fluorophore exsists in an excited state for a significant amount of time. Consequently, over time the ground state becomes depleted. Increasing the illumination power of the excitation source at this point does not generate anymore signal because the fluorophore is saturated and thus, the image is degraded4. However, reducing the power of the excitation source does improve the images, but it lowers the speed at which an image with a given signal-to-noise ratio can be obtained4.

I think you kind of skimmed over this point as if its nothing, but lets be serious here this is a major issue if we are aiming to use an f/15 scope.

Im imaging with an 8" f/4.4 newtonian with a paracorr, bringing the effective focal length to 1018mm at roughly f/5. With my IMX571 and its 3.76 micron pixels i get 0.76"/px, which i have not been able to make use of fully even under very good seeing.

Just to clarify what I'm saying - you take one sub and you split it into 4 smaller subs - first containing odd, odd pixels (in x and y), second odd, even, third even, odd and fourth even, even (a bit like bayer matrix splitting). In both axis - in X and Y you have twice as few pixels so each new sub is half the height and half the width - sampled at twice smaller sampling rate - but you have x4 more sub to stack - which improves total SNR x2.

by L Hong · 2023 · Cited by 13 — Such a UV–Vis–IR full-spectrum optical spectroscopy is generally accomplished using a number of individual coherent light sources but is ...

In the life science research setting, which increasingly demands more expedient delivery of results and accelerated throughput, this powerful new platform provides a fast, sensitive and high-resolution confocal imaging platform. The Dragonfly High-Speed Confocal Platform is suitable for the high-throughput, real-time visualization of molecules, structures and dynamic events within living cells. Furthermore, Imaris software allows further visualisation and analysis of your image data.

Btw - bin x5 will make F/15 scope work as if it was F/3 scope - so what is the point in going for F/4 Newtonian scope when you can comfortably use compact Cass type - be that SCT, MCT, RC or CC and produce excellent galaxy image.

I have been imaging for over three years now, always with refractors and at the moment I have a roll off roof observatory, an EQ6-RPRO, a SW Esprit 100, an ASI294MC PRo and control it all with an ASI Air pro. I will move to NINA eventually but at the moment it just works! I would love a scope with a long focal length to go after some galaxies and the smaller deep sky objects but would appreciate some advice. I’ve looked at Newtonians, Cassegrain,s in all their formats but appreciate that collimation and other matters will come into play. If anyone has gone down this route I’d be pleased to hear from you.

Now take any modern sensor that has more than 12MP - that is 4000x3000px or more, so you have 4000px/700px = ~x5 at least x5 larger sensor than you actually need in terms of pixels. You can bin x5 and you'll be still able to capture galaxy in its entirety + some surrounding space.

... PS19Q was a good school . Freshman; Oct 29 2020; Overall Experience. Report. 0 people have found this helpful. Review P.S. 19 - Marino Jeantet. Add to List. Add ...

polarize · [intransitive, transitive] to separate or make people separate into two groups with completely opposite opinions. Public opinion has polarized on ...

Now onto mounts and guiding. Most mounts have periodic error that is order of up to 10 minutes or there about. That is full period, and half period - where mount takes to go from peak to peak is half that. We could argue that "road" from peak to peak is either a) smooth - making RA drift same for first two and a half minutes as for second two and a half minutes - then if you can image/guide for 2.5 minutes - you should be able to image whole 5 minutes without issues and by extension whole worm cycle as it is the same road in other direction or b) one of two parts is significantly steeper - so it can't be guided - then you would loose every other sub to not being able to guide. If that is not the case - and you don't loose subs - then you should be able to guide whole RA period - and if you can guide whole RA period - what stops you from guiding 2 consecutive periods?

In any case - I don't think that sub duration is very important issue. If one can't guide for 10-15 minutes, one should sort out that bit first before attempting to do close up galaxies.

It improves SNR by bin factor from recorded image - regardless of how read noise is treated. Once you have image - no matter how it was acquired - was it CMOS or CCD - software binning will improve its SNR by bin factor (if you bin x2 - you will get x2 improvement, x3 - x3 SNR improvement and so on).

My preference overall would be for a large refractor, but unfortunately my current mini observatory won't cope with the length of anything over the 115mm scope I now use. I did buy a 130mm triplet - but it was about 2" too long😭

Is confocal microscopylightmicroscopy

Make crafting easy with craft & sewing lighting using a floor lamp, table lamp or magnifying lamp. Choose from top brands like Mighty Bright and OttLite at ...

100% effective Only difference between software and hardware binning is level of read noise. With CCDs and hardware binning - you have the same read noise regardless if you bin or not, but with

Agree with your reasoning with the other things though, there is no difference in a 3 minute or 30 minute guide duration if we dont have external disturbances. Getting quickly off topic now though.

I was thinking more about things we cant help, like a gust of wind which will now scrap 18 minutes of data instead of 2.

Confocal microscopyprinciple

So binning CMOS only really saves you disk space, because you can do it any time later after data acquisition instead of in camera.

Yeah for minimum fuss a frac every time for me. I spent a few years with the SCT & RC but my goal was an fully automated Obsy and unless you enjoy constantly tinkering .. which I did at first but it soon wore off.. stick with a frac. Once I had the Esprit 150 I wondered why I had wasted so much imaging time. Of course a frac will come with the weight and length requirements.. (oh and cost!) but it’s pretty much set and forget.

Description · 2.8mm – 135 degree FOV · 3.6mm – 105 degree FOV · 4mm – 95 degree FOV · 6mm – 60 degree FOV · 8mm – 40 degree FOV · 12mm – 30 degree FOV · 16mm – ...

Oct 15, 2016 — Re: how to create half sphere on choosen face of a 3d object? · First select the face on which you want to make the half-sphere, then click on ...

12V Electric Linear Actuator with Encoder and Position Sensor Load Force 120n Speed 50mm/S Stroke 305mm IP54/IP65, Find Details about Small Linear Actuator, ...

Despite really liking the RC8, I must admit that the images from the 115mm triplet are probably as good, if not better. Obviously the RC is binned and marginally quicker, but above about 800mm FL seeing becomes the predominant factor. I am currently considering a 250mm F4 Newtonian to give speed and FL (possibly even a Nexus to give F3).

The OP said the above so here is what I have recently tried for imaging galaxies. Due to the small pixel size of most modern CMOS cameras are quite over sampled. After looking at the specs of my ASI

Disadvantages ofconfocal microscopy

Confocal laser scanning microscopes only allow for a relatively slow image acquisition speed3. Single-beam lasers generally scan at rate of 1 microsecond per pixel, which is too slow to capture the dynamic, millisecond events that would reveal the complex molecular processes within living cells3. The confocal laser scanning microscope can be used with high numerical aperture lenses but the fluorescence speed is limited because only about one cubic micron of light can be obtained from the fluorophore within the scanned beam’s focus4.

You might choose swamp factor of 3 over 5 or something like that and simply go with shorter subs if wind gusts are real concern. Alternatively - everyone likes lower read noise camera, so maybe they will keep reducing the read noise further

Confocal microscopy technologies were introduced more than 40 years ago, but advances in optical design, spinning-disk technology and camera technology have fuelled the expansion and versatility of the technique3. Confocal laser scanning and spinning-disk confocal microscopy allow researchers to generate 3D images of organelles within living cells and examine changes that occur in cells over time.

Modern CMOS sensors have read noise in 1-2e range. That is at least x4 less then CCD sensor - so one would need to expose for x16 loner with CCD to reach the same level of "overwhelm" with sky noise. Indeed, back in the day, exposures of 20 or more minutes very fairly common (even half an hour or longer for NB imaging).

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

The game-changer in confocal microscopy - with the Andor Dragonfly you can image at an unrivalled, multi-modal combination of speed, sensitivity and confocality.

Ok, but no software in reality implements (that I know of) above approach, although I'm sure that PI script can be written, so next best thing is to simply bin each sub after calibration and before stacking - either average or sum will do, but take care to save each sub in 32bit floating point format to avoid loosing precision (you should do this anyway when calibrating).

Best way to bin is to actually not bin at all - best way is to split your subs so that different pixels end up in different sub subs. This way you avoid any mathematical operations with pixels - you reduce sampling rate (because you leave every other or third pixel) but you end up with multiples of subs - as you've imaged for longer. This shows that there is really nothing is lost - it is pure trade off between sampling rate and SNR,

OCT Technology. Here to view our Swept-Source OCT System. OCT. OCTとは. Figure 1. OCT Image of Human Skin. OCT, which stands for the Optical Coherence ...

So for me its a bit too much resolution, but honestly im getting pretty close with BlurXterminator if the seeing was good so not a complete daydream to work at that resolution.

Laser scanningconfocal microscopy

Confocal microscopy is a powerful tool that can be used to create 3D images of the structures within living cells and to examine the dynamics of cellular processes1. For high-speed imaging of fluorescent molecules and structures within living cells, microscopes must provide rapid field-of-view scanning that eliminates any out-of-focus light planes that can obscure fluorescence2. Several confocal microscopy methods ensure such light planes are removed2 and these techniques have become increasingly popular over recent years, owing to their exceptional image quality, relative ease-of-use and multiple applications in different research fields. The main types of commercially available confocal microscopes are the confocal laser scanning microscope and the spinning-disk confocal microscope.

My take on this would be - get largest aperture that you can afford and comfortably mount and use and adjust your working resolution to range of 1-1.2"/px for best small galaxy captures.

I've also had imaging newtonians; entry level ones are a lot cheaper than RC scopes, you can't beat them on bang for your buck. 200pds or Quattro 8S can produce stunning results for the price.

My take on this would be - get largest aperture that you can afford and comfortably mount and use and adjust your working resolution to range of 1-1.2"/px for best small galaxy captures.

Cmos binning is not the same as cc'd binning as it's all software based. It basically averages the pixel data or sums it up. Problem with that, the device still reads the pixels individually, so each pixel readout still has its own read noise. With ccds, all the binned pixels are read at once with only one read noise involved. So binning CMOS only really saves you disk space, because you can do it any time later after data acquisition instead of in camera.

Binning is the same underlying procedure as stacking - which is in turn the same underlying procedure as longer integration.

I will second this, I have the at115edt and compared it with my rc6 at 1370mm on M33 and the at115 actually out resolves it. I get pretty decent seeing conditions here in SE Arizona since I'm at fairly high altitude, 4200ft (about 1300m). John Hayes who I very much respect as an astronomer, had his setup near Tucson and observed similar things, even when using pretty large aperture long fl scopes. Eventually he sent his kit to Chile to get full benefit from his scope.

Yes - you would produce the same quality image (in terms of SNR) in 1/4 of the time with Newtonian as you would with 100mm refractor. This is because you have x4 more light gathering area with 200mm of aperture versus 100mm of aperture.

Confocal microscopydiagram

I think a 1 meter focal length newtonian would work very nicely as a galaxy scope with your camera. Need to tend to its needs though, particularly in the stability, collimation, and coma correction department.

Olly Penrice did an article a few years ago comparing the performance of large aperture moderate FL refractors with large aperture long FL reflectors for galaxy imaging, there wasn't a lot in it and the low maintenance advantage of the refractor won the day for me and I settled on an Esprit 150. As @Clarkey has stated, seeing is often the limiting factor, I would have made a different choice if my scope was going on top of a mountain in Atacama.

Thread Adapters. Thread Adapters. Adapters are primarily used to convert hose or pipe diameters, such as BSP and NPT threads.

I've had decent galaxy results from the Esprit 100; you don't really need that much focal length to get to a good sampling rate for galaxies: 1~1.5 arc seconds

TTArtisan 35/1.4 with the odd pointy design handles decently, and it was my go-to before I upgraded camera bodies and got the WR 35/2, which I ...

My take is imaging anything at over 1500mm won't gain you anything. Oversampling can help a little. The best case forward for large aperture scopes is you can reduce them so you can end up with relative light buckets. Refractors tend to be slow. Something like a sharpstar sca360 would be ideal although not cheap, or a fast newt. Edgehd scopes with reducers are also a good option especially since they can be converted to low fl light buckets via hyperstar. That's kinda the path I'm looking at myself down the road.

Only difference between software and hardware binning is level of read noise. With CCDs and hardware binning - you have the same read noise regardless if you bin or not, but with CMOS sensors "effective" read noise is increased by bin factor.

In any case - I don't think that sub duration is very important issue. If one can't guide for 10-15 minutes, one should sort out that bit first before attempting to do close up galaxies.

I agree with you on binning making up for speed and do that with mosaiced images every chance i get, but taking the focal ratio to an extreme is not at all as easy as just using a "faster" scope.

Confocal microscopyPDF

A very popular one with a longer focal length that I cannot remember having read any complaints about is Edge HD8. It is easy to collimate (look at a de-focused star and play with three screws on the secondary mirror) and I expect it to hold collimation well, especially in an obsy.

CCDs used to have very large read noise - like 7-8e and sometimes even more (very few models had read noise as low as 5-6e).

Second benefit is that given same sky, same mount, same conditions - 8" would produce very slightly sharper image than 4" - if both scopes are diffraction limited (which might not be the case if you use CC for newtonian or field flattener for refractor).

I take this point but have little experience of binning with CMOS cameras. What's your view on how this should be done and how effective it is?

My take on this would be - get largest aperture that you can afford and comfortably mount and use and adjust your working resolution to range of 1-1.2"/px for best small galaxy captures.

I agree with you on binning making up for speed and do that with mosaiced images every chance i get, but taking the focal ratio to an extreme is not at all as easy as just using a "faster" scope.

I think you kind of skimmed over this point as if its nothing, but lets be serious here this is a major issue if we are aiming to use an f/15 scope.

Dragonfly 600 integrates super-resolution solutions compatible with confocal, widefield or TIRF. Furthermore, it incorporates the newly developed High Power Laser Engine (HLE) and…

Speed limitations can be overcome using parallelism, the application of a line or an array of pinholes. This approach was first introduced by a German physicist called Nipkow4. A “Nipkow” disc or spinning disk is opaque, with the exception of the presence of thousands of pinholes that are often covered with tiny focusing lenses arranged in spiral patterns2.

As light passes through the series of pinholes, each is imaged by the objective to a spot on the specimen which emits a fluorescence that can be recorded once it passes back through the pinholes. The disc effectively serves as several thousand confocal microscopes all operating in parallel meaning several thousand points on the specimen are illuminated at the same time. This parallelism means that saturation is avoided and lower flurophore concentrations can be used. As the disc spins at high-speeds of 6000 rpm, spaces between the pinholes are filled in, generating a real-time confocal image that can be seen with the naked eye2.

This is something I'm looking into as well. I have a heq5 so looking at lighter options. I have been considering the Stellamira 125 which seems a low maintenance option compared with a RC or newtonian.

Andor has recently optimized spinning-disk technology to develop a powerful spinning-disk confocal imaging platform called Dragonfly. Andor’s Dragonfly builds on and further optimizes the Nipkow or spinning disk technology to offer an unprecedented combination of speed, sensitivity and resolution5.The Dragonfly features a dual spinning disc which is equipped with an array of micro-lenses for each pinhole to maximize the transmission of light. This ensures a highly efficient coupling of the laser to the pinholes, meaning less laser power is needed to achieve high quality confocal images4.

What is confocal microscopyused for

The benefits of delivering higher-efficiency imaging at lower laser powers are that the Dragonfly has more accurate cell physiology, less photobleaching, phototoxicity, and requires lower fluorophore concentration. It also is less expensive than confocal laser scanning microscopes and has superior speed and image quality than conventional spinning disc technology. Moreover, the Dragonfly also operates at least ten times faster, further improving throughput time. The benefits of a higher speed include the ability to view live cells, to view larger regions of specimen in 3D stacks more quickly and the ability to study dynamic cell processes. A full overview of the Dragonfly High-Speed Confocal Platform is provided in our Webinar by Dr Geraint Wilde (Andor Product Manager Microscopy Systems) and Dr Ann Wheeler (University of Edinburgh).

CCDs used to have very large read noise - like 7-8e and sometimes even more (very few models had read noise as low as 5-6e).

I was thinking more about things we cant help, like a gust of wind which will now scrap 18 minutes of data instead of 2.

However - this does not make any difference on final result if you already expose to swamp the read noise at bin x1. When you bin and increase read noise - you also increase other noise source in the same manner so their ratio - or "by how much you swamp" the read noise with say sky noise - remains the same.

I had the same thoughts until recently. But, a lot of galaxies have very dim outer arms, dust other stuff like jet streams that require either a lot of integration or fast optics. So a fast say 1300mm fl scopes is a great idea imo.