Quark Quality Control Concerns

Use this section to discuss "standard" Baader/Coronado/ Lunt SolarView/ Daystar, etc… filters, cameras and scopes. No mods, just questions/ answers and reviews.
Post Reply
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

Dear All

I have had a number of emails recently from Quark customers concerned about Daystars quality control with regard to the Quark. This seems largely to have been the result of comments made on Cloudy Nights and public perception concerning small indentations or ripples in the foil which are sometimes visible on the eyepiece side of the filter. These 'imperfections' can also be seen in the foil at the front of the Quark if the tele-centric is removed.

When our first demo Quark was received it also had a little dent in the foil but this was on the telescope side. Although it made absolutely no difference to the performance and was hidden from view, I was concerned and contacted Daystar, I received the following reply from Jen Winter, Daystars Owner;

'It's important that you know that ALL Daystar Filters require a thin, soft waveplate material in direct contact with the etalon compartment.
So both the etalon crystal and the waveplate substrate are thin. They do not carry a sub wave figure.
They always have been this way and always will.
The solid state etalon is bi-refringent by nature and we need to extinct a second peak, using a waveplate of thickness relative to the wavelength of Halpha light.
This is never an issue and never has been an issue, as the filter is designed for operation in a focal plane.
As you know, figure is irrelevant in a focal plane application, but critical in a pupil plane application such as before the objective.

Usually with our Quantum and ION filters, we have blocker elements before and after the etalon crystal so the client wouldn't ever see these waveplates.
Some rare research institutions require focal plane applications and do pay a premium for us to slowly and meticulously hand-figure the soft waveplates to an optical figure.
But those are terribly high end research applications who usually use an optical bench such as Pic du Midi for example.

The appearance of ripples or waves in the substrate are 100% normal in a Daystar.
We know that this is unnerving to clients so we have made some slight changes in batch 2 so that the client isn't worried by this anymore.'


So while I would not want any obvious deformity / marks on these covers, they do not actually affect the optics. Although the Quark does not go through the lengthy testing program of the ION or Quantum, they are tested and then like all Daystar filters, subject to a real visual test on the Sun. When we get them I physically check all filters that come in and if the weather is co-operative do a visual test also. I have yet to see any difference in Quark performance, whether it has a mark on the foil or not. If there has been some irregularity in the image then it has been due to seeing, not the unit.

I think it is unnecessary scaremongering to post concerns on forums without investigating the facts. Hopefully this information will put peoples minds at ease.

Best Regards

Rupert
Astrograph Ltd


User avatar
grimble_cornet
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 3537
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:10 pm
Location: UK West Midlands
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by grimble_cornet »

Thanks for the information Rupert. :bow2

I think you can understand however the concern of customers and potential customers who do not have the information supplied by Daystar. If a lens or filter appears to have a very obvious distortion then is it not natural to assume that it is 'faulty' ? Once you have convinced yourself that there is a fault then it is all too easy to see what you expect to see: Percival Lowell is a perfect example :oops:

If all dealers took the care that you obviously have to investigate and inform then the 'scaremongering' would quickly die from lack of oxygen. If on the other hand, the dealer simply replaces one 'apparently faulty' unit with another unit showing a similar 'fault' without any explanation then....... it is hardly surprising that the customer is unhappy, feels badly treated and 'spreads the word'.

I assume that Daystar's 'slight changes in batch 2 so that the client isn't worried by this anymore' involves 'hiding' the soft waveplate? Considering the outstanding results many people are producing, it would be very sad if people were put off by misinformation.

Interestingly, some of the best images I have seen so far were produced by the guy with his first 'faulty' Quark while waiting for his second 'faulty' replacement!


.

.



.


Mike Garbett

Selection of Solar and Deep Sky images on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegarbett/
Joves

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Joves »

Hi Rupert,

Thanks for the info, however, I have to disagree.

I own three Quarks, two of which have marks on their filters and I can see these marks visually in both.

This is the same experience had by others with obvious marks on their filters, so to say it is completely normal and any image degradation is imagined or due to seeing conditions, then say that to suggest these marks are impacting the view is simply scaremongering, is a bit of a stretch. I contacted Daystar regarding the ripples in the filter, asking if this was normal (considering the coinciding shadowy/mottling effect it has on the view) and was told "yep, sure, this is normal for the filters to be rippled" but not a single acknowledgement or question/comment about the mottling effect was made. I love my Quarks, nevertheless, but can't simply sit here and listen to nonsense stating that these obvious marks have no impact whatsoever through the eyepiece. Sorry, but I can't... I have two eyes and they have never failed me before.

Not a personal attack on you or your post, as you're simply forwarding information provided by Daystar, but I have to seriously (yet respectfully) disagree with the information provided in your post.

Best wishes,

Aaron


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

Dear Aaron

Thanks for your comment. I think perhaps I need to qualify what I said a little more.

I did not say that a dent / ripple would not cause a problem in certain circumstances but that the dents and ripples are normal for the material used and that in our testing they have not resulted in a problem so far. In fact the review sample used by Astronomy Now and provided by us had a dent in it but no comments were made.

Of course if a product has a defect that causes a problem then that is different. The point is that just because there is a dent / ripple in the foil, it does not mean it is faulty. That is an assumption and should not be confused with fact. If the Quarks you had have some marks and also a consistent visual fault then returning to the dealer or Daystar should be the first option. If after inspection it is confirmed that a 'dent' is causing an image fault then that is one thing but it does not follow that every dent is going to result in a problem or that the dent was actually the cause of the problem.

We have used Daystars of all types with a variety of eyepiece / diagonal / scope and camera combinations. We have seen visual problems from time to time but following more exhaustive testing discovered that these 'faults' cannot be isolated to a particular component. It is easy to see something and assume that is the cause. By just announcing that on a forum it is scaremongering.

So to recap I am not saying that there are no faults (like with any product) but the association between dent / ripple and a visual artifact is not a sure thing.


User avatar
sullij1
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by sullij1 »

I needs to be mentioned that if there is a fault in the filter, Daystar is quick to repair or replace the filter. Their current response to customer concerns and service in response to Quark owners has been exceptional. The reviews I have read and written across forums to date is 95% two thumbs up for both visual and imaging. Daystar is doing a great job with this product introduction and helping make this type of astronomy affordable. They should be commended.


Look Up!
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42120
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20229 times
Been thanked: 10111 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by marktownley »

Thanks for this Rupert.


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
solarchat
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4355
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:10 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 1304 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by solarchat »

Jim/Joe,
I would love to post your review on the solarscopereview page if you have it in pdf format.


Stephen W. Ramsden
Atlanta, GA USA
Founder/Director Charlie Bates Solar Astronomy Project
http://www.solarastronomy.org
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

I have asked Astronomy Now for a pdf copy and if they mind it being used. Should not be a problem.

Best
Regards

Rupert (no Jim or Joe's!)


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - An update

Post by Astrograph »

Having just received our latest Quark delivery and having inspected each one. The foil behind the tele-centric and the rear of the filter were all perfect. It is noticeable that the rear of the filter now has an optical window rather than bare foil. While I personally never had any complaints before, it seems to me that production quality has gone up a notch.

To support this, I discussed the recent threads re QC with Daystar who stated that;

'We have eliminated all known production issues now and included many more steps in QA'.

Given this statement and the condition of our latest delivery, I think any problems there may have been with Quarks were down to it being new and they are now all resolved.


User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - An update

Post by Valery »

Astrograph wrote:Having just received our latest Quark delivery and having inspected each one. The foil behind the tele-centric and the rear of the filter were all perfect. It is noticeable that the rear of the filter now has an optical window rather than bare foil. While I personally never had any complaints before, it seems to me that production quality has gone up a notch.

To support this, I discussed the recent threads re QC with Daystar who stated that;

'We have eliminated all known production issues now and included many more steps in QA'.

Given this statement and the condition of our latest delivery, I think any problems there may have been with Quarks were down to it being new and they are now all resolved.

Don't make such a conclusion based on outer look inspection. Test them on the Sun with telescope and eyepieces with low (40mm one) and middle (25mm) magnifications.


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
User avatar
swisswalter
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 17948
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Switzerland
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - An update

Post by swisswalter »

Astrograph wrote:Having just received our latest Quark delivery and having inspected each one. The foil behind the tele-centric and the rear of the filter were all perfect. It is noticeable that the rear of the filter now has an optical window rather than bare foil. While I personally never had any complaints before, it seems to me that production quality has gone up a notch.

To support this, I discussed the recent threads re QC with Daystar who stated that;

'We have eliminated all known production issues now and included many more steps in QA'.

Given this statement and the condition of our latest delivery, I think any problems there may have been with Quarks were down to it being new and they are now all resolved.

Hi Rupert

very good News. I can't wait to have my one back and test it


Only stardust in the wind, some fine and some less fine scopes, filters and adapters as well. Switzerland 47 N, 9 E, in the heart of EUROPE :)

from 7 am - 7 pm http://www.nanosys.ch

from 7.01 pm - 6.59 am http://www.wastronomiko.com some times vice versa ;)
User avatar
Valery
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 893 times

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - An update

Post by Valery »

swisswalter wrote:
very good News. I can't wait to have my one back and test it
Hi Walter,

So, one of your QUARKs has been at repair or was it been replaced?


Valery?


"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.

Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
User avatar
grimble_cornet
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 3537
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:10 pm
Location: UK West Midlands
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by grimble_cornet »

I got one of Rupert's latest batch on Saturday - and the clouds and rain have offered few opportunities to try it out since it arrived :cry:

The filter looks perfect but - not sure if Daystar have simply covered the film with a glass window as, I understand, is the case with their other filters? Rupert reported that they were going to 'ensure that new batches will not cause concerns to users' but that 'the film, complete with minor creases was, has always been, and will always be part of the Daystar winning formula'. The obvious answer would be to cover the offending film with a glass window but.... what do I know ..... or care? If it works as an imaging tool then I will be happy!

I did manage about 5 minutes on Sunday with the Quark attached to my Lunt 60mm scope. I had been grabbing a couple of CaK shots in cracks between the clouds, so I simply replaced the CaK1200 with the Quark, replaced the camera and refocused..........
The magnification was massive compared to the previous view in CaK - not surprising with a 4.2 Barlow built in I guess. The field of view was quite small even with my new Grasshopper 3 at 1920x1440 pixels - I can see why people use a 0.5 reducer.
Bearing in mind that this was my first attempt to use the Quark and it was only my second time out with the Grasshopper which also has a steep learning curve.........
Grasshopper3 Quark Lunt 60 2014 1708 1138 ut 1st Light.jpg
Grasshopper3 Quark Lunt 60 2014 1708 1138 ut 1st Light colour.jpg
Pretty impressive? I think so but I'm pretty easy to please :roll:

Compare this to a shot taken with my SM40 plus a x2 Barlow using the same camera while waiting for the Quark to warm up (less than 10 minutes in the shade using the portable battery pack suggested by Rupert).
SM40 Grasshopper3 x2 2014 1708 10412 ut.jpg
This is a crop of roughly the same area covered by the Quark fov
SM40 x2 Barlow 100%.jpg
SM40 x2 Barlow 100%.jpg (219.12 KiB) Viewed 7270 times
If I blow the SM40 shot up to a similar size as the Quark image.....
SM40 x2 Barlow same size as Quark.jpg
Now I appreciate that this is not a fair comparison. The SM40 is a 40mm scope with about 0.6 Angstrom bandpass (I guess) and I have never managed to get usable images with anything more than a x2.5 Powermate (and then only in very good seeing). The only way I could get the magnification shown in the Quark image was by blowing the x2 Barlow image to about 180% which obviously generataes 'empty magnification' not to mention obvious pixelation!

At first (very, very brief) glance, the Quark extends my Ha imaging capability if I only use it on my Lunt 60. It would allow me to travel with the Lunt 60 CaK1200, Baader wedge and Quark and be able to image in 3 wavelengths with good resolution.
I'm not sure what I would get with a 0.5 reducer on the 60mm scope but ......... my first thought is that I wouldn't want the Quark to be my only Ha imaging tool. That's OK as I have no intention of parting with my SM40 which produces pretty good full discs.
The Quark on my 80mm and 120mm Equinox scopes should be awesome BUT, not sure how good the seeing would need to be before they would show their true potential. Slightly depressing as the seeing around my part of the world is rarely better than adequate :cry:

I didn't have the opportunity to try tuning the Quark - need more than 30 second gaps in the clouds to avoid this becoming suicidally frustrating - so not sure if the slightly soft results were a function of its bandpass, my lack of experience with the Grasshopper (which gives very low contrast views on the screen and makes focusing quite tricky) or if it will tighten up when I try moving away from the 'default' setting?

I had about 30 seconds to try the Quark out visually before I lost the Sun.
Let me say that I am NOT a visual observer - I probably look through an eyepiece attached to the SM40 3 or 4 times a YEAR when I'm away from home and just want to check if it worth setting up to image. This is partly because my eyesight is not as good as it once was (long story) but more because I love the extra detail I can see (and capture) on a screen.
With that serious caveat - my first impressions were that I could see some detail but it was quite difficult to focus accurately. The image was quite bright but seemed a little soft. I could see the active region recorded in the image above plus a couple of rather strange bright spots which could have been bright centres of the active regions?

Heaven forbid that anyone draws any reliable conclusions from my experience but my first impressions:
In some ways (high mag imaging) the Quark outperforms my SM40 which cost twice as much when I bought it many years ago (£800 for the Quark, £1599 for the SM40).
In others ways it does not seem to offer a complete Ha package for me (too high mag with mandatory Barlow even with 0.5 reducer I suspect) but that is not an issue FOR ME.
The image quality seems pretty good but it will be interesting to see what happens when I can experiment with tuning. Other people report quite different apparent bandwidths when they compare different Chromosphere Quarks. This fits with Daystar's publicity which I interpret to mean 'we make em then test em and designate then as Chromoshere (0.5 and below) or Prom (above 0.5)' This may not be fair but..........?
Actually, I'm not sure whether I would like mine to turn out as 0.3 or 0.5 as I quite like disc detail but also love imaging proms????

Much more experimenting to do before I will be confident of any of the above but.......... first impression is WOW :seesaw

Thanks Rupert for outstanding service :bow2


.

.



.


Mike Garbett

Selection of Solar and Deep Sky images on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegarbett/
User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

Hi Mike

First, thanks for the compliment. Its appreciated.

Re trying to get a bit more from your system, maybe the following will help.

Putting the reducer in front of your camera should yield a bit of contrast improvement. I personally have not tried this but others that have say it works.

The bandpass on the Quark will change with the scope you put it on. The difference on an F6 compared to an F8 is quite significant. However oddly I don't notice much of an increase in the size of Proms just detail. There is also a bit of variation in what the Quarks native band pass is because it is an 'economy' filter. Did I dare say that? I know £800 is not cheap but compared to a guaranteed 0.5A ION at £2700 it is!

Re the Grasshopper. I am not personally familiar with the chipset you are using but the PGR cameras do seem to benefit from some experimentation with the Gamma setting. I personally run PGR cameras with almost no gain and then, based on some advice from Gary Palmer, adjust the gamma. When combined with the shutter speed, contrast can vary a lot. The chip in your camera has reasonable dynamic range so should have good contrast. For chromosphere I have the gamma on minimum. I use FireCapture to do this which is much easier to play with than FlyCap.

I look forward to seeing more images....


User avatar
swisswalter
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 17948
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:28 am
Location: Switzerland
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - An update

Post by swisswalter »

Valery wrote:
swisswalter wrote:
very good News. I can't wait to have my one back and test it
Hi Walter,

So, one of your QUARKs has been at repair or was it been replaced?


Valery?

High Valery

I sent it back to be inspected. I do not have it back at the moment but awaiting it that week, then we will see.


Only stardust in the wind, some fine and some less fine scopes, filters and adapters as well. Switzerland 47 N, 9 E, in the heart of EUROPE :)

from 7 am - 7 pm http://www.nanosys.ch

from 7.01 pm - 6.59 am http://www.wastronomiko.com some times vice versa ;)
User avatar
sullij1
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by sullij1 »

Hi Stephen,

Just saw your post. Things have cranked up quite a bit at work and I am working copious amounts of overtime. Because of this I have been unable (too darn tired) to finish my complete writeup on the Quark and have definetly not been out imaging or observing lately. There have been some very good write ups (not official) over on the sissy site that I may reference. I will get my write up to you as soon as I can edit a coherent copy.

Best,

Jim/Joe(Sullij) :D


Look Up!
renims

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by renims »

Good morning. I bought and I have a big problem Daystar Quark. Do I have to send a complaint Oceans Quark. ? It has a large wade image. He confirmed the man to whom I gave the image analysis of the writing on the Internet. Will there be a new version of the repaired and improved. Photos in the Annex show the bad and not crisp and fuzzy image of PG Chameleon and bought new PG Grasshopper 3?

What to do? It's a new Oceans Quark.
Attachments
fc2_save_2014-08-30-121425-0000_600x600.jpg
fc2_save_2014-08-30-121425-0000_600x600.jpg (46.33 KiB) Viewed 7141 times
fc2_save_2014-08-30-121310-0002_600x600.jpg
fc2_save_2014-08-30-121310-0002_600x600.jpg (49.26 KiB) Viewed 7141 times
3_800x595.jpg
3_800x595.jpg (135.28 KiB) Viewed 7141 times
2_800x575.jpg
2_800x575.jpg (101.91 KiB) Viewed 7141 times
1_797x600.jpg
1_797x600.jpg (167.71 KiB) Viewed 7141 times


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

Hi

When you say 'Oceans Quark' are you referring to OPT Corp? In any case you should contact your dealer first as it is they who will be sent replacements by Daystar where it is shown the Quark has a fault.


renims

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by renims »

Astrograph wrote:Hi

When you say 'Oceans Quark' are you referring to OPT Corp? In any case you should contact your dealer first as it is they who will be sent replacements by Daystar where it is shown the Quark has a fault.


and is it true that there will be new, revised versions?


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by Astrograph »

I have no knowledge about new revised versions. The coatings on the etalon are what has caused the banding issue. I am told changes to this in production will improve consistency.


User avatar
Astrograph
Im an EXPERT!
Im an EXPERT!
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:00 pm
Location: London
Been thanked: 46 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns - Please Read

Post by Astrograph »

Dear All

With regard to the Daystar Quark, Daystar would like anyone with any queries or concerns regarding their Quark to look at the information provided on the official Daystar website.

Quark Link - http://www.daystarfilters.com/Quark.shtml
Quark Uniformity Link - http://www.daystarfilters.com/Quark/Qua ... mity.shtml
Terms of sale / advance replacements - http://www.daystarfilters.com/termof.shtml


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42120
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20229 times
Been thanked: 10111 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by marktownley »

Thanks for that info Rupert :)


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
sullij1
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Quark Quality Control Concerns

Post by sullij1 »

Hi Renims,

Your images look like my initial images. I think your issue is that the Quark is not square to the optical axis i.e. you have focuser slop or the Quark is somehow tilted in its holder. This causes the bright areas on one side and Newton rings. Camera chips also come into play. If the chip is not flush with the mounting substrate on the camera surface mount board you get bright areas on the edges (nothing you can do about this but get another camera or crop).

Again, in your case I am certian you are not square to the optical axis. You need to square your camera up with a tilter device or wedges. Sometimes, just rotating the quark will help if the tilt is not to bad.


Look Up!
Post Reply