Me!! a Quark!!!

Post by **Montana** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:21 pm

OK, I was sucked in

I pleaded and begged and I got one. Rupert at Astrograph was fantastic, he worked out everything I needed. It came yesterday and we had sunshine today. Well, bits and bobs, frustratingly only for a minute at at time.

Unusually for me I never even read the instructions as Mark had kindly demonstrated a couple of weeks before. Honestly, I didn't expect much and really didn't think it would work at all. I was amazed!

I popped it on and it worked first go, had a heart attack as focus is only 1mm from the end of the rack

Got 4 images to stitch together, that is 4 full size Grasshoppers stitched which is something to show for the scale, seeing was poor and variable so some bits are great other bits are bad.

2015-07-04 Quark by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr

2015-07-04 f colour by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr

I am flabergasted to get penumbral detail, what I have always dreamed of

I now own a Solarscope, a Coronado, a Lunt and Daystar and a Baader wedge, you can't say I specialise on one company

Alexandra

oreoluna · Post by **oreoluna** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:28 pm

Welcome to the Club Alexandra.

Beautiful result You won it.

Gordon Ewen · Post by **Gordon Ewen** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:52 pm

Alexandra, were your 4 images (that you stitched together) taken just with the Quark, or did you use a reducer? I seem to get seem uneven illumination with the Quark, I'll have to try flats.
Gordon

Post by **Montana** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:05 pm

Thanks guys

I don't own a reducer so it was just a Quark

but I did do a cling film flat, my usual bag was no good at all. What I have noticed is with the Solarscope I have buckets of light, with the Quark I am restricted to 18 fps (from 26) because the exposure is so long. Now I know why proms are difficult with this thing, I was down to 4 fps and it was even exposed correctly. I think I will stick to the Solarscope for those.

Alexandra

pedro · Post by **pedro** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:44 pm

Great images Alexandra. One of these days I have to join the club

Post by **Montana** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:47 pm

Pedro, you need one for your extensive solar collection

Alexandra

DSobserver · Post by **DSobserver** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:48 pm

Like me, you couldn't resist to try this Quark.

Indeed it give great pictures. Pitty this 4.2 barlow, but you manage it great!

Valery · Post by **Valery** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:12 pm

Hi Alexandra,

Nice image for the first trial session! You sure will do even better soon - with better seeing, reducer and more observing time.

BTW

Montana wrote: but I did do a cling film flat,
Alexandra

I am not sure I do understand correctly about flat. Did you apply flat frame to make image more even? Or this is something elese?
How even your Quark across FOV?

Thanks,

Valery.

OTangen · Post by **OTangen** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:16 pm

Hi Alexandra!

Thats a great first light achievement. Wonderful detail. What's in front of the TEC?

Oivind Tangen
60N 10E

gabrieli · Post by **gabrieli** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:21 pm

Hi, Alexandra.

I can see why you are happy with the penumbral detail when I looked at enlargements of your images.
I'm sure that when you get better seeing, you'll be even happier using your Quark.

Lou

pedro · Post by **pedro** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:26 pm

Yes Alexandra. I guess I do...

best regards

grimble_cornet · Post by **grimble_cornet** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:37 pm

Fantastic to hear that you have joined the Quark club Alexandra and your first attempts are excellent :seesaw

I'm a bit surprised that you were troubled by long exposures; some of it will be because you are not using a reducer but........ I only need 18ms exposure without a FR with the Quark on a 60mm scope and can capture 1280x960 at 34 fps. I use about 5ms exposure with the Tal 100 and 4ms with the 152mm Lyra. These are all for 1280x960 ser which is my normal choice so your exposures might be a little longer at full 1920x1440 but I wouldn't expect your fps to drop compared to what you get with your normal Solarscope set up????

I'm also surprised that you think proms are difficult with the Quark as I find it produces prom images as good or better than I get with the LS100...... and it's less fussy about seeing conditions.
Here are 2 images of the same prom taken a few minutes apart using the SM40 plus x2 Barlow for the first image and the Quark on an Equinox 120 for the second:

Not really a fair comparison (40mm v 120mm) so here are a couple more with the Quark on a 60mm scope compared with the Quark on the Lyra 152mm:

Finally, another rather nice prom taken with the Quark plus Equinox 120 in fairly poor conditions:

I would expect your TEC to produce better results than my Equinox 120............ especially in your hands

Look forward to seeing more Quarky wonders

KMH · Post by **KMH** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:51 pm

Wow - fantastic shot! I'm very tempted by the Quark for a 127mm refractor, and also for double stacking the Lunt 100.

Kevin

Derek Klepp · Post by **Derek Klepp** » Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:53 pm

Very nice and as the Queen of Solar it is only fitting that your tools are varied.Over time as you use all these filters it will be interesting to see the merits of each.
One factor that I do think is imperative in all your work is the quality of that TEC 140.Look foward to tour further pics

GUS · Post by **GUS** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:19 am

Stunning detail Alexandra.

michael.h.f.wilkinson · Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:07 am

Nice first results Alexandra. I am also surprised at the long exposures. I do not own a Quark, but even at the narrow bandwidth of the Solar Spectrum filter I have, I can run at roughly 120 FPS at F/25.6. You should be running at roughly F/30 with the Quark, which at the same transmission would result in 87 FPS or so.

DJD · Post by **DJD** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:43 am

Lovely image, super detail.
Best wishes,
David

nickatnight · Post by **nickatnight** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:14 am

Hit the ground running with your Quark. Those are all lovely! Congratulations!!!

Carbon60 · Post by **Carbon60** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:47 am

I wouldn't expect anything less from you! Super images, Alexandra. I'm sure you'll optimise the set up as you gain more experience. This was fist light after all!

Stu.

Philippe TOSI · Post by **Philippe TOSI** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:06 am

superb shoots !
congratulations .
your seeing was good ...

jp-brahic · Post by **jp-brahic** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:18 am

Great Results with a Quark Alexandra

JP

Post by **Montana** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:23 am

Thanks guys, may be it was beginners luck and I will never get another shot like it

Oivind, I have a Baader 135mm D-ERF up front to protect the oil lens, the calculations we too close and I was advised to stop the heat coming in in the first place. Unfortunately Baader only do a 135mm or a 160mm so I had to drop the 5mm down.

I'm not too worried about the exposure time, if it ain't broke don't fix it, if I got an image, I'm happy!

Alexandra

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:53 am

Hi Alexandra,

Great to see you have had a positive first light.

Just a general note to everyone about the exposure length sometimes needed with a Quark. As you all know, Quarks are not bandpass rated, they can't be because the etalon behaves differently depending on the system you partner them with. The nature of this particularly good value but nonetheless entry level Ha filter also means they are going to vary. A Quark is not a cheap ION or Quantum filter.

The Chromosphere versions are all rated to be at most 0.5A at F30 but different scopes will increase / decrease this. I test every Quark we get before shipping to customers. Doing this back to back on an F8 scope (so running at F34.4) I see a fair bit of variation in brightness and detail. Some Quark Chromosphere's have big bright proms, others show them much finer. Some show very dark filaments, others a bit of both.

Occasionally Jen at Daystar tells me if I have a very narrowband Quark in a delivery. Recently I was told there was one that was 0.15A but it was not marked as anything special. When I tested the batch I found a couple that were very dark and assumed it was one of them. Certainly detailed but exposure is increased dramatically. The Quark I demonstrated about a year ago was around 0.5~0.4A. I know this as it was part of a matched set we used for an imaging record attempt. That allowed about 6ms with the histogram at about 70%. The current Quark I demonstrate needs 20ms. Actually its a pain in FireCapture as it falls between exposure ranges in the software.

On Alexandra's TEC140 with the Baader ERF, the system is running at just over F31 which is about optimum. From memory when I tested Alexandra's Quark I would say it was somewhere in the middle of all the brightness ranges I have seen, so I think it must be 0.3~0.4A at most.

grimble_cornet · Post by **grimble_cornet** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:16 pm

That's interesting Rupert - I certainly saw a difference between my two Quarks albeit a fairly small one. My first one showed proms as very bright but with less detail than I see with my second one. Strangely, surface detail seems very similar in both.

Sorry Alexandra, I wasn't trying to tell you what to do.................... simply sharing what I have discovered the hard way when using the Quark on many different scopes with the same camera and similar settings (following your advice

)
Rupert's comments suggest that my experiences are even less relevant than usual ........... oh well

Post by **Montana** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:53 pm

I had a look today and I am using 52ms to take a shot with 80% of the histogram full, just out of interest

weather was worse than yesterday, blue sky appearing everywhere but cloud spawning constantly over the Sun, got 1 image from 2 and half hours wait

oh well.

Alexandra

p_zetner · Post by **p_zetner** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:32 pm

Lovely results, Alexandra!

Interesting information (Rupert) about the variability in bandpass of the Quark.

Cheers.
Peter.

eroel · Post by **eroel** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:35 pm

Alexandra:
Welcome to a Daystar filter. I don´t have a Quark but just 2 old Daystar filters, the 0.5A° t-scanner and the 0.45A° ATM. Both work optimally at f/30, but I found that you can make good use of them from an f/20 and up system. That is why I am used to slower fps and don´t know what to do with more light as with my Solarmax 90 (f/8)

Your TEC 140 is a very good refractor as is my 10" f/20 TEC Maksutov, Yuri is a very good optic manufacturer and a very good friend, so welcomed also to the TEC family.
Your first steps with the Quark are stupendous, you will have to get a reducer to cope with the long focal ratio, I also use reducers after the etalon with my filters, you will get used to them.
Best regards,
Eric.

Post by **marktownley** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:02 pm

A great opener there Alexandra! I would try a bit more gain to get a higher fps. 4fps means the 'shutter' is open for a very long time making it more susceptible to the (poor) seeing. I find I can use the gain quite liberally with my PGR blackfly without any adverse results...

Luke Stacy · Post by **Luke Stacy** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:23 pm

Great first light, Alexandra

michael.h.f.wilkinson wrote:Nice first results Alexandra. I am also surprised at the long exposures. I do not own a Quark, but even at the narrow bandwidth of the Solar Spectrum filter I have, I can run at roughly 120 FPS at F/25.6. You should be running at roughly F/30 with the Quark, which at the same transmission would result in 87 FPS or so.

I'm guessing Alexandra is keeping the gain right down? I tend to do that with my Grasshopper. I think with your Solar Spectrum and ASI174, you have the gain dialed up a bit?

I am probably more scared of gain than I should be. I did have to crank up the gain when trying my Quark with the ASI174, the image was much darker than with my Grasshopper at the same exposure time so I had little choice if I wanted to get to 120 FPS

I haven't done much of a shootout of the ASI174 versus Grasshopper 3 (ICX687) thanks to our rubbish weekends this year, but the little I did do, I felt the ASI174 held up very well, I was impressed, and that was with a fair bit of gain (and a lot more frames!).

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:26 pm

Which Grasshopper do you use Alexandra?

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:41 pm

On a second point. PGR cameras are very low noise, so you can use gain without fear if the camera is fed with clean power. The Grasshopper 3 does seem to be more demanding of USB3 ports power wise. This has led to artefacts being seen. If you use the GPIO connector to feed it separate power from a battery, the camera has significantly lower noise. The 5V from a PC is full of noise, 12V (or anything from 5-15V) from a battery is ultra quiet.

We make up battery leads for the GPIO. They are £22 / £29 for Blackfly/Flea and Grasshopper.

Post by **marktownley** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:48 pm

I've had the gain up at 1600 (to keep the 35fps) for IMX249 blackfly running at 60mm f30 in CaK with no issues with noise at all, and this image is only a stack of 32 that I took friday morning.

cak-closeup-colour by Mark Townley, on Flickr

I'm using the GPIO power leads...

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:31 pm

This is what happens to a Grasshopper 3 (using the IMX174 chip) when your laptop has poor power but is otherwise A1 spec. This was from a customers i7 based laptop. On my i3 based basic laptop I use for imaging it was perfect. The customer tried the GPIO lead and all was well again.

Post by **Montana** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:56 am

Thanks guys

I have a 'Grasshopper3 2.8 MP Mono USB3 Vision (Sony ICX674)' which is powered through the USB3 as the socket is well above the 4.5W needed. I have never seen any artifacts and it runs really well. I have never raised the gain above 152 (like Luke said). I'll try it but I don't fancy any more noise as that is always what I am trying to avoid. I'll do some tests if I get sunshine for longer than 2 minutes!

Alexandra

GuillermoBarrancos · Post by **GuillermoBarrancos** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:16 am

Fantastic first light Alexandra! Welcome to the Club!

In FireCapture I usually sit around 90-110 gain (I think...been some months since I imaged

) and 20-30ms exposure. Then I also play with gamma. Low gamma for surface ( 0-10 ). High gamma for Proms ( 130-140 ).
This with my QHY5L-II color camera.

I think it also really differs from camera to camera. No camera is the same.

I also apply flats now. ( just the out of focus trick ). Gives much better even illuminated results.

arnedanielsen · Post by **arnedanielsen** » Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:43 pm

Alexandra,

Congratulations on your new Quark and a wonderful first light!!

Best regards,
Arne

Robert Henry 1355 · Post by **Robert Henry 1355** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:01 pm

To Mike G.
Hi,Mike. On your 120mm scope,do you use a front mounted ERF,or the UV/IR cut filter in the diagonal.
Bob

Marcello · Post by **Marcello** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:10 pm

Congratulations Alexandra,
I wish you a big fun with the new toy!

I use a Quark with a 125mm, with a bino and pairs of 20mm and 40mm plossl I get amazing views!

cheers
Marcello

p1taylor · Post by **p1taylor** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:28 pm

Hi Alexandra those are lovely image, super detail.

peter

Ewan · Post by **Ewan** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:01 pm

Great start Alexandra, with that 140 you are going to capture some amazing detail, I can only suggest as well to have a play with the tuner, you shouldn't really leave it in the centre without testing the other settings.

How much was your ERF ?
I am looking at buying Altair's 150mm frac just a shame the ERF is about £900 on it's own.

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:39 pm

Hi Ewan

You don't need a front ERF with the 152/5.9 Achromat. Alexandra's scope has an oil filled objective so we could not take any chances with heat from an internal reflecting ERF causing damage, hence the front ERF.

With the 152 you are looking at, you can use a 2" Baader 35nm Ha filter internally. I have tested these with a 152 for hours. They pass cool light that allows use of ND filters. Totally safe and £109

Robert Henry 1355 · Post by **Robert Henry 1355** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:55 pm

Hi,Astrograph-
Do you think a 120mm scope with Quark only needs the UV/IR cut filter in the diagonal? Some very reputable people on this forum state with 120mm scope,a front mounted ERF is needed for a few reasons(tube overheating inside with currents,soft images,etc). The front ERF's are,in my opinion,very expensive,and am looking for other possible,but safe,alternatives. I have the Astronomik 1.25" UV/IR cut filter,Quark chromosphere,Orion 100mm f/6 Achromat,and want to get 120mm f/8.3 Achromat for benefit of more resolution.Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Bob

eroel · Post by **eroel** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:38 pm

Well Alexquark, a super first light.
Well done.
Eric.

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:43 pm

Hi Robert

Front ERF's are expensive because its a big lump of glass that has to be optically flat. The cell that holds them is also a significant chunk of money. From my experience so far, only the Baader D-ERF does not compromise the image visually. I have not of course been able to try out every front ERF but they do not seem to offer as good a view as an internal ERF apart from the Baader (so far).

As for using an internal ERF like a UV/IR cut, I think this is by far the best value / quality solution, however you have to use them with some thought. Any filter will work better the less it has to do. Therefore placing the filter further up the tube is better because the light beam is less concentrated. You also have to remember that when the beam hits it, it is converging, so the reflected beam continues to converge. It make sense to work out where its going to reach its focal point. Inside the objective would not be a good thing!

I would not recommend a 1.25" UV/IR cut in a diagonal for this reason. You are setting it much nearer the focal point and asking it to do too much. A 2" placed in the focuser on an extension is much better.

I have used the Baader, Daystar and Astronomik UV/IR cuts in a 100mm scope for extended periods with no issues at all. All of these filters allow some heat to pass. The blocking filter deals with what is left. The Baader seems the weakest of the three although it is supposed to block more UV.

Recently I started using ND filters in front of the etalon to improve contrast. As these are not designed to get warm, I tried out the Baader 35nm Ha filter as a replacement for a UV/IR. This is a big improvement. The remaining light that passes through it is cool and I have used it for hours on a 152 as mentioned.

On the subject of tube currents etc. The light passing through the objective and converging is not focused. It has no heat. It is not a beam that somehow gives off heat energy. The beam is not going to hit enough air molecules in the tube to heat up the air. The surface of the filter does not heat up either as the energy is reflected. If it did, it would not be a very good filter.

What does happen with the Daystar filters is that prolonged use in high ambient's can make it hard for the internal oven to stay on band. I have seen them unable to 'go green' in certain conditions. As I am sure everyone has experienced, seeing makes huge differences. A view of the Sun at midday in no way competes with an early morning one.

So to cut my waffle short. I suggest a 2" 35nm Ha Filter in your 100/120 placed in the focuser.

Robert Henry 1355 · Post by **Robert Henry 1355** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:06 am

Thanks,Astrograph,for your thorough reply! I think I will try out the Baader 35nm filter in my Orion 100mm,thank you,then,when I obtain the 120mm scope,try it out with that as well.The air current issue was a big concern for me.I thought the only way was to use a front mount ERF,but you have given me a less expensive and better solution.Would I be able to use a 1.25" 35nm Ha Filter,or does it have to be 2".If so,does this filter screw onto the diagonal, just like the Astronomik UV/IR cut filter does,or do I need the extension,and where do I get this "extension". I am sorry,I do understand most of what you say,but the extension in the focuser is difficult to visualize.I have used Coronado scopes before,and now I love my Quark!I am trying to get best out of this awesome Ha device.Does the extension screw onto the objective end of the diagonal,with the Baader 1.25" 35nm on the objective end of the extension tube?How long is the extension tube and is it a Baader extension tube? What item #? Sorry for all the questions!Please describe from front/objective end of extension tube all the way back to a Quark,thanks so much!where and what ND filter placement on this config. and is it really necessary.
Thanks,again!
Bob

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:00 am

Hi Bob

First questions. With the Quark in the diagonal (is that a 1.25 or 2"?), can you reach focus easily? If you can, how much focuser travel is used?

As I said, I don't recommend using 1.25" filters. By using them (and presumably on a 1.25" diagonal), you are starting energy rejection when the light beam is almost focused. This will overwhelm the filter.

Best Regards

Rupert / Astrograph Ltd

Marcello · Post by **Marcello** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:57 am

Hi Rupert,

thank you so much for sharing your experience.

Excuse me if I step in the middle with a further question, I wonder how it is possible to measure the bandwith of a filter, is it possible just analyzing an image?

cheers
Marcello

Post by **Montana** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:04 am

It is not possible unless you have some very specialist equipment. All you can do is to compare images of certain features and guess I am afraid. There is only one really easy identifier, if you look at the the limb of the sun in a 0.6A or above you will see a hard outline then the fluffy spicules go out beyond that line, this is the photosphere leaking through and making the spicules look transparent. At 0.5A this disappears and becomes continuous from surface to spicule end. I don't know of any features which are classic to below 0.5A but someone may know.

Alexandra

Astrograph · Post by **Astrograph** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:47 am

Actually that limb will remain visible way below 0.5A on a single stack filter but not with a conventional double stack.

Apparently it is something to do with the way different filters operate. A front mounted etalon, an internal etalon and a rear mounted etalon all present different views for the same quoted bandpass. Having said that only Daystar seem to quote that the bandpass is measured at half-bandwidth so '0.5A' may not be the same from everyone.

On the narrow Quark and 0.4 Quantum I have, the limb is seem. If I stack the Quantum with a Prominence Quark, which in theory is wider bandpass than the narrow Quark, the limb goes away. I think it is something to do with the base wing shift.

There was a long thread about all this on CN but you would have to go hunting for it.

Robert Henry 1355 · Post by **Robert Henry 1355** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:05 pm

Hi,Rupert-
Yes,I am using a 1.25" diagonal with my Orion 100mm refractor.I can focus very easily. I have lots of focus travel left when focusing with the Quark in this scope.Can you help me with what exactly I need and a better visualization of the new configuration(parts,where to purchase,item #,etc). I know I am asking a lot from you,and I thank you for all your help).I am in the process of getting a 120mm used scope.According to your expertise,I would need a 2" UV/IR cut,with a 2" diagonal,but the other stuff,I am not sure.
Best,
Bob