Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

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
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by cmas »

Hi,

I've been dealing with some issues regarding my imaging setup. I could use your opinions on this. The issue is regarding imaging only as I don't do visual at this time.

Issue:
  • Uneven / ununiform image with Quark (well nothing new here). This can be partly mitigated via flats etc. so not totally frustrated with this.
  • Severe uniformity issues with the Quark & focal reducer. I am frustrated with this.
  • Severe lower tight hand corner issue. I am frustrated with this.
What has been done:
  • I have tested the setup with Sharpstar 61 mm EDPH II (FPL-53 triplet, f/5.5, 335 mm focal length) which is my "full disk Quark setup" with and without the reducer.
  • I have tested the setup with Starwave 102 mm (FPL-51 doublet, f/7, 715 mm focal length) which is my "new" setup for "more closer views" with and without the reducer.
The testing scenarious are described in youtube descriptions, but I will copy paste them also here with video links. Sorry for the varying imaging settings, some have gamma enabled, I have different exposures etc. but I believe the point becomes clear.

Case #1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtPFU0LmPqk
OTA: Sharpstar 61 EDP II FPL-53 triplet, 335 mm focal length (f/5.5)
ERF: Baader D-ERF (90 mm diameter, 80 mm usable filter aperture)
H-alpha filter: Quark Chromosphere
Focal reducer after Quark: none
Camera: ASI174mm @ 16 bit, full resolution i.e. 1936 x 1216 pixels
Note: OTA masked to 33 mm resulting in f/10.

Case #2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXB_Zhttgb4
OTA: Sharpstar 61 EDP II FPL-53 triplet, 335 mm focal length (f/5.5)
ERF: Baader D-ERF (90 mm diameter, 80 mm usable filter aperture)
H-alpha filter: Quark Chromosphere
Focal reducer after Quark: Daystar 0.5x reducer @ 0.5x
Camera: ASI174mm @ 16 bit, full resolution i.e. 1936 x 1216 pixels
Note: OTA masked to 33 mm resulting in f/10.
Remarks:
Visible issues with this setup. Uneven illumination / off-band issues seen in frames when moving sun across the view.

Case #3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBQHBpb7Qi4
OTA: Starwave 102 mm f/7 FPL-51 doublet, 715 mm focal length (f/7)
ERF: Baader D-ERF (90 mm diameter, 80 mm usable filter aperture)
H-alpha filter: Quark Chromosphere
Focal reducer after Quark: No reducer
Camera: ASI174mm @ 16 bit, full resolution i.e. 1936 x 1216 pixels
Note: OTA masked to 70 mm resulting in f/10.
Remarks:
Visible issues with this setup. Uneven illumination (dark bands that do not move while the sun moves across the camera sensor) seen in frames when moving sun across the view.
Please omit any Newton rings and dust in the frames.

Case #4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98aBIbULr4
OTA: Starwave 102 mm f/7 FPL-51 doublet, 715 mm focal length (f/7)
ERF: Baader D-ERF (90 mm diameter, 80 mm usable filter aperture)
H-alpha filter: Quark Chromosphere
Focal reducer after Quark: Daystar 0.5x reducer @ 0.5x
Camera: ASI174mm @ 16 bit, full resolution i.e. 1936 x 1216 pixels
Note: OTA not masked below 80 mm of aperture thus resulting in f/8.9.
Remarks:
Visible issues with this setup. Uneven illumination (dark bands that do not move while the sun moves across the camera sensor) seen in frames when moving sun across the view. Severe vignetting. Caused by the reducer?
Please omit any Newton rings and dust in the frames.

I do know the basics: QC with Quarks is understandably low and thus uniformity of the field is not a priority for the manufacturing due to the price point. I also understand that I'd be better using the 0.5x reducer after the quark to get the optical train running closer to f/22 for the asi174mm. In the case of the bigger OTA (80 mm viable aperture with the D-ERF is max as I have a 90 mm Baader D-ERF) I get 715/80 = f/8.9375 and with 4.3x at the Quark I get to f/38. And I'd better use some reducer and not running the whole system at f/38 to asi174mm. There is always an option to bin 2x2, but at the cost of lower resolution etc.

I am just looking what are my alternatives. One could think e.g. getting a new camera (e.g. PlayerOne Apollo max with 9 um pixels which samples critically at f/33.7) but I do not know what will be found from the Quark when changing to larger sensor compared to 174mm - most likely more uniformity issues. Thus, throwing more money to solve the issue by removing the reducer and using bigger pixels may lead to more issues with the bigger sensor (just look at the right hand lower corner and extrapolate there). So what to do, what to do...

Questions:
  • The uneven frame: without reducer and omitting Newton rings (I did not use any tilt in these tests) and dust on the sensor / barlow etc does that uniformity of the field look "OK" compared to a typical Quark? I mean its not pretty but does it look like it's broken? I've used to this so as to understand the bigger picture I am asking it anyways.
  • The uneven frame with reducer at 0.5x: How do these look to you? For me they are simply utterly unusable. I can image full disk with Sharpstar by positioning the disk carefully into the sensor while using the reducer but there is no change of getting anything reasonable with a reducer as part of the imaging train of the bigger OTA. The view is heavily distorted and looks to be off-band or something similar but is this just vignetting due to (I believe) 12 mm blocking filter and largish sensor while using a reducer?
  • Is there something inherently wrong with the reducer which I have? I do not own any other reducers to test, though, otherwise I would have already tested this too.
I was also in contact with Daystar and they asked to see imaging material which I haven't delivered yet before asking your opinions.

Recommendations on how to proceed?


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
christian viladrich
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 2150
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: France
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2713 times
Contact:

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by christian viladrich »

Well, well ...

The Quark is only a Quark. It is not a DayStar PE, it is not a SolarSpectrum RG32. The difference of price between the Quark and these other two filters is huge. There is a reason why ...
Some Quark are better than other, in terms of CWL (Center Wavelength) uniformity or in term of bandpass (FWHM).

For a Quark, the uniformity is not too bad. You can use a flat image to correct it a little bit.

Vigneting occurs when you use a focal reducer. There is no way out. I would say forget about the focal reducer. Still, you can try change the distance between the reducer and the camera.

f/28 to f/35 is still fine with the IMX174 sensor. At f/35, you can slightly reduce the size of the image (with any software) to increase visual sharpness if needed.
f/38 is a bit on the high side for the IMX174. Maybe find an 100 mm D-ERF ?

Main thing is to use flat.


Christian Viladrich
Co-author of "Planetary Astronomy"
http://planetary-astronomy.com/
Editor of "Solar Astronomy"
http://www.astronomiesolaire.com/
User avatar
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by cmas »

Yeah, flats are normally used naturally in my processing flow. The reason why I did not do such calibration in these examples is that I wanted the data be "as raw as possible".

I fully agree with the note regarding the Quark and its price point. There is no disagreeing in the fact that the price point of it is really good for the consumer.

The distance between the reducer and the camera does not solve the issue shown in the demo videos. It mitigates it a bit surely when I remove t2 extenders between the reducer and the camera, but the only way of getting rid of vignetting is removing the reducer as you suggested.

I need to consider a larger D-ERF but those are not cheap and do not have a good availability at the moment. Edit: I was wrong, these are available and 110 mm costs around 550 euros. Possibly that 90 mm ERF could also be put into a cell which has 88 mm opening. That would lead to f/34.9. This would naturally be the cheapest solution, it requires just a few hours of work and nothing else.

I have also been thinking of Baader SolarDancer and a dedicated solar telescope from Lunt / Coronado - again, a severe hit incoming towards my bank account if I decide to do that.

But I need to think about this a bit more, too. And supply some material to Daystar, of course, as they asked for it.


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42272
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20435 times
Been thanked: 10245 times
Contact:

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by marktownley »

Christian has summed this up well.

My advice ditch the reducer and use flats.


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
Radon86
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:05 pm
Has thanked: 745 times
Been thanked: 660 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Radon86 »

Interesting. I am testing a 2 inch Antares 0.5x focal reducer and have high hopes.
I will update you once I have the will to
image. But I am very hopeful.

Magnus


Solar: H-alpha": Quark Chromosphere filter; Baader white light filters
Scopes: Altair Astro Travel ED70mm (F 420mm, D=70mm);; Skywatcher 90mm (F 910mm D=90mm); GSO focuser;;Altair Astro 60mm guidescope (D=60mm,F=225mm)
Cameras: ASI120mm-S,ASI174mm
Mount: SW HEQ5 Pro, SW EQ3 Pro Synscan (SW = Skywatcher),Vixen Polarie tracker (portable setup)
Accessory: SW Auto-focuser
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

Your quark looks very good to me, and ive seen some. I also use the daystar reducer behind the quark with the included spacer and a asi174mm. But i dont have that "tunnel" effect like yours.. only a bit at the corners. I wonder why the difference.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
User avatar
cmas
Ohhhhhh My!
Ohhhhhh My!
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 5:49 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 248 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by cmas »

I'd say that Daystar does not let you know everything. My reducer does not give 0.5x if I attach my 174mm directly to it as far as I am able to tell by comparing theoretical FOV and what I actually see. I find that adding about 55 mm extension after the daystar reducer gives me about 0.5x at the sensor.


H-alpha: Baader D-ERF, Sharpstar 61 EDPH II, Altair Astro 102 f/7, Quark, reducer and ASI174mm.
White light: Baader ASSF 115, Sony SEL 200600G, Sony SEL20TC, Sony A7iii.
Images in AstroBin
Images in Flickr
Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

cmas wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:33 am I'd say that Daystar does not let you know everything. My reducer does not give 0.5x if I attach my 174mm directly to it as far as I am able to tell by comparing theoretical FOV and what I actually see. I find that adding about 55 mm extension after the daystar reducer gives me about 0.5x at the sensor.
Yes i have the feeling too. They state it will give a .33 reduction with the spacer, i doubt it but didnt research it either. One reason for me to say "i dont want to know how much it really reduces" is the fact that with the spacer i have already the corners of the chip not properly illuminated. Which means i wont go further anyways than that.
But 55mm after the reducer sounds huge to get to the 0.5x reduction..


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

I think all reducers are almost the same, because i bought an old 0.5x 2" reducer in the past, and the site mentioned or stated that using different extensions will give different reduction values, so this Daystar one won't be any difference then, and i think i don't need to buy the Daystar reducer as well.


TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

This is the one i bought, please check it out, is it matching this Daystar reducer as well? Also i am thinking about using it with my new telescope, the RC.

https://agenaastro.com/gso-2-0-5x-focal-reducer.html


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

TareqPhoto wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:19 pm This is the one i bought, please check it out, is it matching this Daystar reducer as well? Also i am thinking about using it with my new telescope, the RC.

https://agenaastro.com/gso-2-0-5x-focal-reducer.html

you cant use a 2 lens design standard reducer for reducing after a etalon like the quark. It will give you lots of spherical abberations.
Thats why i got the daystar reducer which is a 4 lens telecompressor. Its the counterpart to the baader telecompressor, only that it fits to the quark without mods. I dont see a cheap way to reduce properly behind a etalon.

here some results, not perfect, but i like them:
Attachments
0730_9_.png
0730_9_.png (2.67 MiB) Viewed 2974 times
0712_2__.png
0712_2__.png (2.91 MiB) Viewed 2974 times
0623_5__.png
0623_5__.png (2.73 MiB) Viewed 2974 times
620_6_non_apfr.png
620_6_non_apfr.png (2.58 MiB) Viewed 2974 times


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:04 pm
TareqPhoto wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:19 pm This is the one i bought, please check it out, is it matching this Daystar reducer as well? Also i am thinking about using it with my new telescope, the RC.

https://agenaastro.com/gso-2-0-5x-focal-reducer.html

you cant use a 2 lens design standard reducer for reducing after a etalon like the quark. It will give you lots of spherical abberations.
Thats why i got the daystar reducer which is a 4 lens telecompressor. Its the counterpart to the baader telecompressor, only that it fits to the quark without mods. I dont see a cheap way to reduce properly behind a etalon.

here some results, not perfect, but i like them:
Let's make things more clear please, because i feel we keep misunderstanding or mixing and confusing.

Why do you use the reducer anyway? If you use it because the Quark has telecompressor or barlow then my Quark is zero Barlow, so in this case i need a Barlow in fact, not a reducer.

What kind of reducer is that from Daystar and different than other reducers? It is 0.5x, so what are you talking about?

When do you use a reducer and when do you use a barlow or telecompressor?

What is Etalon? Quark has Etalon? If yes, then i have something wrong, i will buy a telescope in future that is a refractor with say F8 or F9 maybe, and if i know how to stop it down then it will be like F12 or F15, or i just use a focal extender because my Quark is no barlow, it is a combo version, and i am not interested now to buy an expensive frontal D-ERF for my Mak scope which is native F/15.

Please, make things more clear so i know what is going on, if you use that standard Quark then answer according to this, not according to Quark combo or Lunt DS or SolarMax, because i feel like i did a big mistake buying the Quark Combo version from the comments here and there.


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

sry if it was confusing. i use the standard quark with 4.3 telecentric in front. this is because i use a 150mm f/8 refractor and for the quark to work good you want to be at f/30 minimum. the reducer after the quark is useful because with the telecentric you will have a lot of magnification and sometimes you want to have more field of view.

the regular 2 lens reducer you can use well for most applications apart of this one. i tried it out and used it after the quark, but since the light is very parallel after the quarks telecentric, a regular reducer will introduce spherical abberations so the picture is not as good as it could be. thats why i use a 4 lens telecompressor like the daystar reducer.

you say you want to use a f8 refractor in the future, and that is working good with the quark. but since you have the combo version you need to add a telecentric barlow in front of the quark to get the system to f/30 or more.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:04 pm sry if it was confusing. i use the standard quark with 4.3 telecentric in front. this is because i use a 150mm f/8 refractor and for the quark to work good you want to be at f/30 minimum. the reducer after the quark is useful because with the telecentric you will have a lot of magnification and sometimes you want to have more field of view.

the regular 2 lens reducer you can use well for most applications apart of this one. i tried it out and used it after the quark, but since the light is very parallel after the quarks telecentric, a regular reducer will introduce spherical abberations so the picture is not as good as it could be. thats why i use a 4 lens telecompressor like the daystar reducer.

you say you want to use a f8 refractor in the future, and that is working good with the quark. but since you have the combo version you need to add a telecentric barlow in front of the quark to get the system to f/30 or more.
That last line is what i want to understand, what is a telecentric barlow?

So, if i add that telecentric barlow to get f/30 or more, will then Quark will be better? And why the Quark needs like f/30 or more to do better job than f/8 - f/20?

Now i am waiting the filter UV/IR cut to be delivered to me soon, i will use it with my ST80 [80/400 stopped down to i don't know maybe 60 f/10?], and i will use a cheap normal diagonal 2", so if i will use a barlow with that, where should i place that barlow, after the diagonal and before the Quark? and for the filter, should i place it on the diagonal by telescope side?


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

if you use it with less than f/25 there will be not much contrast on the suns surface to see. This is the reason the standard Quark has the telecentric 4.3x included.
As far as i understand a telecentric "barlow" will give out a more or less parallel lightcone which is necessary for the Quarkfilter to work good. Which means it should be placed directly in front of the comboquark. The 2" uv/ir cut filter goes in front of the 2" diagonal like shown on the daystar website.

i recommend to do some research about how all those things work, what you need and where it is placed, especially if you want to go for bigger apertures then 80mm or that mak.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:02 am if you use it with less than f/25 there will be not much contrast on the suns surface to see. This is the reason the standard Quark has the telecentric 4.3x included.
As far as i understand a telecentric "barlow" will give out a more or less parallel lightcone which is necessary for the Quarkfilter to work good. Which means it should be placed directly in front of the comboquark. The 2" uv/ir cut filter goes in front of the 2" diagonal like shown on the daystar website.

i recommend to do some research about how all those things work, what you need and where it is placed, especially if you want to go for bigger apertures then 80mm or that mak.
So if i buy something like telecentric Barlow 3x or 4x and use it with my Quark it will do the same job or not?

When you said front, do you mean front from the telescope side or front from the camera side? I was thinking to make the Quark as last piece directly to the camera, so i put all accessories like Barlow or UV/IR cut filter and ADC from the telescope, the only thing i might put after the Quark is that tilting adapter for it.

For the Mak it says i must need a frontal D-ERF filter, but i think for that size of Mak it will be so expensive.


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

"So if i buy something like telecentric Barlow 3x or 4x and use it with my Quark it will do the same job or not?"

yes. but once you found a telecentric model, ask again here if it will work before you buy it. just to make sure.

"When you said front, do you mean front from the telescope side or front from the camera side? I was thinking to make the Quark as last piece directly to the camera, so i put all accessories like Barlow or UV/IR cut filter and ADC from the telescope, the only thing i might put after the Quark is that tilting adapter for it."

from the telescope side. uv/ir cut filter -> 2" diagonal -> telecentric ->comboquark (-> tilter/reducer) ->camera.

"For the Mak it says i must need a frontal D-ERF filter, but i think for that size of Mak it will be so expensive."

yes, D-ERF filters are expensive, but necessary in this case. Otherwise you might damage the mak.


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 8:30 am "So if i buy something like telecentric Barlow 3x or 4x and use it with my Quark it will do the same job or not?"

yes. but once you found a telecentric model, ask again here if it will work before you buy it. just to make sure.

"When you said front, do you mean front from the telescope side or front from the camera side? I was thinking to make the Quark as last piece directly to the camera, so i put all accessories like Barlow or UV/IR cut filter and ADC from the telescope, the only thing i might put after the Quark is that tilting adapter for it."

from the telescope side. uv/ir cut filter -> 2" diagonal -> telecentric ->comboquark (-> tilter/reducer) ->camera.

"For the Mak it says i must need a frontal D-ERF filter, but i think for that size of Mak it will be so expensive."

yes, D-ERF filters are expensive, but necessary in this case. Otherwise you might damage the mak.
I already have Barlow and focal extender, i think my focal extender is the telecentric Barlow but not sure, and it is one of the best, i can say it is as same quality or even better than than built in telecentric of standard Quark.

Cool, now i know the order of putting things, thank you very much, i just want to know if i will buy a larger scope say just 120/127mm refractor does this need a front ERF or i can just use UV/IR cut filter with it, i am talking about the Quark, while for the Wedge and K-Line filter i think 120mm will be fine without anything.

I know i will damage the MAk without that ERF, i did read and i follow, i am not stupid doing something wrong dealing with the sun, that is why i didn't start using my Quark yet until i am done and ready and knowing enough.


Dennis
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Way More Fun to Share It!!
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:44 pm
Location: Germany
Has thanked: 2977 times
Been thanked: 2082 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by Dennis »

"Cool, now i know the order of putting things, thank you very much, i just want to know if i will buy a larger scope say just 120/127mm refractor does this need a front ERF or i can just use UV/IR cut filter with it, i am talking about the Quark, while for the Wedge and K-Line filter i think 120mm will be fine without anything."

Youre welcome.
I have not tried it out without front d-erf, so im not sure. I think Daystar says its ok with a 2" uv/ir cut on the diagonal.
But it is another question if this is a good idea from a perspective of performance. You might try it and judge for yourself.
If the quark gets too warm (especially in warm environments) it cant reach the right performance i guess.

Regards
Dennis


Triband C9.25
H-a: Quark Chromosphere with BF mod
WL: Antlia 500nm/ 3nm, 393 nm/ 3nm
Ca-K: homebrew (includes 2x 1.5A filters, thanks Apollo)
Player One Apollo Max + Mars MII
Barlows:
-2x Gerd Düring 2.7x
-2x TMB 1.8x
TareqPhoto
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:40 am
Location: Ajman, U.A.E.
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Issues with reducing image after Quark - opinions needed

Post by TareqPhoto »

Dennis wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 7:43 pm "Cool, now i know the order of putting things, thank you very much, i just want to know if i will buy a larger scope say just 120/127mm refractor does this need a front ERF or i can just use UV/IR cut filter with it, i am talking about the Quark, while for the Wedge and K-Line filter i think 120mm will be fine without anything."

Youre welcome.
I have not tried it out without front d-erf, so im not sure. I think Daystar says its ok with a 2" uv/ir cut on the diagonal.
But it is another question if this is a good idea from a perspective of performance. You might try it and judge for yourself.
If the quark gets too warm (especially in warm environments) it cant reach the right performance i guess.

Regards
Dennis
How about i don't warm it and let the heat of the sun do the job?


Post Reply