Jump to content


Photo

the ultra low end of video astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:58 AM

Used a 90mm C90, an eq2 mount, a $25 drive off ebay, and an unmodified Matrix DXB-9300EX black and white camera. Sens up on 64. All told $350 worth of gear.

Attached Files



#2 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10520
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:31 AM

Among extended objects, only the pretty bright stuff would seen to be accessible. Perhaps the eye can better see the fainter parts through an eyepiece on the same scope. If so, from this standpoint this is a step backward, at least for so-called 'live' viewing.

#3 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15408
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:23 AM

I don't think so. This image reveals the dark lanes in M43 as well as some faint streamers I'd bet were not seen visually. Good work. ;)

#4 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:33 AM

That is through a 3.5 inch mak sens up on half. What do expect from a 90mm f12? There is much more than the naked eyIe could see. If you view this in low light the nebula covers the whole image. just thought some here (c90 owners) might be interested.

#5 wcstarguy

wcstarguy

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:32 AM

I agree, there is more than my "old" naked eye can see through my C90 mak. I just received one of the Samsung SCB-2000 cameras and will use it with my mak, a st80, st120, XT8i(on eq platform) and a 4.5 Orion Imaging reflector when it arrives....guess I'll find out...when the weather and time cooperate.... :banjodance:

#6 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

Nice picture Alt, thank you for sharing it.

#7 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:07 AM

Nice picture Alt, thank you for sharing it. Shows good things can be done on low budget, thank you
Kasey

#8 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 10772
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:11 AM

90mm at f12 ... yikes. A cheap focal reducer would make a huge difference without having to mess with any other hardware.

Nice image, and taken alongside Mike Harveys "what does it really look like" posts helps folks visualize what an object might really look like through an eyepiece of larger scopes under different conditions.

#9 John59

John59

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 507
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Round Rock,TX

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:44 AM

Nice Job Atl! I love it when people get innovative and find plausible alternatives to our obsession...err hobby.

#10 mpgxsvcd

mpgxsvcd

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1949
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2011
  • Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:58 AM

Among extended objects, only the pretty bright stuff would seen to be accessible. Perhaps the eye can better see the fainter parts through an eyepiece on the same scope. If so, from this standpoint this is a step backward, at least for so-called 'live' viewing.


I have never seen that field of view and that much detail through a 90mm scope with an eye piece.

#11 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:58 PM

It actually is about what I see in my 12.5" dob with a 30mm eyepiece. I am working on getting a computerized CG5 mount...until then there is no harm in having fun with the "wrong" equipment. That is how innovation happens...making due with whats on hand. When the "right" equipment shows up I will know how to use it.

#12 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10520
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:42 PM

Well, on my screen only the very brightest parts of the nebulosity is seen. 50mm binos readily show the full spherical bubble of the outer parts of M42. My comment was not concerned with the detail revealed in the brighter parts, but the absence of the fainter bits which are readily seen in small apertures.

Of course, the long f/ratio is a serious impediment, and coupling to a fast scope will show much more. Please do try that; I'd love to see what the camera is capable of when there is a brighter image illuminating the detector. Then we may have a chance to surpass visual performance.

In this area of testing low light performance, low end cams should be pointed toward visually challenge objects, such as the Cave nebula (Sh2-155), or if that proves too difficult due to light pollution, perhaps the Rosette or North America. The latter two have surface brightness around 24 mag/arcsec^2, which is 10 magnitudes, or 10,000 times fainter than the brightest core of M42.

Images of such visually bright fare as the ever popular M42, M27 and m57 hardly constitute test objects for video camera performance. I sit up and take notice when a cheap camera can at least come close to revealing what can be seen by eye at the sky glow limit.

#13 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:58 PM

Well, on my screen only the very brightest parts of the nebulosity is seen. 50mm binos readily show the full spherical bubble of the outer parts of M42. My comment was not concerned with the detail revealed in the brighter parts, but the absence of the fainter bits which are readily seen in small apertures.



Alright...I find the overuse of sens up a bit messy looking, but last night I did a redo at 96x sens up with a 90mm C90 gated to f6. It is a bit messy for my taste, but here it is.

Attached Files



#14 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10520
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:34 PM

Now we're cooking with gas! The dark, narrow, slightly bent lineament of molecular material on the east (left) side of M43 has fainter illuminated gas just to *its* east. Once this bisecting dark cloud becomes readily apparent as such, with the continuance of M43's glow to its east, one knows the camera is reasonably capable. And at f/6, too, which is considered fairly slow for video of nebulosity.

I've been put well and truly in my place; cheers!

#15 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:55 AM

Here is M13 in Hercules...same equipment. Sens up 96x. I did sharpen and adjust and the contrast to darken the scan lines a little. This ate a few stars. This is more detail than the C90 at the eyepiece and on par with my 12.5" dob at the eyepiece.

Attached Files



#16 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:18 AM

Those are pretty good Alt and thru them all your stars are pretty found. You should try and color the M42. Hey I got that Diamond frame grabber and tried it yesterday, it worked really great with composite but could not get the S video to do anything but distortions and really screwy patterns??? Are you using S video on yours? Great pictures again Alt, thanks
Kasey

#17 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:47 AM

I am using only svideo. I would try another cable. Bad video cables cause distortion and even a new one could be bad. Failing that exchange the item but I would bet its a bad cable. It could also be a short in the camera but I doubt it. Try the grabber with a DVD player of known quality and narrow down the issue.

#18 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 17 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

I bought another cable, need to try it. What settings do you use on software for : VIDEO FORMAT &, RECORD? I am not sure which matches S-Video, thank you
Kasey

#19 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1017
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:20 PM

Hey Alt, the cable was the problem, good call.. But still have no clue which option to choose for VIDEO FORMAT & RECORD??
Thank you, Kasey

#20 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:16 PM

Install the capture software for the device, this program has options to select these things. Functionality with sharpcap and amcap is limited to software controls. The remote is made to work with its native software which is very good. It also works with deep sky imaging well.

#21 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:47 PM

M13 at f12. 200 frames stacked.

Attached Files



#22 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10520
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:50 PM

Not to be a nitpicker, but I was under the impression that post-processed images are not permitted here; only single frames as would be seen 'live' are allowed. Unless software solutions which automatically do these tasks 'on the fly' are acceptable? (But then, how long would it take for 200 multi-second exposures to stack? Would this lie within the realm of semi-live viewing?)

#23 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

That is why I noted it. In this case it was NOT live or semi live. It is purely processed. The video was 15 seconds and after separating the frames I selected 200 of the best. I wasn't aware there was a rule. If so I will respect it. Thanks for the input.

#24 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2054
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:17 AM

Yes Atl, it has been brought up many times in the past, but new people to This section wouldn't be aware of it.

Stacking constitutes 'imaging' which is another section in Cloudy nights.
The images people want to see in here are ones that show what the camera sees 'Live' (or what is actually Semi-Live).
That way they can see how a Camera performs in a 'Live' viewing situation.
Imagine having an electronic eye to look in your telescope with. That's what we show in here.

The rule is probably buried a couple of hundred threads back :lol:

EDIT: This will give you an idea: http://www.cloudynig...4232772/page...

#25 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:38 AM

One interesting thing I have noted is that the videos actually look better than individual frames...even if the frames in question were extracted from the video. Maybe posting video is the truest representation. So to set things straight here is the "live" version of the same image like the other images taken with the C90. I am finding that the issue with the diminuative C90 is finding the object in the eyepiece. Compared to my dob it is like looking through an opaque piece of glass. Getting the image on video once I have it centered in the eyepiece is easy. The camera enhances things substantially.

Attached Files








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics