Quote:Sometimes I come early to threads. Sometimes late. Sometimes I get the last word in. Sometimes not...
Nytecam 51N 0.1W Meade 30cm LX200 astrograph+C8+Ha+CaK PSTs+spectrographs SX M9+Lodestar-C+M CCDs/Canon 1100D DSLR My Meade astrograph-colour deepsky My supernova discovery My dome build/spectroscopes/DSO images/Lodestar colour images & videos
Quote:I am specifically interested in lodestar - C, superstar - C, Atik Titan, Atik 420-c, Atik 314e, or Atik 314l+ color comparisons. Particularly the Atik Titan or Lodestar -c as it uses larger pixels, are cooled, and the Atik Titan does 15fps along with long exposure or short exposure and uses class 1 HAD Sony chip with larger pixels.I think that would be a better comparison.
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Quote:An interesting idea, and worth a try as long as you understand that the Canon will not have sensitivity even approaching that of a Mallincam or Stellacam.
Quote:This has been a fascinating thread to read, although it is probably dead and buried by now. Having used "live view" on a Rebel T3 as an assist in detecting Comet 2011/L4 PanSTARRS at a school outreach event, I am researching the options for a more continuous "live view". Apparently Magic Lantern firmware can achieve that for the Canon but I worry about over-heating. Conceptually, watching a screen and seeing an image of the heavens (in color) get more detailed and go deeper the longer I look is similar to patient and painstaking visual observing, except with CCD and CMOS sensors the signal/noise can improve with time over what the human eye can achieve. On-line stacking, and in-camera integration (which can be done with L3CCD and EMCCDs as well as security cameras with sense-up) are just two methods attempting the same signal out of noise optimization. There are papers on on-line blind deconvolution (Stefan Harmeling et al at the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics) that suggest an even better way - star images are convolved with a time varying point-spread function (optics + seeing) and it is possible with a stream of images to get at the underlying stars (like lucky imaging but using all images). Thus the visual experience (looking at the monitor) would be to see clearer and more point-like stars (and more detailed extended objects) as processing progressed. Now these methods are looking for the underlying "truth" of the astronomical objects rather than looking for some subjective pretty picture. A truth that all properly-functioning deconvolvers would agree on. IMHO this is what this forum should be about. Finding some parallel to visual observing in real-time (while viewing the objects in question rather than at some later date) using whatever electronic/computer processing assist gets us there.
Quote:Quote:I am specifically interested in lodestar - C, superstar - C, Atik Titan, Atik 420-c, Atik 314e, or Atik 314l+ color comparisons. Particularly the Atik Titan or Lodestar -c as it uses larger pixels, are cooled, and the Atik Titan does 15fps along with long exposure or short exposure and uses class 1 HAD Sony chip with larger pixels.I think that would be a better comparison.I would have to agree. I have a mono ATIK 428Ex and use ATIK's Artemis capture software. Similar integration/exposure times with the above hardware/software combo yield better images than my MCX; not color but much better image quality, no amp glow, no weird blown out stars and controlled cooling!I will be quite interested in the quality off the MC Universe which, at the moment, I simply view as yet another CCD with software preview... which is what I currently have.
Quote:Quote:An interesting idea, and worth a try as long as you understand that the Canon will not have sensitivity even approaching that of a Mallincam or Stellacam. So exactly what is the sensitivity of the Canon camera? We know the sensitivity of the Mallincam. However, there are no equivalent measurements for the other cameras. All you have is an ISO value.I find it interesting that so many people claim that the Mallincam is many many times more sensitive than everything else without knowing how sensitive those other cameras actually are. I don't doubt that the Mallincam is more sensitive. I do doubt that the Mallincam is 6 times or more as sensitive as some of the claims that I have seen state.