Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Electronically Assisted Astronomy

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)
Stew57
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/03/09

Loc: Silsbee Texas
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: David B in NM]
      #5217012 - 05/11/12 12:06 PM

I really like the program. I even emailed the creator about the NSN problem. The short of it is if you have it installed NSN will not work, not just running but just installed. You have to uninstall the program for NSN to start working sgain. If one has no intention of never broadcasting on NSN then I see that as a fantastic solution for mallincam users. If someone has comeup with a solution recently I would be interested.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David B in NM
sage
*****

Reged: 09/05/10

Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Stew57]
      #5217028 - 05/11/12 12:15 PM

OK. I'm sorry to hear that. I still haven't ventured to view NSN. Hopefully there will be a fix for it.

I'm not aware of any other program.

DSS Live will also work "alone" with a DSLR or CCD camera if you have either of them.

David B in NM


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stew57
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/03/09

Loc: Silsbee Texas
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: David B in NM]
      #5217050 - 05/11/12 12:27 PM

I just downloaded dss live and am playing with it as I am rained out at work.

thanks


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Chris A
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/03/07

Loc: Toronto, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: David B in NM]
      #5217200 - 05/11/12 01:52 PM

David, I have done and showed this live on NSN countless of times using MC Control software or Deep Sky Imager, DSS Live and WebcamMax using my MCX and it works very well for live stacking.

Chris A


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Chris A
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/03/07

Loc: Toronto, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Stew57]
      #5217207 - 05/11/12 01:55 PM

Mark yes this is true and I have deleted Deep Sky Imager completely from my PC and just use instead MC Control SW. I tried a year ago to contact Steve about it and he did not respond. I just chalked up the $40.00 as a loss.

Chris A


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dwight J
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 05/14/09

Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Chris A]
      #5217283 - 05/11/12 02:33 PM Attachment (48 downloads)

Since there was a dirth of 7 sec and 14 sec images I thought I would add these that I took last night. M 27 wasn't all that high up yet but I didn't want to be up all night. All images taken with a Mallincam Extreme on a C14 @ ~ F4.5 or so and IDAS LPS filter. I didn't calculate the exact f ratio but the configuration was an inch and a quarter visual back threaded onto a Meade 3.3 focal reducer. I took 7, 14, and 90 second exposures and recorded them to DVD using a stand alone DVD recorder. We were viewing the images on a 32 inch CRT TV. No computers were used until I inserted the DVD into my laptop today to do the screen captures using PrintScreen and Paint to save as JPEGs. I cropped them in Photoshop so that is all the processing they had. They looked much better live on the TV. I threw in the 90 second exposure just to show the optimum image we were able to acquire. A 2 min exposure started burning out the brighter parts. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Edited by Dwight J (05/11/12 02:59 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dwight J
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 05/14/09

Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Dwight J]
      #5217285 - 05/11/12 02:34 PM Attachment (43 downloads)

The 14 second exposure.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dwight J
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 05/14/09

Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Dwight J]
      #5217290 - 05/11/12 02:35 PM Attachment (44 downloads)

And the 90 second.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Lorence
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/15/08

Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: ensign]
      #5217304 - 05/11/12 02:46 PM

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."





Mike. Video Astronomers are few in number as are Video Astronomy Forums. It seems to me that anything done with a Video camera would be of interest to most of the users of this group. Live viewing or imaging turned inside out by Photoshop.

It's not mandatory to read every message in every thread. Most of us are capable of skipping over a thread if it's not interesting.

Rather than some moderator enforcing the law why not leave it up to the users of the group to decide what is relevant or not.

From what I've seen none of the users have ever complained about thread content. No complaints = no moderation required.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Chris A
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/03/07

Loc: Toronto, Canada
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Dwight J]
      #5217337 - 05/11/12 03:07 PM

Very nice images of M27 Dwight thank you for sharing them

Chris A


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mpgxsvcd
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Chris A]
      #5217365 - 05/11/12 03:21 PM

Here is something I didn't think about. The person bringing the Mailincam backed out tonight solely because the rest of the club voiced concerns over him being able to shield the monitor. He uses the same CRT monitor that everyone else uses. I forget the name of it though.

Is the monitor really that bright? Can it be shielded with a larger Red Filter?

Edited by mpgxsvcd (05/11/12 03:23 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stew57
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/03/09

Loc: Silsbee Texas
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5217389 - 05/11/12 03:33 PM

Yes it can be shielded. Some make a "light booth" just for the monitor. I usually set up as the only scope so there is no light police to worry with. Even the guests seem to like that better. Anyway it is no different than what the imagers have to do.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dragon Man
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/07/06

Loc: Snake Valley, Australia
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Lorence]
      #5217743 - 05/11/12 07:46 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."





Mike. Video Astronomers are few in number as are Video Astronomy Forums. It seems to me that anything done with a Video camera would be of interest to most of the users of this group. Live viewing or imaging turned inside out by Photoshop.

It's not mandatory to read every message in every thread. Most of us are capable of skipping over a thread if it's not interesting.

Rather than some moderator enforcing the law why not leave it up to the users of the group to decide what is relevant or not.

From what I've seen none of the users have ever complained about thread content. No complaints = no moderation required.




and makes my job easier


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ensign
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/16/08

Loc: Southwestern Ontario
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Dragon Man]
      #5219292 - 05/12/12 08:30 PM

Don't want to make anyone's job harder. My intention was to capture the essence of what we're trying to do here and be as inclusive of as many folks as possible. Seems to me that it doesn't matter so much what technology you use, the main idea is to take advantage of the greater reach of electronically assisted observing without slaving over a hot computer for hours.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jimb1001
sage
*****

Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: Florida
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: ensign]
      #5219679 - 05/13/12 03:05 AM

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."




Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ensign
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/16/08

Loc: Southwestern Ontario
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: jimb1001]
      #5220287 - 05/13/12 01:34 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."




Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.






Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jimb1001
sage
*****

Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: Florida
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: ensign]
      #5221209 - 05/14/12 01:02 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."




Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.






Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.




Gee, first off, it sounded like you proposing rules, to me.

Second, this is the friendliest forum on the internet. I've never seen anyone using "Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy" excluded or made to feel unwelcome.

Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?

And now, lastly, there's no "debating team" mentality here. AT least that I have seen. If someone take exception to something said, as I did to your wish to have "rules" about integration times, they'll state their case and let you respond. As I believe I did.

That's not a debate. Its simply expressing an opinion. The fact that it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it a "debate".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ensign
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 12/16/08

Loc: Southwestern Ontario
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: jimb1001]
      #5221540 - 05/14/12 09:43 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."




Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.






Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.




Gee, first off, it sounded like you proposing rules, to me.

Second, this is the friendliest forum on the internet. I've never seen anyone using "Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy" excluded or made to feel unwelcome.

Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?

And now, lastly, there's no "debating team" mentality here. AT least that I have seen. If someone take exception to something said, as I did to your wish to have "rules" about integration times, they'll state their case and let you respond. As I believe I did.

That's not a debate. Its simply expressing an opinion. The fact that it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it a "debate".




OK OK

You win.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Vondragonnoggin
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 02/21/10

Loc: Southern CA, USA
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: ensign]
      #5221561 - 05/14/12 09:56 AM

Quote:


OK OK

You win.

--------------------
- Mike





That was a good response. (note - need to take forum lesson from ensign)



(if you read through the whole thread, you'll see why I need the lesson)

Edited by Vondragonnoggin (05/14/12 09:59 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dragon Man
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 03/07/06

Loc: Snake Valley, Australia
Re: Mallincam Alternative-Digital new [Re: Vondragonnoggin]
      #5221839 - 05/14/12 12:34 PM

Quote:


Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?






Mike would be referring to some of the folks in the Eyepiece Forum, who refuse to see V&EAA as a form of 'Observing', and some of the folks in the Imaging Forums who refuse to see it as any form of Imaging.

So we float along happily in our own Limbo


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)


Extra information
6 registered and 15 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  droid, David Pavlich, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 12410

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics