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 | (show all)
Jay B
super member
*****

Reged: 07/15/08

Loc: Richmond, Virginia USA
Why use video over CCD cameras for visual??
      #5673252 - 02/10/13 10:56 PM

Hi
I am interested in video astronomy. I just go a focal reducer and was playing around with an imaging source dbk camera I use for planetary imaging. I am pleased with my initial results. I was able to reduce exposures to 10 seconds without to much noise. The orion nebula looked nice! Way more than visual!!!. The same with the crab nebula. My question is: why not just use something like my imaging source camera or a dedicated CCD imaging camera with 6 second to 40 seconds or so exposure rather than a video camera for viewing? Video cameras require extra steps for frame grabbing etc. Plus I would guess that some of the CCD camera have more sensitive/better chips-especially for the price. Am I missing something here?
Thanks for input and opinions.

Jay


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mclewis1
Thread Killer
*****

Reged: 02/25/06

Loc: New Brunswick, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5673284 - 02/10/13 11:19 PM

Jay,

The best quality images from a video camera are usually seen on directly connected video monitors but some frame grabber/PC combinations can rival these images. The frame grabber does introduce an extra step and it can impose some visual artifacts but there are many other benefits on the video side.

The sensors used in many video cameras actually tend to be more sensitive than what's used for solar system imaging (to start with many use CYMG vs. RGB masks). Many of the video cameras are built for longer exposure capabilities with a lot of additional noise reduction capabilities (like cooling).

If you look at the security oriented video cameras they probably compare quite closely with many of the solar system cameras (exposure wise, noise wise, etc.), but if you look at the purpose built astro video cameras (Mallincams, StellaCams, etc.) then you'll find quite a few differences.

You mentioned being able to work at 10 second exposures without too much noise. With many purpose built video cameras you're just starting out at 10 seconds, they are designed to minimize noise when exposing for many 10s of seconds to many minutes.

You can certainly do a lot with the latest solar system oriented cameras (much better than visual), they have certainly improved a lot in the past few years, but you can usually do even more with many of the purpose built video cameras (albeit at a higher price).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5673681 - 02/11/13 09:31 AM

Quote:

Hi
I am interested in video astronomy. I just go a focal reducer and was playing around with an imaging source dbk camera I use for planetary imaging.




Well, other types of cameras can work somewhat, as you've discovered, but the Mallincams are designed for this. Unlike the planetary camera, they are cooled to reduce noise, and can go way past 10-seconds. They are also much more sensitive than CCD cameras, with small chips with large pixels.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5673772 - 02/11/13 10:23 AM

Well, a ccd camera having the same ccd(icx429) , functioning at the same f-ratio would have the same sensitivy. There is no magic here. You can't create photon from nothing. Well, except if you have a emccd.Personnaly i took the ccd approach because its way way more cheaper and morebversatile.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jambi99]
      #5674467 - 02/11/13 05:08 PM

Quote:

Well, a ccd camera having the same ccd(icx429) , functioning at the same f-ratio would have the same sensitivy. There is no magic here. You can't create photon from nothing. Well, except if you have a emccd.Personnaly i took the ccd approach because its way way more cheaper and morebversatile.




That's true....EXCEPT (there's always that catch)...there are not many CCD cameras with this chip, and none with video output, and none with Rock's mild cooler. Other than that...though...yeah...

More versatile? Maybe, maybe not. As sensitive? Nope.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nytecam
Postmaster


Reged: 08/20/05

Loc: London UK
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jambi99]
      #5674469 - 02/11/13 05:09 PM

Quote:

Well, a ccd camera having the same ccd(icx429) , functioning at the same f-ratio would have the same sensitivy. There is no magic here. You can't create photon from nothing. Well, except if you have a emccd.Personnaly i took the ccd approach because its way way more cheaper and morebversatile.


Well said - it's an ever-perpetuated myth that video is more sensitive than CCD cams using the same, often Sony, sensor - it ain't so CCD cams only need a USB laptop connection for power and control and the laptop is all I carry to the scope - the cam hasn't moved for months and rarely needs a focus tweak but I do have the luxury of a dome as avatar. Check out my gallery

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay B
super member
*****

Reged: 07/15/08

Loc: Richmond, Virginia USA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: nytecam]
      #5674866 - 02/11/13 09:56 PM

Thanks for the infor. I understand that my imaging source camera, a planetary imaging camera, will not compare to a mallicam extreme. However I will reframe my question:
Why would a mallicam be any better than a comparable priced ( or lesser priced) CCD cooled camera made for deep sky imaging? For example, orion starshoot pro V20 at $1200 ( a little cheaper) which can go from .002 seconds over 9 hours.

http://www.telescope.com/Orion-StarShoot-Pro-V20-Deep-Space-Color-CCD-Imaging... camera


It seem that some of the pictures I see with the mallicam are already "pushing the limit" of real time. In other words, why would a mallicam extreme capture at say 30 seconds be in better than a dedicated CCD camera at 30 second with the same scope? Has anyoe done any comparisons using the same telescope etc.

Edited by Jay B (02/11/13 10:13 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5674913 - 02/11/13 10:23 PM

I think Orion G3 most resembles some video imagers referred here.
See this CN thread.
Unfortunately, its software side isn't so good so no further info on its near-realtime mode.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello


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

Reged: 05/14/09

Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5674919 - 02/11/13 10:26 PM

Part of the reason Jay is that the Mallincam Extreme is not a 6.1 megapixel chip. It is much smaller and boasts larger pixels, not necessarily desirable for a CCD imager. The large pixels are more sensitive so a 30 second shootout would be no contest. CCD cameras need to have the image processed to show color. I just sold both of my CCD cameras as they were just not used once I bought a Mallincam VSS. If CCD cameras worked so well for "near real time" viewing no one would have bought a Mallincam, Samsung, etc. You don't need a ton of equipment either. When I am out in a dark sky area I control the mount using SkySafari and plug the camera (which runs on 12V) into a battery powered TV. The iPod controls the scope and plays the tunes as well. If you want to do imaging get a CCD camera designed for that purpose. For near real time a camera designed for that reason will perform better. I can get M27 in 7 seconds in color in the Mallincam whereas it barely shows in a noisy 20 sec monochrome CCD image. I am sure, given the recent flavoring of this forum, that someone who thinks they are smarter than I am will say it ain't so. I am relying on experience with both and once I saw jaw-dropping images from the Mallincam, I had to have one. Just call me a fan-boy.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5674929 - 02/11/13 10:35 PM

Quote:

... For example, orion starshoot pro V20 at $1200 ( a little cheaper) which can go from .002 seconds over 9 hours...




Have to say this is a funny example or coincidence . That imager is almost identical w/ MC Universe except that
1) the latter claimed to have a hyper circuit
2) the latter has a custom software to address near-realtime viewing mode
3) the latter claimed the image sensor used is special <-- picture on that sensor invited

I believe that topic also has been discussed.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5674950 - 02/11/13 10:49 PM

Following camera would be perfect:

Orion StartShoot II (cooled)
Meade DSI II
StarLigth Xpress LodeStar-C
BrightStar Mammut (cooled)

What they have in common ? Yes, exview color sensor...

The first two one can be found used and under 300$. I just
got a StarShoot II for 250 $ and the camera is only 3 or 4 years old. Personally and compared to the price of the mallincam, its a steal.

Don't get me wrong, i think the mallincam work very well. But for the price difference i just don't see the point. Also, i don't understand people that are so allergic to use a laptops on the field. You can get a decent small netbook with 9" screen for200$. Its about the same price has a good quality lcd screen and its about the same size. Plus,you can use the netbook for other stuff.



Edited by jambi99 (02/11/13 10:52 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay B
super member
*****

Reged: 07/15/08

Loc: Richmond, Virginia USA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: ccs_hello]
      #5674951 - 02/11/13 10:50 PM

Maurice
I checked out your gallery with the lodestar. Very impressive. It looks like you are doing what I was wondering about. Dwight and other folks thanks for your kind input. Good feedback on this thread so far. I also appreciate the last post above which has specific camera suggestions-awesome.
Jay

Edited by Jay B (02/11/13 10:55 PM)


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


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jambi99]
      #5674954 - 02/11/13 10:56 PM

Quote:

Also, i don't understand people that are so allergic to use a laptops on the field. You can get a decent small netbook with 9" screen for200$. Its about the same price has a good quality lcd screen and its about the same size. Plus,you can use the netbook for other stuff.






Because there are a lot of visual observers out there that will not appreciate the laptop and the light it produces as much as you do.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5674961 - 02/11/13 11:06 PM

Quote:

...
Because there are a lot of visual observers out there that will not appreciate the laptop and the light it produces as much as you do.



Hmmm... that's strange. Isn't that video monitor also produces light pollution as well ??

P.S. mount-side laptop can be operated with lid closed while being remote viewed using VNC.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5674964 - 02/11/13 11:12 PM

Just use a Night (red) windows themes and a black desktop background. Red light is soft on the eyes.You can also set the brightness to a lower level.Its just a 9" screen.Also, you can use these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MsRA1Wq0IY

Edited by jambi99 (02/11/13 11:14 PM)


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


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jambi99]
      #5674973 - 02/11/13 11:18 PM

Quote:

Just use a Night (red) windows themes and a black desktop background. Red light is soft on the eyes.You can also set the brightness to a lower level.Its just a 9" screen.Also, you can use these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MsRA1Wq0IY




Wow I like the privacy filter. I need to get that. With a lapdome that would be perfect. Thanks for the link. Where can you buy it?


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


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: ccs_hello]
      #5674976 - 02/11/13 11:21 PM

Quote:

Quote:

...
Because there are a lot of visual observers out there that will not appreciate the laptop and the light it produces as much as you do.



Hmmm... that's strange. Isn't that video monitor also produces light pollution as well ??

P.S. mount-side laptop can be operated with lid closed while being remote viewed using VNC.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello




Easier said than done if you don't have an internet connection where you are observing. Also some observers don't like ANY extra light pollution at all.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5674988 - 02/11/13 11:30 PM

They are widely available.You can get them from staples:
http://www.staples.ca/en/Privacy-Filters/cat_CL200495_2-CA_1_20001

Pretty sure you could get them for cheaper somewhere else.

However and to be honest, i didn't get one my self yet. So, i can't confirm it will work well on the field. But base on the video, i think its worth giving it a try..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mattflastro
Vendor - Astrovideo Systems


Reged: 07/31/09

Loc: Brevard County , FL
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: Jay B]
      #5675006 - 02/11/13 11:46 PM

Quote:

Hi
I am interested in video astronomy. I just go a focal reducer and was playing around with an imaging source dbk camera I use for planetary imaging. I am pleased with my initial results. I was able to reduce exposures to 10 seconds without to much noise. The orion nebula looked nice! Way more than visual!!!. The same with the crab nebula. My question is: why not just use something like my imaging source camera or a dedicated CCD imaging camera with 6 second to 40 seconds or so exposure rather than a video camera for viewing? Video cameras require extra steps for frame grabbing etc. Plus I would guess that some of the CCD camera have more sensitive/better chips-especially for the price. Am I missing something here?
Thanks for input and opinions.

Jay



What exact Imaging Source camera model are you using ?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mattflastro
Vendor - Astrovideo Systems


Reged: 07/31/09

Loc: Brevard County , FL
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: ccs_hello]
      #5675025 - 02/12/13 12:01 AM

Quote:

Quote:

... For example, orion starshoot pro V20 at $1200 ( a little cheaper) which can go from .002 seconds over 9 hours...




Have to say this is a funny example or coincidence . That imager is almost identical w/ MC Universe except that
1) the latter claimed to have a hyper circuit
2) the latter has a custom software to address near-realtime viewing mode
3) the latter claimed the image sensor used is special <-- picture on that sensor invited

I believe that topic also has been discussed.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello



Simple and short question, what is in reality behind the Hyper circuit _name_ ? IT's just a name, but whatever circuitry bears that name could be groundbreaking or could be trivial. Until we find out, it's just another marketing name for an analog front end .


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5675041 - 02/12/13 12:14 AM

Video monitor also shines lights, not just computer monitor .

WiFi can be setup without Internet involved.


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


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: ccs_hello]
      #5675073 - 02/12/13 12:42 AM

Quote:

Video monitor also shines lights, not just computer monitor .

WiFi can be setup without Internet involved.




Right and that is why nothing is allowed in some places.

Not sure how wifi without internet helps you get rid of the monitor for video viewing? Or am I missing something?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5675403 - 02/12/13 08:39 AM

re: Not sure how wifi without internet helps you get rid of the monitor for video viewing?

Remoting the mount-side device is the key (thru wireless, e.g., WiFi.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5675455 - 02/12/13 09:37 AM

If you want to find out, you might try actually using a Mallincam.

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


Reged: 12/21/11

Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5675552 - 02/12/13 10:31 AM

Quote:

If you want to find out, you might try actually using a Mallincam.




I did. Not sure how to use it with wifi and without internet though? Seems pointless to hook it up to a computer with wires and then broadcast it to another computer that is not on the net.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5675740 - 02/12/13 12:25 PM

Quote:


I did. Not sure how to use it with wifi and without internet though? Seems pointless to hook it up to a computer with wires and then broadcast it to another computer that is not on the net.




I'm not sure what you used, but neither wi-fi nor Internet is needed to run a Mallincam.

If you want to broadcast over the Internet, you do need an Internet connection, but you can also record your images for later broadcast. Or just view them on the monitor, or record them for viewing later at home on a computer or big screen TV. You don't even need a computer to do that.

In any event, none of that has a thing to do with the cameras' hyper circuitry.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mclewis1
Thread Killer
*****

Reged: 02/25/06

Loc: New Brunswick, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5675888 - 02/12/13 01:42 PM

Quote:

Simple and short question, what is in reality behind the Hyper circuit _name_ ? IT's just a name, but whatever circuitry bears that name could be groundbreaking or could be trivial. Until we find out, it's just another marketing name for an analog front end .



Matt,

Just a name for Rock's low noise, high gain exposure management system. It appears it's been used in one form or another on every Mallincam (with the exception of the Jr.) that offered more than the 128x 2.1s integration time. Interestingly that includes the new Universe camera which is not a video camera and therefore very different from the "traditional" Mallincam's. This "Hyper" circuitry has been one of the clearest benefits and differentiators over other similar video cameras.

The circuitry and it's capabilities have certainly evolved over time. The original Mallincam Hyper model offered 6 and 12s integration (and this seems to have been the first time the term "Hyper" had been used), then 7/14/28/56s with the Hyper Plus model. The VSS uses a pot instead of switches to change the amount of integration and offers a total of something like 140s. The Xtreme offers even better granularity and a longer total time (999 seconds which maybe an arbitrary limit from the wireless remote and PC software).

It's also interesting that he has increased the amount of integration at the request of his customers but his own interest clearly lies with less than 30s times. My assumption is that his video cameras remain optimized for integration times of something less than 60s but are obviously capable of far longer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mclewis1]
      #5676030 - 02/12/13 03:06 PM

I have had excellent results with longer exposure times, as have other users. It's not so much a matter of them not being "optimum," so much as not being needed. 60-seconds will easily bring back scads of LEDA galaxies, and the camera is sensitive enough that over 30-second exposures begin to be problematical because of light pollution unless you are at a good dark site.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: nytecam]
      #5676370 - 02/12/13 06:01 PM

I already watched your gallery numerous time. Actually, thats what made me take the ccd route.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mattflastro
Vendor - Astrovideo Systems


Reged: 07/31/09

Loc: Brevard County , FL
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5676542 - 02/12/13 08:30 PM

Quote:

I have had excellent results with longer exposure times, as have other users. It's not so much a matter of them not being "optimum," so much as not being needed. 60-seconds will easily bring back scads of LEDA galaxies, and the camera is sensitive enough that over 30-second exposures begin to be problematical because of light pollution unless you are at a good dark site.



Unfortunately that's almost an undestatement about light pollution .
I used to think 20 years ago that my Florida skies were light polluted because I couldn't see the Milky Way (except when hurricanes hit and power went out).
Now I think they're light polluted because I can barely see a few stars .
Now I _wish_ I could have those light polluted skies of 20 years ago .
Probably light pollution is one more reason to use video over visual .
Light pollution filters could be used to cut skyglow , in conjunction with longer integration times to bring in dim objects. Can't do that visually to the same extent as video.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jambi99
sage


Reged: 08/14/10

Loc: Québec, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5676578 - 02/12/13 08:51 PM

Bingo...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jay B
super member
*****

Reged: 07/15/08

Loc: Richmond, Virginia USA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5676784 - 02/12/13 11:17 PM

For the question above, I am experimenting with the DBK 618 imaging source camera. As soon as the weather clears, I will try it again, and I will try to post some examples of what I am able to get with this camera - in semi rural skys using a 9.25 celestron cpc.

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

Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: Florida
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5676928 - 02/13/13 01:26 AM

I find that just outside Tampa I can't use more than 15-20 seconds before the sky glow washes everything out.
Lots and lots of things to look at with 15 seconds, though.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jimb1001]
      #5677160 - 02/13/13 07:51 AM

Yep...15-seconds is my usual exposure here, but I can push it to 30-seconds - 1-minute in parts of the sky, so I guess I'm pretty lucky.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TimP
member


Reged: 02/24/09

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mpgxsvcd]
      #5680245 - 02/14/13 09:26 PM

Quote:

Quote:

If you want to find out, you might try actually using a Mallincam.




I did. Not sure how to use it with wifi and without internet though? Seems pointless to hook it up to a computer with wires and then broadcast it to another computer that is not on the net.




The vast majority of Mallincam users don't broadcast on the internet. I no longer setup near visual observers unless there is a designated area for the video guys. Frankly I lost my patience with the faint and fuzzies in light polluted skies. I used to hear guys say " There you see it" I would always say, um no. Now since I started video observing I don't have to guess at what I'm looking at. There it is popping out of the screen in color. I have many ways to setup my observing for the night. I can opt to just hook my Vizio LED directly to the camera and use the buttons on the back of the cam to control it and share with my neighbors or I can setup my laptop. There is a learning curve but you will have that in almost everything you do.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: TimP]
      #5680422 - 02/14/13 11:29 PM

I think the topic of
- where to place the display device (local or remotely),
- if viewed remotely, use wired or wireless method (e.g., coax cable, modulated analog video RF signal, long Ethernet cable, super-long USB extender cable, WiFi, etc.),
- how to get the video/image displayed on that display device <-- the signal format (baseband analog video, HDMI, SDI, USB, Firewire, packetized image format, etc.) and
- what type of display device to choose from (a video monitor, a TV, a large screen projector, a local laptop screen, the back of a digital camera --> its own tiny LCD screen, remotely seeing the images/video using another PC, smartphone, or iPad, or even broadcast it over the Internet and let many "watch" simultaneously.)

probably isn't what the OP was looking for in the first place.

All kind of combinations and many possibilities. And almost all of them can be applied to video or CCD imager one way or another, if you are creative .

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ccs_hello
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/03/04

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5680456 - 02/14/13 11:59 PM

Quote:

...
Now I think they're light polluted because I can barely see a few stars .
Now I _wish_ I could have those light polluted skies of 20 years ago .
Probably light pollution is one more reason to use video over visual .
Light pollution filters could be used to cut skyglow , in conjunction with longer integration times to bring in dim objects. Can't do that visually to the same extent as video.




To further drill down Matt's statement:
Probably light pollution is one more reason to use video over visual .

I think the desirable attributes are
- high gain imaging devices (I am not talking just the sensor itself, but the downstream signal chain, post-the-image-sensor),
- low noise (especially when the image system is in the high gain mode) and proper image processing to make the resulted (frequently updated) images visually appealing,
- need long exposure to gather enough photons, but not super long in which light pollution will ruin it,
- need "fast" telescope optics (including use focal reducer) to concentrate photon flux
- and maybe more secondary attributes, e.g. ease of use, even a caveman... , self-contained unit (one piece, two, three, four ... pieces), cost, leadtime, power consumption, higher spatial resolution, larger FoV coverage, high S/N, better customer service, more followers (less risks if market crashes), "device looks beautiful", (add more of your own wishes here) ...

There is no single product that can win out in all attributes. Heck, even some popular vendors here offer different type of devices for different needs.

I would just replace the word "video" with "Video and Electronically Assisted Technologies", as this forum's title says.
Probably light pollution is one more reason to use "Video and Electronically Assisted Technologies" over visual (visually observing).

P.S. apology to the Image Intensifier folks here. These have even higher gain than regular CCD based image devices thus long exposure (even 1 second accumulation) is not required.

Clear Skies!

ccs_hello


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jgraham
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/02/04

Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Soci...
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: ccs_hello]
      #5681049 - 02/15/13 10:08 AM

"I would just replace the word "video" with "Video and Electronically Assisted Technologies", as this forum's title says."

Exactly. I do quite a mix of visual, imaging, and camera-assisted observing from my red-zone back yard. (Naked-eye I can typucally see stars in the magnitude 3-4ish range.) On the camera-assisted observing side of things I just love how versatile is is, how deep I can go (down to around 18th magnitude using 60 second exposures), and how much detail I can see, all from the comfort of my house. However, the camera-assisted observing experience is still different than the visual observing experience and whereas I do most of my camera-assisted observing with a 6" scope I have a 16" and a 16.5" scope for visual. I also find that the two observing styles compliment each other wonderfully well. I have yet to see a camera of any kind that can capture the true colors and subtle (often very subtle) beauty of the true visual image, yet at the same time the camera-assisted image captures so much more detail it often tells me exactly where to look for details that visually I otherwise would have missed.

Neat stuff.


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

Reged: 07/09/10

Loc: Marin County, CA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mattflastro]
      #5686249 - 02/18/13 12:08 AM

You know, It sounds like there are some folks in this thread that really don't know much about video vs ccd imaging or at least they don't want to. The difficult science has already been spelled out for noobs to understand. Small chip big pixels, uber sensitivity. Big chip small pixels lower sensitivity. Some big CCD's can do binning, it helps but still not as sensitive. Time to stop considering, put your money where your mouth is, dream your own dreams, goodbye. I'm going outside to grab some nice colorful galaxies in 30s-60s without hardly trying. Hope your new equipment is the wise choice made after looking at more sites than this one. They are easy to find, Just look in most peoples signatures for the product names.

Rossmon to you


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

Reged: 11/22/11

Loc: Mendon, MA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: jambi99]
      #5692420 - 02/21/13 09:45 AM

Quote:


Don't get me wrong, i think the mallincam work very well. But for the price difference i just don't see the point. Also, i don't understand people that are so allergic to use a laptops on the field. You can get a decent small netbook with 9" screen for200$. Its about the same price has a good quality lcd screen and its about the same size. Plus,you can use the netbook for other stuff.






One problem with net books and the MallinCam is the program for MallinCam need 600 vertical pixels. Cheap net books all use a 1024x576 LCD. You have to scroll the MallinCam program up to get to the dialog button everytime use change something. Yucks! Otherwise, yeah cheap; I have four of them!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mclewis1
Thread Killer
*****

Reged: 02/25/06

Loc: New Brunswick, Canada
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: MRNUTTY]
      #5692440 - 02/21/13 09:55 AM

John,

Try Tom Veik's Mallincam Xtreme control program. It is nice and compact and works very well. There's no integrated video so you'll also need to run something like SharpCap or Amcap (but this gives you even more flexibility in terms of open windows).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: MRNUTTY]
      #5692840 - 02/21/13 02:10 PM

Not really a problem. Almost all netbooks can be kicked up a notch in resolution, whether by making a small change in the registry, or by using a utility program. My ASUS netbook is running at 1024x768. Circles on the screen look slightly off round, but I can see everything and the Mallincam software (and everything else) works great. With some netbooks, the "problem" is overcome by allowing scrolling of the screen, which can work fine too.

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

Reged: 12/31/08

Loc: Western New York
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5693237 - 02/21/13 05:57 PM

Quote:

Almost all netbooks can be kicked up a notch in resolution, whether by making a small change in the registry, or by using a utility program.




My Samsung netbook can also run at 1024x768 (without scrolling) using the utility program, "Easy Resolution Manager", that was pre-loaded on the computer. It was one of the reasons I bought the Samsung ... it's a great little netbook!


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

Reged: 11/22/11

Loc: Mendon, MA
Re: Why use video over CCD cameras for visual?? new [Re: mclewis1]
      #5700282 - 02/25/13 05:30 PM

Thanks Mark, I'll give it a try. I didn't want to move my newly-spared MacBook Air out there, if a pile of cheap netbooks sufficed :-)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 12 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  David Pavlich, JayinUT, Mr Greybush 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 3107

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics