SanDiegoPaul
professor emeritus
Reged: 07/22/05
Posts: 693
Loc: San Diego
|
|
Looking for an inexpensive CCD Cam to replace my 2-yr old DSI-color. The Starshooter was recommended to me and I'd like some feedback. Knowing Meades software, I figure that the SS just *HAS* to come with something BETTER! 
|
Hoser
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/10/05
Posts: 1104
Loc: Boston, MA
|
|
I heard of a few frustrations with the SS software too. Perhaps a DSI-II or DSI Pro-II would be better?
--------------------
www.flemingastrophotography.com
Brilliant diamonds in pea soup
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
I have yet to see an Orion Starshoot image that I can say I am truely impressed by. The DSI Pro or Pro II (if your budget allows) would be a good way to go.
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
Edited by Paul Rix (07/19/06 04:33 PM)
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
For an entry level camera you can't go wrong with either but I am a little biased to the Starshooter. Comes with a version of MaximDL and has 3rd party supported software that is really a cut above.
W
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
^maybe so, but the Meade software is not that bad for the capture of the data. I will admit I use Photoshop for combining the channels when using the DSI Pro. You can get a used DSI Pro with filters these days for about $400 (what I paid for mine). The learning curve is not all that steep and the results speak for themselves (when compared to what you can get with a $300-400 colour camera).
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
|
RogeZ
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/21/04
Posts: 575
Loc: Miami, Florida
|
|
I follow Paul
--------------------
RogeZ 
6" C6-RGT "Yard Cannon"
12" Deep Space Observer
Working on a BS Mechanical Engineering
www.rogeastronomy.com
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
I have yet to see an Orion Starshoot image that I can say I am truely impressed by. The DSI Pro or Pro II (if your budget allows) would be a good way to go.
Well since the same could be said for the 1 year of images taken with the DSI.....I would think the quality of the images are due to the experience of the user. For example:
http://k41.pbase.com/g3/32/444832/2/54524286.m42_adp_a.jpg
or
http://k43.pbase.com/g3/32/444832/2/55241955.hh_adp_fin.jpg
are good indicators of what can be done by a experienced user. Also remember the Starshoot does not require a 300$ after market TEC cooler ... it is included as standard. Someday someone will turn out a unbiased side by side shootout......
I would suggest you go to both yahoo forums and ask questions before you purchase.
William
|
donnie3
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/15/04
Posts: 904
Loc: bartlesville oklahoma
|
|
im not sure about the meade dsi but the orion camera needs an up to date computer in order for them to work! i purchased their solar system imager and could not get any video on it ( ibm 600x ) if i was sure the meade dsi would work on this computer i would buy one in a heart beat! im not going to run out a purchase a $1000 computer just in order to get a $300 camera to work.
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
CCD Hack, unless you are doing really long exposure times then the TEC cooler is not really a factor for the DSI Pro. 60 second exposures with a DSI Pro will give excellent results. Also the lack of a bayer matrix means the images are much sharper. The downside is, of course, that you have to take 4 sets of data to get a colour image.
The M42 image you linked to is pretty nice I have to admit. The Horsehead nebula image is nicely composed, but still looks blurry to me. I am afraid I still have to stand by what I said.
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
As a side by side comparison between the DSI-C and the DSI Pro, here are two M51 images I took about 2 months apart..
DSI-C :
DSI-Pro:
the DSI C used 30sec subs unguided, the Pro image used 60sec subs with some guiding (not perfect guiding though).
I think the difference is readily apparent.
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
|
Kenny2004
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/17/04
Posts: 1330
Loc: Toronto, Canada
|
|
Paul,
Oh my!! What a big difference. Now that I saw your image, I'm don't want to use my DSI-C any more - I want a pro model, or the II. Thanks for helping me want to spend my money 
--------------------
Celestron CPC800XLT
Meade ETX-70AT
Meade ETX-125AT /wUHTC
Meade DSI-C
Meade DSI II Pro
Philips SPC900NC Webcam
Celestron NexImage
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
Ken, moving up to the DSI Pro made the biggest stride forward in my imaging. My DSI C is still giving good service as my guide camera. I think my setup is pretty reasonable now. My only problem is the setup time. At this time of year it is usually well past 11pm before I am ready to start taking the data. Scope setup and drift alignment are rather time consuming. If I have to work the next day then it is not practical. Oh for an observatory .
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
|
Kenny2004
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/17/04
Posts: 1330
Loc: Toronto, Canada
|
|
Paul,
I'm just a tad bit hesitant on the Pro because of the fact that I'll have to take 3 shots each to get the final image. But you know, having monochrome shots are just as good, so I could just do that.
Looking at your image, it's evident that the Pro is really the way to go for great pics. I knew that that DSI-C capability, so I'm not disappointed since it's a great camera to start off with to get the know how of imaging and post processing.
I think I'll skip the old Pro version and get the DSI II model though. Still much cheaper than a SBIG
I don't have an EQ mount yet, so I'm alt/azing my images for now. Mind you, I'm in need of an imaging scope too.
Observatory? You don't have one yet? 
--------------------
Celestron CPC800XLT
Meade ETX-70AT
Meade ETX-125AT /wUHTC
Meade DSI-C
Meade DSI II Pro
Philips SPC900NC Webcam
Celestron NexImage
|
Greg K.
Reged: 12/11/03
Posts: 10130
Loc: Clifton Park, NY
|
|
Just as a point of comparison here is my attempt at M51 with the Starshoot (w/ 60 sec subs)
I think it's between the two that Paul shot although it's not a completely fair comparison due to differences in scope, sky conditions, etc.
Where the DSI Pro really shines in comparison to the single shot cameras is the higher resolution luminance frame, and the greater sensitivity thereof. I'm jonesin' for a Pro II myself, although if there was a mono version of the Starshoot Id consider that.
--------------------
NexStar 11 GPS
Orion SkyView Pro 8EQ w/ Autostar
15x70 Celestron SkyMasters
Orion 90mm Mak
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
im not sure about the meade dsi but the orion camera needs an up to date computer in order for them to work! i purchased their solar system imager and could not get any video on it ( ibm 600x ) if i was sure the meade dsi would work on this computer i would buy one in a heart beat! im not going to run out a purchase a $1000 computer just in order to get a $300 camera to work.
The DSI and Starshooter will require an up to date machine that has USB2.0 in order to work.
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
Quote:
CCD Hack, unless you are doing really long exposure times then the TEC cooler is not really a factor for the DSI Pro. 60 second exposures with a DSI Pro will give excellent results. Also the lack of a bayer matrix means the images are much sharper. The downside is, of course, that you have to take 4 sets of data to get a colour image.
The M42 image you linked to is pretty nice I have to admit. The Horsehead nebula image is nicely composed, but still looks blurry to me. I am afraid I still have to stand by what I said.
Well that I can tell you for sure is bogus. The TEC will lower the readnoise a considerable amount (like 2-e rms, measured). Also if you do not want to take darks ... the TEC is needed.....I have a DSI and I do see hot pixels. With the Starshoot I can stretch the image much more due to the lower noise.
As far as the comparison goes.....Of course the DSI B/W will have a higher resolution do to no debayer. If a comparison is to be done It would be better to stick with Apples and not use Oranges. As far as the images go...well post processing is almost 60% of any image..in other words the user. These cameras even though for entry level are by no means "snapshot" cameras.
Again until there is an "un-biased" shootout then all this is just flag waving on both our parts.
I still say go to the Yahoo Groups for each camera and look at the images and weigh the options.
W
|
jgraham
Postmaster
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 5603
Loc: Dayton, Ohio
|
|
I have to agree with Paul, unless you're taking long exposures from a dark sky site where the thermal background is a major contributing factor you probably won't have a problem with the uncooled DSIs. I do all my imaging from my back yard where skyglow (light pollution and high humidity) are my biggest problems, not thermal noise. I've posted several images in the forums here and I have a gallery on AutoStarSuite.Net that shows several examples of images taken with the DSI and DSI Pro. Despite typical mag 4ish suburban skies I'm routinely reaching mag 18ish stars and background galaxies using 30sec subs. As far as the software goes, Envisage does a fine job acquiring images and ASIP and Drizzle are effective at basic image processing or atleast getting the data ready for more advanced processing with other software. If Envisage has any serious 'faults' it is that it offers so many options it takes a while to learn your way around it and settle on a system that works for you. I work it pretty hard running two cameras at the same time (my DSI taking wide field images while my Pro takes narrow field images) using an old 800 MHz desktop I built from spare parts; the only new part on it is a USB 2.0 board.
We're very fortunate to have at least a small number of entry level cameras that are all effective at what they do, it's just makes choosing one a little tough.
-John
--------------------
-John
================================================
Homebuilt scopes from 4.25-16.5"
Meade LXD75-N6/SN6/SC8, DSX-90, ETX-60BB, ETX-125PE, DS-2130
Orion StarBlast, BinoViewers, Coronado PST
Rebel XT/XTi, DSI Pro (I & II), DSI, LPI, Electronic Eyepiece, Phillips SPC900NC
Tasco 60mm Refractors
|
JamesBaud
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/21/04
Posts: 1137
Loc: Granite Bay, CA
|
|
I'd LOVE to see a "shootout" with the various astro-CCD setups... DSI, DSI-Pro, DSI-II, Starshoot, and whatnot. But no matter what one does, there will be claims of bias. A list off the top of my head of things that might skew results:
1) Equal *total imaging time*, because thats the annoying limiting factor.
2) The longest sub lengths should be near equal. For the monochrome cameras with filters, you can't really penalize them by saying ALL subs have to be equal length. Shorter RGB and longer luminescence seems perfectly valid to me. But if you're taking 60 second luminescence subs, I'd think the least one could do is take 60 second subs with the color imagers for comparison.
3) A skilled astrophotographer doing it. That's not directed at anybody here, but I think if *I* was taking the pictures, the results would be suspect simply because I am inexperienced and the problems would be me rather than the imagers (alignment, focus, collimation, tracking, and whatnot).
4) same scope
5) similar seeing conditions
6) No processing other than stacking and combining channels. Perhaps a processed version, but the unprocessed version should be included too. I'm figuring the best unprocessed photos will result in the best processed photos, so why add add another thing that might skew results?
7) subject matter. Certain objects may be more suited to one than the other. I can't think of why offhand, but...
The one I am torn on is object size. Do you use the same magnification and let the camera resolution determine the size? Then you're either undersampling or oversampling, which would skew results. It seems to me that it'd be better to try and get the pixels representing roughly equal portions of sky regardless of camera -- say, 2 arcseconds or whatnot. Of course, doing that with the same telescope might be a wee bit tricksy :P
|
Paul Rix
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/04
Posts: 2956
Loc: Zanesville, Ohio,USA
|
|
CCD Hack, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I can see you really like your Star Shoot camera. I look forward to seeing your images when you post them.
--------------------
Climbing the Learning Curve
Meade 10" LX200 Classic: WO 66SD.
Philips SPC900NC, DMK21AU04.AS, Meade DSI Pro and DSI Pro II.
|
CCD Hack
member
Reged: 11/10/05
Posts: 86
|
|
Well
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1067826/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
There are folks who believe cooling to be an issue and there is a company down under that sells a cooling option for 300$ USD.......
I am biased quite a bit on this camera (sort of feel like a parent) ....but willing to see both sides. That is why I said go to other groups and look around.
W
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 