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
TheRock
member
Reged: 01/13/08
Posts: 38
Loc: Saddle Brook, NJ
|
|
I have a B&W Mallincam Hyper Plus that I use to impress friends and neighbors  . I have no problems with it and am not selling it. However, I would like to get into CCD imaging, possibly purchasing an astro-dedicated camera (SBIG, etc.). I can spend about $3000, give or take. I don't need a Canon/Nikon type of setup because I am happy with my point-and-click for family photos, therefore negating the "dual purpose" benefit. So my question is this - how much of a difference would one see between these two setups using the same scope:
Setup 1: Mallincam, 7 second integration with output to a CRT monitor
-or-
Setup 2: SBIG (ST-7 type or similar) Type of CCD imager, 7 second integration (plus USB download time) with output to a laptop.
I'm assuming these two setups both would classify as "near real-time", right? Can the CCD imager get as deep or deeper than my Mallincam at 7 seconds? Does anyone have examples? For what it's worth, the LP were I live is horrible (10 miles from New York City).
Thanks,
Rich
--------------------
Celestron CPC 1100 (2008)
Celestron 130 SLT (2008)
Tasco 114mm Newtonian (1995)
Meade 60mm Refractor (1986)
MallinCam Hyper Plus B/W
|
BrendanF
member
Reged: 12/04/07
Posts: 17
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
I'll take a crack at this by offering my opinion. I do not have a traditional CCD imager(although I have worked with several), but I do have a Mallincam. This has been debated before so I would suggest looking to archives to see what you can find.
I see the difference in that Mallincams and the like have built in 'computers'(the DSP) so that you get a good, approximately real-time view. Traditional CCD imagers rely on post-processing to do things like gamma, background subtraction, sharpening, etc. Traditional CCD imagers are also operate well cooled while video cameras do not, and the cooling will greatly help long-exposure imaging.
So I believe that CCD imagers can probably produce better pictures in the end (with proper processing, dark subtraction, etc) than the Mallincam, but for watching as the images are taken, the Mallincam type give better looking images.
YMMV
|
Bowmoreman
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/11/06
Posts: 2992
Loc: Bolton, MA
|
|
My $.02
There is NOTHING semi-realtime about a 7 second exposure on a CCD (SBIG, etc.)... you see a LOT more with the Mallincam at 7 seconds than you ever will on any CCD imager, downloading at 7 seconds...
What you really gain with CCD is ability to stack LOTS of exposures, each as long as conditions permit, and your target needs/allows... usually at least 1-2 minutes each (and each for luminance, red, green, and blue)...
Everything about CCD is fussier and more work than Mallincam (or Stellacam)... EVERYTHING.
I started to try and learn CCD, then detoured to Mallincam; I'm now going to go back into CCD with a newfound respect and appreciation for the difficulties, patience, etc.
And now with MUCH faster (and shorter) optics than when I started.
And now (likely) a word from the experts (which I am NOT).
clear enough skies
--------------------
Dave
Ustream
YLive
XT10i, RTP, CGE, R200CF, TMB80SS
31T5, 22T4, 13Ethos, 8Ethos, TV 3-6 Zoom; Paracorr
MallincamColorHyperPlus,SBIG STV&237A;CanonRebel Xti
WilderSkiesObservatory(BYO #90)
|
mclewis1
Thread Killer
Reged: 02/25/06
Posts: 2453
Loc: Colorado
|
|
Quote:
Traditional CCD imagers are also operate well cooled while video cameras do not, and the cooling will greatly help long-exposure imaging.
This is not true for all the video products, the Mallincams (and one model of the Stellacam III) have a built in TEC cooler. The MC cooler works very well but it doesn't take the sensor down to quite the same levels as those in many CCD cameras. It's fun to watch as you turn on the TEC and see the individual hot pixels drop out one by one as the cooling takes effect in real time.
I really agree with the comments from both BrandonF and Dave (Happy Birthday by the way) about the differences and experiences. I had fun working with a DSI Pro and learned a lot but my "fun quotient" has gone way up with a Mallincam.
Like Dave I can see a dedicated CCD imager in my future and when I do go down that path it will be with a better foundation of knowledge and experience (the DSI has been relegated to duty as an autoguider). In the mean time I'm having a blast with my Mallincam.
--------------------
Mark
C11, C6, APM/TMB115, and AT80ED
Tandem mount CGE and CG-5A, WO EZ-Touch and AT Voyager
25x100s, 8x56s, T-Mount Light, and Mark 1 eyeballs
Modded 350D, SPC900, Mallincam
|
Rusty
Postmaster
Reged: 08/06/03
Posts: 16399
Loc: Brooker, FL
|
|
Yeah, I agree that CCDs (I have four, including the STV Deluxe) as well as the Mallincam Color Hyper Pro; while they seem to have similiar properties, in my mind, they're distinctly different enties. I haven't sold my STV (although I was tempted, acquiring the MCHP and DSI III Color, to do so). IMHO, the bottom line is that CCDs, even the flexible STV Deluxe, are different critters from the latest iterations of the Mallincam.
So, maybe this is my pathetic rationale for keeping my ST-137a and STV Deluxe, but it works for me...
--------------------
N11GPS Fastar
TOA-130S
MK66 Std
Vintage C5
Megrez II 80mm ED Triplet APO
SolarMax 40
NJP Temma II
Sirius EQ-G
ST8XE/CFW-8(LRGBHa)/AO-7/DF-2/STV Dlx/ST237a/350D (Unmodded)/Mallincam Color Hyper Plus/DSI III Color/DSI II Pro
Two not-spoiled Golden Retrievers - Maggie and Casey
Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering. - Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
1 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Chris Schroeder
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 