Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Atik 414EX a possible near live imaging camera for EAA

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#51 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2527
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 01 January 2015 - 02:51 AM

Too bad Sony doesn't make a larger chip version for a better field of view.

Also as a quick note the figures given by Sony in mv for sensitivity don't equate to quantum efficiency per se. Sony is simply saying for the identical 1/30 exposure how many electrons get converted. With their testing methodology the larger pixel chip will tend to collect more data simply because of surface area. This is why the 694, 814, and 834 with virtually the same qe curve have very different sensitivity values that are proportional to pixel pitch.
  • Relativist and chasing photons like this

#52 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 12692
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005
  • Loc: London UK

Posted 01 January 2015 - 06:27 AM

Good to see mac4lyfe is buying an Atik OSC camera - we await his image postings in due course :grin:

Too bad Sony doesn't make a larger chip version for a better field of view.

 

"a better field of view" is a relative term :p  - I find the 1/2" chip [via my Lodestar] perfect for DSO targets via my 12" f/10-f/3.5 SCT.  They're well framed and I don't need more space around them via a larger chip.  Of course a few huge objects like M31 don't 'fit' but then I use a long camera lens.

 

IMO the overriding need in EAA is sensitivity aided by fast optical systems.  The frequent reference to HD and now 4K on EAA is a distraction that just following the media hype but largely ignores nighttime sensitivity.  No doubt we will see :waytogo:  


  • mclewis1 likes this

#53 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2527
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 01 January 2015 - 12:09 PM

Good to see mac4lyfe is buying an Atik OSC camera - we await his image postings in due course :grin:

Too bad Sony doesn't make a larger chip version for a better field of view.

 

"a better field of view" is a relative term :p  - I find the 1/2" chip [via my Lodestar] perfect for DSO targets via my 12" f/10-f/3.5 SCT.  They're well framed and I don't need more space around them via a larger chip.  Of course a few huge objects like M31 don't 'fit' but then I use a long camera lens.

 

IMO the overriding need in EAA is sensitivity aided by fast optical systems.  The frequent reference to HD and now 4K on EAA is a distraction that just following the media hype but largely ignores nighttime sensitivity.  No doubt we will see :waytogo:  

 

True, but if you want detail you need 1.5" to 1" pixel per arc second.  With the ICX825 that means your looking at a tiny 23' x 17' field. 



#54 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 01 January 2015 - 12:41 PM

Too bad Sony doesn't make a larger chip version for a better field of view.

Also as a quick note the figures given by Sony in mv for sensitivity don't equate to quantum efficiency per se. Sony is simply saying for the identical 1/30 exposure how many electrons get converted. With their testing methodology the larger pixel chip will tend to collect more data simply because of surface area. This is why the 694, 814, and 834 with virtually the same qe curve have very different sensitivity values that are proportional to pixel pitch.

 

See the A7s thread for such a large format chip. Unfortunately, there is not yet a straightforward known way to use it easily for EAA, it's up to each individual to figure it out at this time. Because of things like the A7s the old argument about sensitivity vs resolution is out of date because in the past higher resolution meant smaller less sensitive pixels, and could be made more so by the Atik 414EX, we will see. It probably bears repeating though that additional resolution had by a larger chip with similar pixel sizes to the most sensitive SD resolution chips, such chips can be used with larger aperture scopes for similar framing that one would have had with a smaller aperture at the same focal length. Larger aperture has one big advantage in that it allows one to go after fainter objects.

 

Right now I have an AT12IN in the garage waiting, if all goes well I sometime this year (2015) I should be able to do a side by side with the AT8IN & MCX2 vs AT12IN & Atik 414EX (or something similar).



#55 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 12692
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005
  • Loc: London UK

Posted 05 January 2015 - 04:56 AM

 

Good to see mac4lyfe is buying an Atik OSC camera - we await his image postings in due course :grin:

Too bad Sony doesn't make a larger chip version for a better field of view.

 

"a better field of view" is a relative term :p  - I find the 1/2" chip [via my Lodestar] perfect for DSO targets via my 12" f/10-f/3.5 SCT.  They're well framed and I don't need more space around them via a larger chip.  Of course a few huge objects like M31 don't 'fit' but then I use a long camera lens.

 

IMO the overriding need in EAA is sensitivity aided by fast optical systems.  The frequent reference to HD and now 4K on EAA is a distraction that just following the media hype but largely ignores nighttime sensitivity.  No doubt we will see :waytogo:  

 

True, but if you want detail you need 1.5" to 1" pixel per arc second.  With the ICX825 that means your looking at a tiny 23' x 17' field. 

 

This is getting a little OT Ak...m - your calc is correct but your logic is wrong.  Practical EAA doesn't seek 1"pixel res - that's for long exposure AP under perfect seeing.  How many DSOs won't fit my sensor ?  Ckeck-out my EAA gallery over the last few years and poster below.  For brighter and big bits of the 'local' Milky Way an e-finder or long lens will cope.  Horses for courses :waytogo:

Attached Thumbnails

  • lodestarpage2x.jpg


#56 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3242
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 05 January 2015 - 04:15 PM

I was wondering when this poster would pop up again. Seems inappropriate to the subject of the thread.  Why should we talk about any other cameras besides the Lodestar?  What were we thinking?


  • Relativist, Chris A, budman1961 and 3 others like this

#57 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10245
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 05 January 2015 - 06:21 PM

Dwight,

 

I think the key message in Nytecam's post was to point out that ...

 

the usual (commonly quoted) goal of "need 1.5 to 1 pixel per arc second" as a resolving power (optimally sampled) is for astrophotography  where the image sensor has a lot of pixels, say 6 Mp to 20 Mp.

 

While in videoastro, be it using ICX285/ICX825 (about only 1.3 Mp) or using ICX414/424 or ICX828/829 (about 0.43 Mp), there simply ain't too many pixels to play with.

Thus the goal is modified to have a larger sky coverage, with a sacrificed spatial resolution.  The side effect is that more photons can now be gathered and landed on the now (larger pitch) pixels so more signal to play with.

 

Nytecam's mosaic picture illustrates that even with a 0.43 Mp imager, (which means the target is under-sampled), the resulted DSO targets are still visually pleasing. 

 

 

Two styles but just trade offs, just different flavors.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 05 January 2015 - 06:27 PM.


#58 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3242
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 05 January 2015 - 08:12 PM

Dwight,

 

I think the key message in Nytecam's post was to point out that ...

 

the usual (commonly quoted) goal of "need 1.5 to 1 pixel per arc second" as a resolving power (optimally sampled) is for astrophotography  where the image sensor has a lot of pixels, say 6 Mp to 20 Mp.

 

While in videoastro, be it using ICX285/ICX825 (about only 1.3 Mp) or using ICX414/424 or ICX828/829 (about 0.43 Mp), there simply ain't too many pixels to play with.

Thus the goal is modified to have a larger sky coverage, with a sacrificed spatial resolution.  The side effect is that more photons can now be gathered and landed on the now (larger pitch) pixels so more signal to play with.

 

Nytecam's mosaic picture illustrates that even with a 0.43 Mp imager, (which means the target is under-sampled), the resulted DSO targets are still visually pleasing. 

 

 

Two styles but just trade offs, just different flavors.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello

That may have been the superficial reason, whereas Nytcam uses every available opportunity to "showcase" his images and imager.  They are often introjected into threads where they have dubious relation to the subject at hand.  if you want to show your captures, use the Gallery threads per the TOS.


  • Chris A and budman1961 like this

#59 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10245
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 05 January 2015 - 10:33 PM

Dwight

 

I think I am still in the happy long holiday mood :) :).

 

May I suggest let this issue go, I believe for now, people in this forum had learned how to dissect the message and take what is most valuable out of it and ignore the noises.

 

Peace and Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


  • Don Rudny likes this

#60 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 13 January 2015 - 06:03 PM

Anyone seen an Atix 414 yet?

#61 mac4lyfe

mac4lyfe

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2014

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:19 PM

I received my 414 ex last week. Of course the weather has been atrocious. Last night was the first clear night. First issue was the included software (Artemus capture). I'm not familiar with this and it doesn't seem friendly for EAA. Does anyone have ideas on an easier software? Artemus saves files as Fits and Tiffs but the files don't feel clean when saved? I get dithering and blur when saving it seems??? The overall color on the 414 ex seems greenish. I don't see any color adjustments in the Artemus sw. My integration time using nexstar 11 fastar at F2 seems twice as long versus the lodestar x2. I'm on alt - az so I can't go much more than 60 seconds where the Lodestar x2 was much more sensitive at 30 seconds.

 

So far I'm a bit underwhelmed but my CCD knowledge is most likely holding me back with this camera. It looks like I'm going to have to do longer integrations on my eq mount. 

 

Some pics...  hopefully you can view on Dropbox from my phone.

 

https://www.dropbox.....36.01.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.....36.28.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.....39.22.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.....40.23.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.....43.30.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.....46.35.jpg?dl=0



#62 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:50 PM

 

My integration time using nexstar 11 fastar at F2 seems twice as long versus the lodestar x2. I'm on alt - az so I can't go much more than 60 seconds where the Lodestar x2 was much more sensitive at 30 seconds.

 

This I would have expected since Sony specs show them having outputs of:

ICX825 is 2000mV - 414EX
ICX828/829 is 3200mV - Lodestar X2

 

The ICX828/829 sensor appears to be 60% more sensitive on paper.  Is your Lodestar X2 mono or color?   I'm not surprised by the extended exposure time.  I would suspect you will need to run as much as 3 minutes for certain objects.

 

I don't know whether AstroLive will work with the Atik 414. What ever software is used you will need to stretch the capture and run it through a program like Virtual Dub to clean it up.

 

Maybe someone who uses their CCD imagers for NLI (Near Live Imaging) will help with what software they use and some tips on how they do NLI.

 

Congrats on your Atik 414EX.


Edited by DonBoy, 19 January 2015 - 12:52 PM.


#63 mac4lyfe

mac4lyfe

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2014

Posted 19 January 2015 - 04:19 PM

Thanks Don,

The Lodestar is mono and very sensitive with the fastar setup. I'm so use to quick exposures, I'm spoiled. I tried Astrolive but most options are not available with Atik cameras and seems unusable.

 

Looks like I'm going to have to setup my iOptron ieq45 for longer exposures. I've been putting off sticking another mount outside.



#64 Don Rudny

Don Rudny

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Mauna Kea, Hawaii

Posted 19 January 2015 - 07:38 PM

Hi Mac,

 

You might want to take a look at Nebulosity 3.  It's available for a Mac and I think the Atiks are supported.  You can download a trial version that has no time limit, but you can't save a clean copy.  It doesn't have on the fly stacking, but it has great color controls that can be applied once you get your image.  I agree with Don that the longer integration was expected.

 

thanks for the report.

 

Don


Edited by Don Rudny, 19 January 2015 - 07:48 PM.

  • mac4lyfe likes this

#65 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 19 January 2015 - 07:45 PM

 

The Lodestar is mono and very sensitive with the fastar setup. I'm so use to quick exposures, I'm spoiled.

With this information that the Lodestar X2 is mono, then the exposure difference will probably approach double for the Atik414 color.


  • mac4lyfe likes this

#66 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 20 January 2015 - 12:41 AM

Try this software: Sequence Generator from Main Sequence Software.  And use inconjunction with Virtual Dub to handle noise.


  • Alfredo Beltran and mac4lyfe like this

#67 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 12692
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005
  • Loc: London UK

Posted 20 January 2015 - 05:16 AM

I was wondering when this poster would pop up again. Seems inappropriate to the subject of the thread.  Why should we talk about any other cameras besides the Lodestar?  What were we thinking?

Hi Dwight - I don't normally respond to your rant (and the Mally friends who liked it) but to demo most DSOs fit the smaller Lodestar/Mally sensor as my poster shows and for no other reason you just imagine :waytogo:  


  • Relativist likes this

#68 mac4lyfe

mac4lyfe

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2014

Posted 20 January 2015 - 11:37 AM

And wouldn't you know, my mount just died out of the blue. I haven't even used it but went to setup and neither Dec or Ra motors will move. Hopefully ioptron support can help. Murphys law...

 

 

 

The Lodestar is mono and very sensitive with the fastar setup. I'm so use to quick exposures, I'm spoiled.

With this information that the Lodestar X2 is mono, then the exposure difference will probably approach double for the Atik414 color.

 



#69 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 20 January 2015 - 02:01 PM

I would use the downtime to see if Kyle will help you with the Astrolive software. From what I recall Atik cameras are what Kyle owns, so his support for Atik has always been better.
  • mac4lyfe likes this

#70 mac4lyfe

mac4lyfe

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 18 Apr 2014

Posted 20 January 2015 - 02:07 PM

Good idea.

 

Thanks 

 

I would use the downtime to see if Kyle will help you with the Astrolive software. From what I recall Atik cameras are what Kyle owns, so his support for Atik has always been better.



#71 NickK-UK

NickK-UK

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012
  • Loc: UK

Posted 23 January 2015 - 04:35 AM

Hi, I've been away for a while!

 

I've just taken delivery of a 414EX and spent last night dogfooding it with my new OS X TheSkyX plugin - I had a chance to try it at the moon, M42 and targets

such as the flame. All using a Pentax 105SDP (670mm f6.38) and UV/IR cut + Neodymium filters on a NEQ6 without guiding and on a pier.

 

The same new OS X portable C++ driver for the plugin should be available as a standalone driver in the next week or so.

 

Firstly here's my moon shot - raw 0.02 second sub, no stacking no stretching:

moon.png

 

 

Too many pixels? Pah! Your talking to a guy that loves his 383L and it's 5.4um pixels.. 


Edited by NickK-UK, 23 January 2015 - 04:38 AM.

  • mac4lyfe likes this

#72 NickK-UK

NickK-UK

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012
  • Loc: UK

Posted 23 January 2015 - 04:55 AM

Next up.. I'll include some shots. The difficultly here is the image size limit on the board :)

 

Again - all of these are unguided, with a simple PA setup on an EQ6. I should have all the ATIK cameras working on OpenPHD2 with EQmac soon (the code is done but they like they 32bit libraries from other camera manufacurers.. Universal 32/64bit libraries peoples! So I'm battling the final linking of the application)

 

I did note that you could detect the shape of the flame and horse head with 3 second exposures whilst setting up - even with my slow f6.38 scope!. M42 on the other hand is in your face!

 

The problem here is how do you define sensitivity when stretching is done on a single sub? I could stack but then that's not going to show per-sub raw sensitivity.

 

414EX unstretched or proceed single raw 30s sub using the slow Pentax f6.38 with just a UV/IR + Neodymium. It's unguided on the NEQ6. I've had to crop it to fit the board's 500Kb limit.. too many pixels ;)

414EX_30s_M42_no_stretch_CroppedToFit 500Kb.png

 

 


Edited by NickK-UK, 23 January 2015 - 05:02 AM.

  • mac4lyfe likes this

#73 NickK-UK

NickK-UK

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012
  • Loc: UK

Posted 23 January 2015 - 05:13 AM

Ok the same 30 second image but stretched - I had to crop more to fit the limit but:

_414EX_30s_M42_no_stretch_Preview01.png

 


  • Relativist and mac4lyfe like this

#74 NickK-UK

NickK-UK

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012
  • Loc: UK

Posted 23 January 2015 - 05:17 AM

Now - although not EAA - here is the same setup, same scope, camera, mount, same software, even the same focus but a 500 second exposure but simply stretched in PI:

 

 

m42_300s_stretched_800x600.png

 

So with too many pixels :p the 414EX dual roles as both EAA short exposure and DSO long exposure.

 


  • mac4lyfe likes this

#75 NickK-UK

NickK-UK

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 301
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2012
  • Loc: UK

Posted 23 January 2015 - 05:19 AM

And for comparision - a single 600 second raw sub from my 383L stretched in PI .. clearer skies (south of france with no LP), and guiding.. -15 outside temps..

383L_600s_L_sub_800x600.png


  • artem2 likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics