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

A New Camera Offering

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
220 replies to this topic

#26 budman1961

budman1961

    Apollo

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2011

Posted 24 April 2015 - 09:21 PM

Well then, the proof will be in the pudding.....

 

Andy



#27 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10320
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 24 April 2015 - 09:47 PM

I don't feel there is a need to speculate on what's inside (other than the image sensor already disclosed per announcement.)

 

However, the direction is worthwhile mentioning.

In the past, a few people placed a strong emphasis on that "composite video" and absolutely nothing in between the videocam and the video monitor.

Oh never mind mentioning any PC is involved.

 

I guess the "image head" approach should finally get people to understand there are multiple ways of using technologies at our disposal.

(Don't get too offense that the astro imagers have been doing that for eons... 

This should never been a religious debate but a welcome sign for a potential mind melt.)

 

Now back to our normally scheduled programmings.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 24 April 2015 - 09:48 PM.


#28 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19157
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:10 PM

Question:

 

Does Dark frame subtraction + Flat field correction = Dark field correction?



#29 budman1961

budman1961

    Apollo

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2011

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:37 PM

Mark,

 

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy".  Hawkeye Pierce......

 

Andy



#30 Dom543

Dom543

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:53 PM

For dark field subtraction one has to cover the scope or use other means to keep all light away and get the signal from the sensor in a state, when it is not exposed to any light.

 

Flat field correction is done with a uniformly illuminated field to have a template of the non-uniformness of the light that reaches the sensor.

 

Dark field subtraction is to compensate for errors inherent in the sensor and independent of light exposure, like hot pixels. Flat field correction corrects mainly for obstructions in the light path, like vignetting. Possibly also for varying light sensitivity of the individual pixels.

 

--Dom



#31 Herr Ointment

Herr Ointment

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:35 AM

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.



#32 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3317
  • Joined: 14 May 2009

Posted 25 April 2015 - 04:52 AM

Well at least it will bring out all the Mallincam naysayers.  



#33 TimP

TimP

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2009

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:21 AM

And so it begins !



#34 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10320
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:28 AM

Folks,

 

There is no need to start an early day debate over something unknown.

For an astro imaging device, proper execution is the key.

In the fashion of the "image head" + PC software approach, the importance is on

- good hardware for the CCD image sensor (especially on high gain, long integration time department) 

- good software (designed to be more suitable for astro use, dark, flat, stacking, etc.)

 

We will known more when the real McCoy is in front of us.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello



#35 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2844
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:14 AM

Looks like it is targeted at the Lodestar X2. From the spec's I've read, it's basically an X2 with a lot of gain. It runs at much higher voltage (15.3v) which probably means higher temps but shorter exposures required might offset that? LL is great software, so the trick will be in the software to control the noise and how well it stacks. I've been waiting for someone to do this, was just hoping it would be cooled. I like USB camera's, simple to use, less wires etc. Should be interesting to see it side by side with a X2. What a great time to be into Astronomy!



#36 budman1961

budman1961

    Apollo

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2011

Posted 25 April 2015 - 11:24 AM

 

Well at least it will bring out all the Mallincam naysayers.  

 

Are you making a list? Some Mallincam user's loyalty makes me uncomfortable, much like members of Amway, Scientology, or Heaven's Gate.  Criticism of Mallincam is well deserved considering they are the only major company sticking with composite video for so long.  Its great to see them finally get up to date with an affordable USB DSO camera.  I just hope its not shipped with a purple cloth and Nike shoes.

 

Really Charles?  If you are "uncomfortable", why add fuel to the fire?

 

Any by the way, I like purple, and Nike shoes!   :lol:

 

Andy



#37 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10320
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:22 PM

Took awhile to figure out LL software == Lodestar Live software

 

Please do not view the link below is a product push, but view this as a benchmark reference for a proper executed "image head" supporting software such that a new camera's software can see what astro enhancements could be beneficial

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=TG20auT3E7g

 

 

P.S. my intent is not to compare A vs B, especially that B is not yet available and info is sketchy.

        However, as many had observed, more innovations from multiple vendors coming into the marketplace ultimately benefit the end users, we the consumers.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello 


Edited by ccs_hello, 25 April 2015 - 12:26 PM.


#38 Lorence

Lorence

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:40 PM

 

Well at least it will bring out all the Mallincam naysayers.  

 

Are you making a list? Some Mallincam user's loyalty makes me uncomfortable, much like members of Amway, Scientology, or Heaven's Gate.  Criticism of Mallincam is well deserved considering they are the only major company sticking with composite video for so long.  Its great to see them finally get up to date with an affordable USB DSO camera.  I just hope its not shipped with a purple cloth and Nike shoes.

 

 

Would you please point out the analog video ports on my 2+ year old Mallincam Universe and well you are at it please point me in the direction of another major astro video manufacturer that has a product line comparable to Mallincams.

 

If there was a bet going on as to who knew more about the astro video market, Rock Mallin or the CN EAA group there is absolutely no doubt where my money would go.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if more people used analog monitors to view with rather than computers. Are you suggesting they should replace those monitors with computers too satisfy some peoples desire for the latest and greatest technology?



#39 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3317
  • Joined: 14 May 2009

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:54 PM

I am excited about seeing how this camera performs.  Our club is about to buy an Exterminator but I think we should hold off and see how this one does and what else Mr. Mallin has coming, especially at the price point given how much the Canadian dollar has slid.  This allows us to also look at getting a Universe to use in the piggyback refractor.  A 70" LED TV will be utilized for outreach.  At least the TV is relatively cheap.  For my personal camera I will continue to plod along with an Extreme.  And Charles, sooner or later every one will consider a Mallincam for astrovideo, maybe even you.  



#40 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2844
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007

Posted 25 April 2015 - 01:54 PM

I don't think it has to be one or the other, the more choices we as consumers have the better. Does not matter if its video, usb hybrid, dslr or a full on CCD imager. What ever works for you and fulfills your needs is what matters. I for one would not like to be limited to just type of camera or telescope for that matter. It's all good! No need for anyone to get upset, attack or defensive about any product, to each his own.

 

In the end, we should not be divided by brand loyalty, but united by our common interest in this hobby.



#41 Starman27

Starman27

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7991
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2006

Posted 25 April 2015 - 05:45 PM

+1 As we continue this, lets do it with civility and respect.

#42 Alex Parker

Alex Parker

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

Posted 26 April 2015 - 09:11 AM

This really does look like a direct knockoff of the Lodestar X2 / Lodestar Live combo that many folks (including me) use.

I went with that combination when I started to explore EAA specifically because I did not want to mess around with 20th century technologies like analog video cables or TV sets - I wanted the one-wire-to-the-laptop simplicity of the Lodestar setup.  Clearly Mallincam has heard that message :-)

 

 I would also say kudos to Mallincam for realizing that Windhose is not the only OS out there and that the Mac/Linux market is an important one to engage with.  Based on the info posted by Mallincam, I'm a bit surprised at the weight and footprint of the camera compared to the Lodestar, given that this is apparently not a cooled camera.  It appears to weigh almost as much as one of the cooled big-sensor SX cameras like the Trius-274. 



#43 Alex Parker

Alex Parker

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

Posted 26 April 2015 - 09:17 AM

Just to make that last point quantitative:

 

New Mallincam: 377 g

Lodestar X2M:     50 g

SX Trius-694:   ~400g (cooled 6MP CCD imager)



#44 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19157
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006

Posted 26 April 2015 - 11:16 AM

It's likely that the "zinc aluminum" case is the majority of that weight. It may also be that the mass of the case is being used as a heat sink but I too am surprised by the overall weight. 

 

Rock is of course equating the extra weight to higher value ("unmatched durability", "industrial grade quality").



#45 Alex Parker

Alex Parker

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 363
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2013

Posted 26 April 2015 - 01:12 PM

 

 

Rock is of course equating the extra weight to higher value ("unmatched durability", "industrial grade quality").

 

I guess if you are prone to dropping your equipment regularly these can be important selling points  ;)



#46 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003

Posted 26 April 2015 - 01:44 PM

It's likely that the "zinc aluminum" case is the majority of that weight. It may also be that the mass of the case is being used as a heat sink but I too am surprised by the overall weight. 

 

Rock is of course equating the extra weight to higher value ("unmatched durability", "industrial grade quality").

 

Correction, it's "* Zing Aluminum Alloy construction for unmatched durability" per the bullet points at the bottom of the website. Saying it's Zinc is pure speculation until we get the real camera and have a metallurgic analysis done. I'm sure Rock would rather use Zing, which is the well known Zinc alloy Iron Man uses to make his suit strong like if it were made from Adamantium, and also impact resistant like if it were made from Vibranium.

 

In terms of the use case, Mallincam had already come out with the Universe for those of us that wanted higher resolution & USB. Now with DSS the Universe is an even better deal since stacking is available. In addition, the Lodestar was designed to be a guider, so lightness is high on the list of features. This new camera by Rock is likely not meant for use as a guider but as a primary camera, So weight is much less important than for a guide camera. I think it's great that there are mac & windows versions of the software and I'm glad Rock has figured out a way to bypass the SD analog step for those of us that use computers in our viewing train. That said I'm keeping my MXC2 because the chip in it is NICE (only 1 hot pixel I think). Really looking forward to what else is on the way!



#47 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19157
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006

Posted 26 April 2015 - 01:48 PM

:rofl:



#48 Dom543

Dom543

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2011

Posted 27 April 2015 - 02:08 AM

The case looks identical to the chinese ToupTek cameras. 

http://www.touptek.c...?lang=en&id=216

 

The problem with the use of microscope cameras for astronomy is that their stacking routines assume dead specimens sandwiched between plates of glass and staying put there. They stack frame corners on frame corners instead of stars on stars. Assuming, of course, that they stack at all. It is not mentioned in the product description.

 

--Dom



#49 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006

Posted 27 April 2015 - 03:33 AM

Wow, so much speculation when detail about this camera has been released by Mallincam in the Mallincam Yahoo site as has already been said.

 

No, it's not an attempt at an answer to Lodestar x2. If you bother to go read the info from Mallincam it is being manufactured in response to requests for a USB only Deep Sky camera with the same sensor as the Xtreme/Xtrerminator. It has been asked for by several interested people.

 

The info is made public.

 

https://groups.yahoo.../messages/64306

 

and in answer to a question about comparisons between an Xterminator and the new SkyRaider:

https://groups.yahoo.../messages/64338

 

and there are plenty more posts if you want to know the facts instead of attempting to guess, or pretend to know Mallincam's business.

 

I for one think it's great that there is now another camera available. That makes about 20 cameras for Video Astronomy now across all manufacturers, covering all price ranges and data delivery methods  :)

It's a pity others like Gstar-Ex, Stellacam, Phil Dyer, etc don't keep pushing the boundaries instead of sitting on their ordinary 2 or 3 models.

They are being left further and further behind. More the merrier.



#50 David B in NM

David B in NM

    Apollo

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1027
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2010

Posted 27 April 2015 - 06:50 AM

Ken,

 

Those with common sense know the camera was released to compete with the LS.  There is no doubt about it.  The price point is indicative of it also.  I find nothing wrong with that and applaud Rock for releasing it. 

 

I hope you realize there's less than factual info contained in some posts in the MC Group also:

 

Rock stated he began designing the Sky Raider 3 years ago in this post:

 

https://groups.yahoo.../messages/64306

 

Normally, camera designers design the camera around the ccd/sensor they plan to use.  The Sony ICX828/9 ccds were not released 3 years ago.  They were released just over two years ago by Sony.

 

Most everyone knows Mallincam cameras are repurposed Security Cameras and Scientific Cameras.  I see nothing wrong with this.  I applaud Rock for his efforts in taking a camera that was manufactured for another purpose and maximizing its potential via modifications he performs on several of his camera models. 

 

Mallincam cameras are very good cameras.  I respect Rock for the outstanding work he does.  I'll be honest when I say this, I would respect him more if he didn't take full credit for the design of the cameras he doesn't design.  If he actually did design his cameras from the ground up, why did you find the what "would become" the Mallincam HD SDI camera about 9 months before Mallincam released it:

 

http://astrovideofor...egapixel-camera

 

I purchased one not too long after your post.  It's the same camera as the Mallincam HD SDI camera.  There's a youtube where Rock said he designed it and picked out the "MOS" sensor used in it.  My camera has the same pcbs inside it (same brown and green colors, same Panny "MOS" sensor, same gold connectors, same DSP, menu, features,etc).  The only differences between mine and the MC HD SDI are:  The price (mine is about $220 less) and mine doesn't have the Mallincam sticker.  My first one was the same Version pictured on the MC website.  The new ones being sold are now Version 2 and the menu has some minor changes but the features are all the same.

 

This link is taken from the MC website.  The link itself is part of the description for the  MC HD SDI camera (appears near the bottom next to "Sensor Specification").

 

If you look under APPLICATIONS you'll see "security camera".

 

http://www.mallincam...6/is00001ce.pdf

 

I have more examples of cameras Mallincam uses for the foundation for their cameras.  I see nothing wrong with it.  Rock does a fantastic job on modifying some of these cameras (others he just sells as-is) so we have them for EAA.  I just wish he'd someday feel it was important to be honest enough to say he modified a camera and actually not take credit for designing them when he didn't.

 

In closing Ken, I wouldn't suggest you state the CN Members go to the Mallincam Yahoo Group "to read the facts" when the information there isn't "really" factual either.

 

David B in NM


Edited by David B in NM, 27 April 2015 - 06:58 AM.



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