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

New Mallincam 4:3rds coming it seems

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
130 replies to this topic

#51 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 13 September 2016 - 02:24 PM

No active cooling :-( maybe next time :-)
 

#52 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 955
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 13 September 2016 - 02:48 PM

Way too much money $1400 US for what they are offering and I think spending $400 to $500 less is the way to go purchasing a ZWO 1600C plus there is a mono option. The only difference for me would be if the software was dedicated for astronomy but we know that they will be using the microscope software known as MallincamSky. 


 

#53 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,272
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 13 September 2016 - 03:04 PM

This seems odd, didnt he keep saying "what 16MP camera?" over and over again, and it indeed is a 16mp camera. Not trying to denounce anyone but that whole interaction sounds odd now as I seriously thought that it would NOT be a 16MP camera as per him on that video.


 

#54 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 13 September 2016 - 03:09 PM

 

The only difference for me would be if the software was dedicated for astronomy but we know that they will be using the microscope software known as MallincamSky.

The current version of MCSky while certainly based on the microscope/industrial monitoring software is very definitely an astronomy oriented product. With stacking and dark frame/field subtraction along with the image enhancement tools it does a very credible job as a live EAA oriented product.

 

That said there are a lot of things about the software that I personally would like to see changed or enhanced, but even in it's current form it's a very viable astronomy product.


 

#55 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 955
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 13 September 2016 - 03:45 PM

Mark you are correct but I looked up the none cooled ZWO version and I was wrong the difference between the two cameras is $600 US and as good as MCSky software is I believe the free Sharpcap is much better.


Edited by DSO_Viewer, 13 September 2016 - 03:46 PM.

 

#56 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,252
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 13 September 2016 - 03:55 PM

And the color ASI1600 with active cooling is $1080. I'm not sure what the attraction will be here - am i missing something?


 

#57 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 13 September 2016 - 09:41 PM

Well, some folk just like working with Rock and Jack - and will pay the price for that.  I'd rather not, but others are free to spend as they wish.

 

That single image of M13 really isn't bad.  The ToupSky software is probably doing an OK job at least.

 

No mention of ASCOM support that I could see.  Other than price that apparent lack of ASCOM support might be another reason to prefer the ASI1600.

 

Edit:  Checking around the Mallincam site a bit more.  It may have ASCOM support, but I'm not sure that it does. 


Edited by OleCuss, 14 September 2016 - 04:58 AM.

 

#58 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 14 September 2016 - 05:34 AM

Mark you are correct but I looked up the none cooled ZWO version and I was wrong the difference between the two cameras is $600 US and as good as MCSky software is I believe the free Sharpcap is much better.

I'd sure agree about the price difference. 

 

About the software, having used both I'd say "different" ... with MCSky being more fully featured (more stuff in it, but not all of it useful to everyone) and SharpCap being more flexible.


Edited by mclewis1, 14 September 2016 - 08:15 AM.

 

#59 jambi99

jambi99

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Quebec, Canada

Posted 14 September 2016 - 06:41 AM

Mark you are correct but I looked up the none cooled ZWO version and I was wrong the difference between the two cameras is $600 US and as good as MCSky software is I believe the free Sharpcap is much better.


Actually the ZWO come with a free copy of astrolive USB.
 

#60 jambi99

jambi99

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Quebec, Canada

Posted 14 September 2016 - 06:46 AM

1399 $ is actually the introducing price:

"Intro Price for the MallinCam SkyRaider SD16C including all accessories: 1399.99 US funds
Available Early October"

So it might be more expensive than that.
 

#61 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,383
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 14 September 2016 - 06:56 AM

. . . and there's the use of the words 'Imaging Revolution' again!   :mad:

That's the second camera brought out by Rock claiming to be an 'Imaging Revolution' after the 'Revolution Imager' was brought out by OC Telescope.

Very original :fingertap:  


 

#62 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,252
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 14 September 2016 - 12:20 PM

that's two revolutions, do they cancel each other out? 


 

#63 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 14 September 2016 - 07:56 PM

A new version of MallincamSky released to support the DS16c. There's also an update to the SkyRaider ASCOM drivers so I would assume that means ASCOM support for the DS16c.

 

Rock has spun an interesting dialog about the unique characteristics of this camera.

https://groups.yahoo.../messages/75828

 

Trying to translate I see a general suggestion of increased sensitivity compared to the "other manufacturer" which I would assume to be ZWO and the ASI1600. The most interesting part of the dialog for me was the suggestion of the use of a different sensor compared to the "other manufacturer" ... the difference being the ZWO version is using a sensor with the RGB bayer mask, the Mallincam version is using "micro color splitters". I assume that version of the sensor is more expensive than the one using the RGB bayer mask.

 

http://www.nature.co...n.2012.345.html

http://news.panasoni...en130204-6.html

 

One general thing in the dialog ... whenever I see the use of "we" I don't think just Mallincam, I think Mallincam and ToupTek.


Edited by mclewis1, 15 September 2016 - 08:38 AM.

 

#64 budman1961

budman1961

    Apollo

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Springfield, MO

Posted 14 September 2016 - 10:51 PM

I saw the demos he showed tonight, a glob and the moon.  Seems like a grab at low hanging fruit, and now on an EQ mount, hmmmmmm.

 

If this cam is as innovative as he says it is, and his improvements to it are as significant as he states, why did he switch to an EQ mount?  Seems like the old 16" LX200 Forks should have done the trick.

 

Hopefully the screenprinter wont overprint the logo on the cams too heavy like the example on his site next time.

 

Catch-up is a difficult position to recover from, especially when no small detail hides from a smart search engine.

 

Clear skies!

 

Andy


 

#65 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,345
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 15 September 2016 - 12:39 AM

A new version of MallincamSky released to support the DS16c. There's also an update to the SkyRaider ASCOM drivers so I would assume that means ASCOM support for the DS16c.

 

Rock has spun an interesting dialog about the unique characteristics of this camera.

https://groups.yahoo.../messages/75828

 

Trying to translate I see a general suggestion of increased sensitivity compared to the "other manufacturer" which I would assume to be ZWO and the ASI1600. The most interesting part of the dialog for me was the use of a different sensor compared to the "other manufacturer" ... the difference being the ZWO version is using a sensor with the RGB bayer mask, the Mallincam version is using "micro color splitters". I assume that version of the sensor is more expensive than the one using the RGB bayer mask.

 

http://www.nature.co...n.2012.345.html

http://news.panasoni...en130204-6.html

 

One general thing in the dialog ... whenever I see the use of "we" I don't think just Mallincam, I think Mallincam and ToupTek.

Pardon me to say this: this is a big joke if he is backing his assertion about the DS16C is using "Micro Color Splitter" or "plate for diffraction" based image sensor.

 

Usually I won't make comments on a close-user-group as in his Y!  Somehow I did find his YouTube recording https://www.youtube....h?v=xO1NIlDp0qw  is making the same claim.

 

To avoid readers of this forum to be further driven by that very teasing claim, let me share my view:

 

Multiple patents had been granted and the Nature Photonics e-zine article is real.  I especially appreciate the diagrams included in nature's URL link.

 

Indirectly indication is: if this is so good, how come such sensor has not been used in Panny's flagship mirrorless cameras?  Remember that the processing to decompose the "now mixed up" multi-band images to be R-G-B image is not an easy feast and is one of the key trade secret.  If Panny cares about its Intercultural Property, it would have hided inside its proprietary camera's DSP:"Venus Engine image processor" but instead, give it to a Chinese microscope mfg Touptek and let Touptek (or MC) to have its decoding software in Windows PC?

This does not make any sense.

 

Trust me, the patent filing and the innovation behind it is very, very good.  Turning the concept into lab prototypes will not be easy, especially if you read the descriptions in nature-photonics and associated diagrams.  Check the precision, individual component's alignment, and sub-micron scale manufacturing precision.

It will takes years to become mass production feasible.  The cost of building such sensor will be very, very expensive and much harder than just etching color-dye pigment in a Bayer array image sensor.  It will never be $1600 camera.  I assure you such sensor by itself will be more than $1600 and all the world of image sensor manufacturers will race to get a copy, definitely not Chinese Touptek.

 

Now the dead give-away is, visible light's wavelength is in the order of less than 1 micron.  If you see the nature-photonics article's diagrams (e.g., fig 5), you'll find everything is designed in the 0.5 to 1.x micron scale to be useful for visible light.  You can also find the pixel pitch has to be extremely scale in the order of 1.28um or even smaller.

 

Do you know how large the Micro FourThird's 16 M pixel pitch is?   MC's website stated it's 3.8 x 3/8 micron.  I calculated to be 3.77 x 3.77 um.  Either way, IT DOES NOT FIT !!!  

 

I am sorry quenched the enthusiasm by the primary and the followers.  At the end of day, this field is still technology and common sense driven as opposed to by the mouth.

As I have always trying to communicate: a well educated consumer will be a vendor's best customer.

 

P.S. To be host, I really like to see the image processing result, even it's a computer simulation on the test target which is not a color test chart but a start field with many point light sources.  Decomposing a PSF from the spread of diffraction pattern (of the micro color splitter) is very, very hard.  Seeing decoded stars can help the concerns on its usefulness in astro use cases.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 15 September 2016 - 12:41 AM.

 

#66 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,252
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 15 September 2016 - 09:36 AM

More to translate ...

 

"There are two versions of this Panasonic 16 MP sensor. One has RGB Bayer filtering used by other manufacturer and the other is mention in the above links that we use. The sensor we use is the latest in technology ever created."

 

These are Rock's statements from the same post in the Mallincam Yahoo group mentioned and linked to in my earlier post above. https://groups.yahoo.../messages/75828

 

So lets look at each sentence ... 

 

"There are two versions of this Panasonic 16 MP sensor."

Is this a true statement, does Panasonic have two versions? If so what are the differences?

Having two versions doesn't necessarily mean that they make both versions available. If they do have two versions are they selling two versions?

 

"One has RGB Bayer filtering used by other manufacturer and the other is mention in the above links that we use."

This pretty clearly states that Rock isn't using an RGB Bayer sensor, he is using "... the other ... ".

" ... other manufacturer .... " I took this to mean ZWO Company, but notice that it isn't "other camera manufacturer" so I guess it could actually be just about anything. There is always a danger in assuming anything in Rock's statements.

"... above links ... " are also reproduced as the two links about the Panasonic sensor I've included in my post above.

 

"The sensor we use is the latest in technology ever created."

Basically IMHO a throw away statement but taken in the context of the previous sentence it would suggest to anyone reading the post that it reinforces the idea that he is using a different sensor.

 

-----

 

Now let's be clear. I'm not saying I simply believe what Rock has posted. I'm not trying to promote the camera or the company and I'm not trying to stir things up or cause problems. I'm simply reporting if you will what he has announced and posted about the new camera. 

 

Over the years I've learned to be very careful "interpreting" Rock's public comments. Rarely are things as simple as one might figure from the first reading of any of his statements.


Edited by mclewis1, 15 September 2016 - 09:37 AM.

 

#67 Live_Steam_Mad

Live_Steam_Mad

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 931
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2007

Posted 15 September 2016 - 06:33 PM

I thought something was odd about this... I've Googled a fair bit and I can't find any reference to any Panasonic sensor or any other brand of camera that is currently shipping that is using this "diffractive wave plate" color splitting technology.

 

Someone is mistaken, it seems. Unless someone can show me otherwise. A pity as I was all excited about the new tech. Oh well.

 

Regards,

 

Alistair G.


 

#68 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,345
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 15 September 2016 - 06:47 PM

Trust me, if the idea from Panny scientists/engineers come to fruition, it will show in

Panny's flagship or ultra-end cameras (think the recent Canon 19um pixel pitch camera's price tag.)

It's design, manufacturing, and decoding such mixed-up signals will be kept in Fort Knox.

 

The DPReview guys will be the first to know and all get excited.

 

Will it land in a small microscope mfg shop in China instead?

Will it be just a the fantastic price of $1600 and only for a small group of niche users?

Will it decode stars as individual points or all look like character "F" (hint: on a recent creation...)

 

I hope it's going to be 10x penalty money back guarantee on that.


 

#69 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,134
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:16 PM

Just as a aside... it is surprising and quite puzzling how much interest and speculation a MC camera launch generates. My theory is that people are always looking for a miracle from Rock. That some how his can sprinkle pixe dust and make his cameras defy Physics and generate amazing 'real time' views. That hope is always there....

 

I am privy to a lot of non public technology roadmaps for image sensors and other semiconductors and I can tell you there is no way Rock has any of this technology. In fact I seriously doubt given his volumes he is in any position to negotiate or get access to even the non public roadmaps let alone the latest greatest sensors.


 

#70 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:18 PM

Yeah, I'm finding the sensor information/claims confusing as well.  I'd really like it if that camera were using a new tech with higher sensitivity and that "micro color splitter" were in use.

 

I'm having real trouble with it, however.

 

Here is a link to the Panasonic page which purports to list the only sensors it makes for digital still cameras:  http://www.semicon.p...agesensors/dsc/

 

The only one of those sensors which fits the specifications which Mallincam put out for that camera is the MN34230.  Here's a link with some of the specs:  http://www.semicon.p...MN34230PL_E.pdf

 

Note that is specifies that it uses an RGB Bayer pattern.

 

I reviewed the entire lineup of Panasonic image sensors and so far as I can tell every one of them is listed as being RGB, CMYG, or B/W.  It is possible that the "micro color splitter" tech might be listed under RGB but I very seriously doubt that.

 

I've also been unable to find anything other than a single version of that sensor in the rest of the Panasonic site.  Nothing about the MN34231 (which apparently had/has MN34230 die markings) or any special grades for the sensor.  It is possible there is stuff in a distributor's stock which doesn't show up in the Panasonic site where I can find it, but I seriously doubt that.

 

Edit:  Does anyone know exactly what the "Correlated Double Sampling" is?  The little I've found suggests it is not new tech and that it might actually just be using darks, but I've not sorted it out sufficiently.


Edited by OleCuss, 15 September 2016 - 07:25 PM.

 

#71 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:23 PM

Just as a aside... it is surprising and quite puzzling how much interest and speculation a MC camera launch generates. My theory is that people are always looking for a miracle from Rock. That some how his can sprinkle pixe dust and make his cameras defy Physics and generate amazing 'real time' views. That hope is always there....

 

I am privy to a lot of non public technology roadmaps for image sensors and other semiconductors and I can tell you there is no way Rock has any of this technology. In fact I seriously doubt given his volumes he is in any position to negotiate or get access to even the non public roadmaps let alone the latest greatest sensors.

 

I am not really sure any of our astronomical camera manufacturers have special access to anything but fairly standard sensors.

 

The price of those brand-new cutting edge sensors can be pretty, well, astronomical.  That means that few of us could afford the latest and greatest anyway.


 

#72 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:40 PM

Here's what I expect from an EAA camera system that is to be used with a computer:

* large sensitive pixels, or binning options
* gain/ISO control
* cooling
* working EAA software
 

#73 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,345
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 15 September 2016 - 08:24 PM

Edit:  Does anyone know exactly what the "Correlated Double Sampling" is?  The little I've found suggests it is not new tech and that it might actually just be using darks, but I've not sorted it out sufficiently.

CDS (Correlated Double-Sampling) is a general method usually (almost always) applied to an image system to reduce noises caused by "stages" of signal conversion from one form into another.

CDS is well known technique and a prior art.  It is not invented by that guy who said "it's his specialty".

 

Sampling is the act of selecting a sampling period to convert a form of signal to another form.  Double-Sampling means such act got performed twice.  Correlated means such act(s) are done in a time-sequential manner.  First act is performed when the signal intended to be converted/measured is not present, while the second act is to be performed immediately when the signal is present.   The time in between these two acts is extremely short, such that they are related.  The second sampled result is immediately subtracted from the first result.  The net is induced noise at that moment (almost the same time) is cancelled out.

 

 

The first form of CDS is a very well-known one for the past 30+ years and is used in CCD (and CMOS -- on per individual pixel basis, which is inside the image sensor SoC) sense-amplifier readout circuit.  In a CCD imaging system, it is right in the boundary between the CCD image sensor and the external AFE (analog front-end.)  It is known in short-hand as analog CDS.  The full term is: C-V conversion analog CDS.

 

The second form of CDS is digital CDS.  SONY made a special emphasis on that in its introduction of CMOS EXMOR image sensor technology.  What it does is perform A/D conversion twice, first is when the signal is not present then digital the value to obtain ADU number.  The second act is when signal is present.  The (number 2 - number 1) digital subtraction value is theory, cancel out the A/D conversion noise.

Note that this technique is not always performed in all imaging system.  SONY Exmor can do that since it's using a very fast (but very basic) A/D conversion design thus it has the A/D conversion speed to do that.

This is Digital CDS.

 

As I had stated analog CDS is always performed.  This is so basic and without that, the image sensor's manufacturing non-uniformity will show and will be very ugly.  As a matter of fact, if you want to undo it, such special circuit design will cost you big time.  In a CMOS image sensor, it's inside the chip.  There is not even a method to defeat it.

 

Digital CDS, assuming it's SONY Exmor CMOS image sensor, it's part of the IC.  There is no way to defeat it as well.

 

I hope people now understand it is not designed by a single individual in 2014, 15 or 16.

 

I suspect people may ask, what about dark frame subtraction.  It is to subtract the digital  image when light is shine on it and when there is total darkness.  These two samples are somewhat related and correlated, but not so precisely timed and automatically subtracted.  This is usually done by camera DSP or by PC software.

Usually, it is not categorized as CDS.

 

Sorry a long post.  Hope it helps.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


 

#74 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 15 September 2016 - 08:30 PM

^^^ Much appreciated^^^


 

#75 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,134
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 15 September 2016 - 09:25 PM

css-hello explained it very well. CDS is used to deal with low frequency noise in semiconductors. Almost all semiconductors exhibit this and CDS is very widely used to filter out this noise (quite extensively in CMOS sensors). It is very distinct to hot pixels or dark current which dark frames deal with.


 


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