CCD imaging

[dawson]

I just found this website:

 

http://starizona.com/acb/ccd/ccd.aspx

 

Some interesting narrative about the basics and some images to compare different set ups.

 

I'd still like to see a selection of raw images (or equally processed images) from the same telescope and seeing conditions with a range of CCD (or CMOS) cameras from the £36 one I got off ebay to the £100,000 liquid nitrogen cooled research ones. I'd be interested to see how much difference it all makes, with a modest telescope.

 

James

 

 

 

[T A WOW]

£100,000. Bargain!

[dawson]

I made up £100,000, I don't know how much research grade CCDs cost, but I'd still be interested in a direct comparison of the various image devices on the same, modest primary optics.

 

James

[catman161]

Get a camera brought then !

Pat

I think James point is that he would like to see comparisons before buying so that he can make an informed decision Pat. That way he can avoid the buying then re-selling and buying again process.

[dawson]

I have my Quickcam which seems to be doing me OK for now, but I am just interested in how much better the images would be if one were to spend £5000 on a fan cooled camera when using it on a modest telescope and mount.

 

I just can't find any websites out there which show this information (images) side by side, which makes me wonder if there is a great deal of difference.

 

I'm not planning on changing at the moment, but having the information on this would be interesting / useful.

 

James

[dawson]

Pat, I suspect I'm interested in comparing images o fhte moon and planets. I'm more interested how  the £30, £200, £600, £2000, £10,000 CCD cameras compare in terms of image quality (raw image of same method processed image) on the same modest scope (like my own or maybe slightly better). Mine is a 127mm Mak, focal length 1500mm, f/11

 

It's more for the knowledge and understanding at the moment, rather than what I am going to immediately buy.

 

I've still not really pushed my £36 jobby to the limit as lack of clear nights, and only recent mastery of the tracking, and recent cleaning of optics and sensors might mean I'm more pleasantly surprised next time I use it.

 

James

[Guest AstroOlly]

Hi,

Personally i don't think that the images would be as far apart as you might think, using a cheap webcam will give good images in the right conditions, and if you paid £300 for a Imaging Source camera there would be a big leap, but going over that in price the difference will get smaller, so in my opinion, and it is only my opinion, start with a cheap webcam then move to a CCD camera in the £200 to £500 mark and go no higher, especially for UK backyard astrophotography.

 

But like James, i would like to see real comparisons, and maybe they are not out there because the sales of the really expensive cameras would fall dramatically, when people see that £300 is more than enough to for excellent images.

 

MM

[andyboy1970]

I used a Phillips toucam then move to a DMK21 mono firewire camera.

The difference is incredible, the mono camera picks up so much more detail and at 60 fps uncompressed (raw) data.

The phillips is a good starter (or occasional planetary imager) camera but has its limitations.. 10fps (uncompressed data) and limited gain/exposure controls.

 

However put the phillips in a camera in a decent Celestron 9.25 you'll get cracking images so it really is a scope camera combo thing.

[+Graham]

There is another side to this as well you have touched on James.

These scientific types with thousands of pounds worth of scope/camera combinations also have the back up of thousands of pounds worth of processing facilities.

I would love to see what could be done with the data from a real expensive scope/camera combo using our mega kit of DSS and PS.

[Daz Type-R]

It can be done, Sheila, Stephen and I think Mike have "purchased some scope time" from some setup in America and at the end of the session they send you the files for you to process.

Stephen did attempt it but hit an issue (cloud I think) so got a refund and is waiting to try again.

[andyboy1970]

There is another side to this as well you have touched on James.

These scientific types with thousands of pounds worth of scope/camera combinations also have the back up of thousands of pounds worth of processing facilities.

I would love to see what could be done with the data from a real expensive scope/camera combo using our mega kit of DSS and PS.

You can download hubble raws from the heritage site.

[red dwalf]

hi James,

if i were you i`d go for a cheap philips 880 or 900 webcam, can be bought cheap compaired to a imaging source dmk which are better but 5 x the costs, more if you buy mono as you then need to buy filters and so on,

the philips are great fun to use and if you look on stargazers lounge for webcam images there are some amazing plantary images taken using fairly modest equipment, one of the best i looked at a while ago now but still sticks in my mind was taken with a philips webcam on a 127 mak, so it can be done on a reasonable budget. 

[dawson]

Thanks Rob, and others.

 

I'm still interested to see the side by side images from these various cameras. I'm quite happy with my £36 Quickcam for now

 

James