[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
We got a DSI a couple of months ago as a beginner CCD camera for my astro
society.
I think it will do that job quite well - provide something that people can
use to have a go at CCD imaging but without being so complex as to be
intimidating.
We have an LX200 classic and I discovered last night that it won't guide.
Some say it will but not how. So I'll use a webcam and GuideDog to set up
the PEC.
I've no idea how well it will cope with the summer but the Sony chip is
supposed to be quite low noise. We are in the UK so it won't get that hot.
If all else fails, tape a bag of ice to the back of the DSI :-)
If you aspire to getting wonderful images that compare with those produced
by people on this and the CCD group then this isn't for you.
The DSI PRO has exactly the same number of pixels as the original DSI; they
replaced the colour version of the CCD with the monochrome version. This
gives an increase in sensitivity, the "increased resolution" only happens if
you compare the 4 pixels required for colour information wih the one pixel
required for luminance.
The software could be quite good if they finish it, currently it is at the
early beta stage.
All IMO of course.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Vineyard" <deepskyphotos@hotmail.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
>
> Howdy Frank,
>
> Let me add to Alan and Fred's thoughts. I'd say they're pretty much
right
> on track. I had a Meade DSI for about 12 days (from the second batch
> released) and took it back to my good dealer friend.
> The DSI is as far as I could possibly determine totally proprietary for
> Meade's Autostar systems. The imager outputs only three controlling
wires,
> which to me indicated it required some sort of switching electronics at
both
> ends in the DSI and Autostar compatible scope.
> I don't remember that much, except both my dealer and I "at the time"
> agreed it wouldn't work fully with a LX200 Classic either. I thought it
was
> pretty much junk (well, unless you have an Autostar scope maybe). The
large
> few pixels wouldn't stand up to processing very well either.
> My first night out I got a single VERY poor galaxy image and both of the
> two "full resolution" pics you can pull right off the following page
exactly
> the same as they came out of the camera, if I remember correctly:
>
> www.deepskyphotos.com/DSI.html
>
> I've temporarily misplaced the galaxy image but believe me it was very
> poor quality. I hung out on yahoo's DSI group for the time I had the
camera
> and nobody was producing anything of much quality. I really don't think
> their newer "higher pixel count and sensitivity" camera would fare much
> better, and further think it too is totally proprietary Autostar based in
> order to function well in all design respects.
> You could wait awhile and see what results pop-up, then decide if you
want
> the thing. The best you have going for you is your ST-4 to guide the
thing
> too.
>
> You may want to have a look at whatever "SAC Imaging" is producing right
> now, though I've never personally seen anything too great resulting, but
> those results were from their earlier 640 x 480 cameras.
>
> Remember you need to match pixel size to your shooting focal length for
> best results. Some of SAC's pixel sizes don't seem to make sense to me,
as
> I couldn't figure any good focal length to match them to for optimum
> sensitivity. I don't have their URL handy but a Google search for "SAC
> Imaging" should turn them up.
> But again, I wouldn't buy, until I see what their cameras produce in
> actual results. It's been awhile since I had a look at what they're up
too.
> And I know they evolve seemingly very quickly.
>
> In my opinion Meade is / was stupid in making the DSI proprietary as it
> would've made a good little autoguider and they could have swiped and
> cornered the entire autoguider market with it. Its "driver" software is
> based on Microsoft's "dot Net" technology so they may be able to easily
> deploy alternative drivers automatically over any Internet connection in
the
> future, or at least I figure.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jim Vineyard
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Schwartz" <fschwartz@rcn.com>
> To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
>
>
> > Thank you Fred and Alan. That is exactly the kind of feedback I was
> > looking
> > for.
> > Although my evenings rarely go above 80 in the summer, I have made
enough
> > mistakes in my days to know not to cut corners on stuff like this.
*cough*
> > 201xt *cough*. :-)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "fl.lusen" <fl.lusen@verizon.net>
> > To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:45 AM
> > Subject: RE: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
> >
> >
> > > Frank,
> > >
> > > As Alan said, they are not cooled. On of the astrophotographers in
our
> > > group (Texas Astronomical Society) has a DSI and gave a presentation
on
> > > it
> > > earlier this year. It is great for solar system objects and bright
DSO.
> > > His concern was also the cooling, especially in the summer and in our
> > > Texas
> > > 105º days. At night, that can transmit to temperatures in the low
90's.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > I'm certain there are much better ways to do this, so please spare the
> > > "this
> > > $5,000 ST-999 camera is much better" lecture. The only reason I am
even
> > > asking about this is because it is actually within my budget. If it's
> > > crap,
> > > I won't bother, but if it is decent, or if there are similar priced
but
> > > better offerings, I'm open to suggestion. I've been wanting to try
CCD
> > > but
> > > I just couldn't justify the cost at >$1k prices.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Frank
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> > _______________________________________________
> > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo