A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Meade DSI and ATK 2C



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 23rd 05, 10:31 AM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Meade DSI and ATK 2C

I don't suppose some kind soul on here knows what the well depths of
the chips used in these two cameras is? The chips are both Sony:
ICX404AK and ICX424AQ.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **
  #2  
Old August 23rd 05, 11:53 AM
Robin Leadbeater
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Pete,

According to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/868
the well depth of an ICX454AL as used in the DSI Pro is 60k electrons and a
similar figure is given there for the ICX405AK which is claimed to be
similar to the ICX404AK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/427
Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments

Robin


"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
I don't suppose some kind soul on here knows what the well depths of
the chips used in these two cameras is? The chips are both Sony:
ICX404AK and ICX424AQ.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **



  #3  
Old August 23rd 05, 12:29 PM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:53:09 +0100, "Robin Leadbeater"
wrote:

Hi Pete,

According to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/868
the well depth of an ICX454AL as used in the DSI Pro is 60k electrons and a
similar figure is given there for the ICX405AK which is claimed to be
similar to the ICX404AK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/427
Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments

Thanks Robin. Unfortunately, I need an official source for this
information. Sony publish the technical specs of their CCDs e.g.
http://products.sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/ICX404AK.pdf but I'm probably
too stupid to be able to determine the value from the data presented.
Either that or it's not shown ;-)

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **
  #4  
Old August 23rd 05, 12:31 PM
Robin Leadbeater
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth

tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments


BTW , given its 8 bit webcam heritage, I would guess that the ATIK would
saturate the A/D converter long before full well depth is reached.

(Apologies for the top posting in my prevous post - I was still in "Yahoo
Groups" mode)

Robin


  #5  
Old August 23rd 05, 12:37 PM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:31:15 +0100, "Robin Leadbeater"
wrote:


"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth

tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments


BTW , given its 8 bit webcam heritage, I would guess that the ATIK would
saturate the A/D converter long before full well depth is reached.

(Apologies for the top posting in my prevous post - I was still in "Yahoo
Groups" mode)


They're an uncivilised lot ;-)
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **
  #6  
Old August 23rd 05, 12:41 PM
Robin Leadbeater
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...


Thanks Robin. Unfortunately, I need an official source for this
information. Sony publish the technical specs of their CCDs e.g.
http://products.sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/ICX404AK.pdf but I'm probably
too stupid to be able to determine the value from the data presented.
Either that or it's not shown ;-)


AFAIK Sony don't publish well depths - hence the various unofficial figures

Robin


  #7  
Old August 23rd 05, 02:12 PM
Roger Hamlett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:53:09 +0100, "Robin Leadbeater"
wrote:

Hi Pete,

According to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/868
the well depth of an ICX454AL as used in the DSI Pro is 60k electrons
and a
similar figure is given there for the ICX405AK which is claimed to be
similar to the ICX404AK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/427
Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth
tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but
you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments

Thanks Robin. Unfortunately, I need an official source for this
information. Sony publish the technical specs of their CCDs e.g.
http://products.sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/ICX404AK.pdf but I'm probably
too stupid to be able to determine the value from the data presented.
Either that or it's not shown ;-)

It's not shown.
Remember these are all ABG cameras, so the well capacity should never
normally be reached. Also that 'well depth' figures published for cameras,
are very innacurate. Generally they are 'minima', and for example, it is
common on the some Kodak CCDs, to have the well capacity over 25% higher
than the quoted figure.
You can calculate the gain of the system fairly easily from a group of
different exposure length flat field images, and given this, you can find
either the point where the ABG limits further gain, or if you disable the
ABG, the well depth of the camera. This is what the people who have posted
figures have done, and these are usually nearly as accurate as published
figures, (but reflect the particular example used, rather than the 'worst
case', normally used by manufacturers figures).

Best Wishes


  #8  
Old August 23rd 05, 02:32 PM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:12:33 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:


"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:53:09 +0100, "Robin Leadbeater"
wrote:

Hi Pete,

According to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/868
the well depth of an ICX454AL as used in the DSI Pro is 60k electrons
and a
similar figure is given there for the ICX405AK which is claimed to be
similar to the ICX404AK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DeepSp...ed/message/427
Don't know about the ATIK2C, but for a given chip design, well depth
tends
to scale with pixel area which would make it about 45k electrons? but
you
could try asking on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atik_instruments

Thanks Robin. Unfortunately, I need an official source for this
information. Sony publish the technical specs of their CCDs e.g.
http://products.sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/ICX404AK.pdf but I'm probably
too stupid to be able to determine the value from the data presented.
Either that or it's not shown ;-)

It's not shown.
Remember these are all ABG cameras, so the well capacity should never
normally be reached. Also that 'well depth' figures published for cameras,
are very innacurate. Generally they are 'minima', and for example, it is
common on the some Kodak CCDs, to have the well capacity over 25% higher
than the quoted figure.
You can calculate the gain of the system fairly easily from a group of
different exposure length flat field images, and given this, you can find
either the point where the ABG limits further gain, or if you disable the
ABG, the well depth of the camera. This is what the people who have posted
figures have done, and these are usually nearly as accurate as published
figures, (but reflect the particular example used, rather than the 'worst
case', normally used by manufacturers figures).


Thanks Roger, that makes sense.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.