A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » CCD Imaging
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

1/3" CCD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 11th 03, 10:33 PM
Lurking Luser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1/3" CCD

I'm new to astro photography and have been using a little Vivitar 1/4 inch
color ccd camera with 'alright' results, but I want sharper images. I don't
have a lot of cash. But I found a 1/3 inch black and white ccd for about $50
on the web. It is the cvc 50 bc. It is a very small board camera sold as a
spy cam, but I'm thinking it might work well for astro photography.

Does anyone have any expierence with this camera?

How clear will details of planets be with a black and white camera?


Ads
  #2  
Old October 11th 03, 11:02 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1/3" CCD

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:33:17 GMT, "Lurking Luser"
wrote:

I'm new to astro photography and have been using a little Vivitar 1/4 inch
color ccd camera with 'alright' results, but I want sharper images. I don't
have a lot of cash. But I found a 1/3 inch black and white ccd for about $50
on the web. It is the cvc 50 bc. It is a very small board camera sold as a
spy cam, but I'm thinking it might work well for astro photography.

Does anyone have any expierence with this camera?

How clear will details of planets be with a black and white camera?


I'm not familiar with the specific camera you found. However, a B&W camera will
generally give substantially better performance and resolution, and will likely
show more detail with planets. Note, however, that the larger format sensor
probably also means the pixels are larger, so you may need to operate at a
longer focal length if you are currently operating near the optimal sampling
size for your system.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #3  
Old October 11th 03, 11:39 PM
Lurking Luser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1/3" CCD


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:33:17 GMT, "Lurking Luser"


wrote:

[snipe]
Note, however, that the larger format sensor
probably also means the pixels are larger, so you may need to operate at a
longer focal length if you are currently operating near the optimal

sampling
size for your system.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Hmm, I have been using a 80mm f/5 scope which gathers a fair amount of
light, but of course has a short focal lemgth of 400mm. Do you think a
barllow would help extend the focal length?


  #4  
Old October 12th 03, 01:26 AM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1/3" CCD

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:39:48 GMT, "Lurking Luser"
wrote:

Hmm, I have been using a 80mm f/5 scope which gathers a fair amount of
light, but of course has a short focal lemgth of 400mm. Do you think a
barllow would help extend the focal length?


For planetary imaging, you aren't even in the ballpark. Figuring that these
small sensors typically have pixel sizes around 5-9u, you are operating at a
pixel scale of 2.5-4.5"! That is at least 10 times too big for imaging planets,
where short exposure times can beat atmospheric seeing.

Put another way, you are getting only about 5 pixels across Mars, where you
should be getting 50 or more. With such a short scope, it is going to take more
than a barlow to improve things much. If you don't have a longer focal length
scope available, you should be looking at eyepiece projection. Otherwise
switching to another camera will give no improvement at all, and if the pixels
are larger (as they probably will be) you will lose even more of the scarce
detail you already have.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #5  
Old October 12th 03, 07:09 PM
Lurking Luser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 1/3" CCD


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:39:48 GMT, "Lurking Luser"


wrote:

Hmm, I have been using a 80mm f/5 scope which gathers a fair amount of
light, but of course has a short focal lemgth of 400mm. Do you think a
barllow would help extend the focal length?


For planetary imaging, you aren't even in the ballpark. Figuring that

these
small sensors typically have pixel sizes around 5-9u, you are operating at

a
pixel scale of 2.5-4.5"! That is at least 10 times too big for imaging

planets,
where short exposure times can beat atmospheric seeing.

Put another way, you are getting only about 5 pixels across Mars, where

you
should be getting 50 or more. With such a short scope, it is going to take

more
than a barlow to improve things much. If you don't have a longer focal

length
scope available, you should be looking at eyepiece projection. Otherwise
switching to another camera will give no improvement at all, and if the

pixels
are larger (as they probably will be) you will lose even more of the

scarce
detail you already have.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


Thanks! Like I say I'm new at this. It sounds like projection is my only
hope with the equiptment that I have (or can afford right now).

I do have a 60mm f12 that I used with a 3x barlow to get a blurry picture of
mars.

I know I'm pushing all kinds of optical limts, but using the 80mm f5, a 2x
barlow and a 20mm eyepiece with a project length of 60mm I should be able to
get 160x which -should- be within an 80mm objective's optical range.

Or would I have better luck using the 60mm f12 with a 20mm lens, a 3x barlow
and a projection length of 60mm? If I am doing the math correctly that gives
210x which is beyound a 60mm len's limit. The problem with the 60mm scope is
I can't get it to focus with the barrlow at 2x. I have to put it directly
into the tube, which gives me the 3x barlow.

I guess I am going to have to save up for a better scope.


 




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 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.