ANN: New SBIG Camera-Control Software for Intel Macs

Equinox Image. The developer, Darryl Robertson, says:

"Equinox Image 1.0.0 is now available. EI is a universal application to
control Santa Barbara Instrument Group (SBIG) CCD cameras (grey scale
and color) and Optec or RoboFocus focusers. This program also controls
SBIG filter wheels, AO-7/L and remote guide heads. Auto focus, FWHM,
RMS error and color enhancement calculations are available. Tools exist
to dark subtract, align and stack images, composite color and automate
image taking. Equinox Image and Equinox 6 exchange data automatically."

Previously, planetarium, telescope control, and SBIG control were done
by one package, Equinox 5. Equinox 5 is a bit shaky on Intel Macs, so
Darryl first introduced Equinox 6 (planetarium and 'scope control) and
now Equinox Image, both of which are universal binaries. His decision
to separate the two products was a wise one, I think. I don't like
Swiss Army knives.

I've been beta-testing Equinox Image for a while. I received /no/
/compensation/ whatsoever for my time. I believe, however, that my time
was well spent. This is excellent software, and as v. 1 bug reports
come in (I don't know of any bugs in the final beta) it will improve
rapidly. Darryl is very responsive, sometimes turning out two revisions
per day in response to my findings.

http://www.microprojects.ca

(If you have no interest in this software, you might be amused by a
visit to this part of the site
http://www.microprojects.ca/Observatory/Observatory.html, which
chronicles the building of a home observatory under less-than-ideal
weather conditions.)

Davoud

On Mar 5, 9:37 pm, Davoud wrote:
Equinox Image. The developer, Darryl Robertson, says:

"Equinox Image 1.0.0 is now available. EI is a universal application to
control Santa Barbara Instrument Group (SBIG) CCD cameras (grey scale
and color) and Optec or RoboFocus focusers. This program also controls
SBIG filter wheels, AO-7/L and remote guide heads. Auto focus, FWHM,
RMS error and color enhancement calculations are available. Tools exist
to dark subtract, align and stack images, composite color and automate
image taking. Equinox Image and Equinox 6 exchange data automatically."

Previously, planetarium, telescope control, and SBIG control were done
by one package, Equinox 5. Equinox 5 is a bit shaky on Intel Macs, so
Darryl first introduced Equinox 6 (planetarium and 'scope control) and
now Equinox Image, both of which are universal binaries. His decision
to separate the two products was a wise one, I think. I don't like
Swiss Army knives.

I've been beta-testing Equinox Image for a while. I received /no/
/compensation/ whatsoever for my time. I believe, however, that my time
was well spent. This is excellent software, and as v. 1 bug reports
come in (I don't know of any bugs in the final beta) it will improve
rapidly. Darryl is very responsive, sometimes turning out two revisions
per day in response to my findings.

http://www.microprojects.ca

(If you have no interest in this software, you might be amused by a
visit to this part of the site
http://www.microprojects.ca/Observatory/Observatory.html, which
chronicles the building of a home observatory under less-than-ideal
weather conditions.)

Davoud

HI Davoud:

I've been idly turning over the idea of getting a Mac (again), and the
Equinox programs look pretty good. What I couldn't find was any
documentation as to the exact features of the star atlas/planetarium
program...catalogs...number of objects, etc.

Unk Rod

In article . com,
RMOLLISE wrote:

I've been idly turning over the idea of getting a Mac (again), and the
Equinox programs look pretty good. What I couldn't find was any
documentation as to the exact features of the star atlas/planetarium
program...catalogs...number of objects, etc.

I have e-mailed you a copy of the Equinox manual -- a PDF document. It
should explain most everything. There is an Equinox forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpj-equinox. The author, Darryl
Robertson, is very responsive.

This is not a rich-featured program in the way that TheSky 6 is; in the
main sky window it displays stars only to Mag 6 and deep-sky objects to
mag 16. Comets are displayed to mag 16 and minor planets to mag 24. In
the field of view window, however, stars to mag 12 are displayed. A
click of the mouse updates the comet and minor-planet database. Equinox
catalogues can be modified, but the process is involved. I believe that
the star and deep-sky catalogues each contain about 10,000 objects.

The FOV window is based on your telescope settings; Equinox 6 can
remember five telescopes with 10 eyepieces each. Mount protocols
include LX 200, LX200 GPS, AstroPhysics, NexStar 5, NexStar GPS, Temma
II, MCU HEQ5/6, and Gemini. Equinox Image adds control for various SBIG
filter wheels, AO7/AOL, and Robofocus and Optec focusers.

If you also have Astroplanner a Caps-lock click sends the FOV to
Astroplanner where you have extensive control over a wide variety of
catalogues, including a deeper magnitude range. If you haven't tried
Astroplanner you can download a fully functional (limited number of
databases) copy /for/ /Windows/ at no cost from
http://www.ilangainc.com/astroplanner/index.html. This version is not
time-limited. Try it with Cartes du Ciel. CduC and Astroplanner for
Windows interact in the same way that Equinox 6 and Astroplanner for
Mac interact.

It's going to be great for Mac users as well as Windows users when
Bisque completes their software transition. This isn't a port of
Windows software to Mac OS X, but a complete re-write of all of their
software for Mac and Windows, and maybe Linux (though stats I have seen
[Illinois Institute of Technology and Rice University] say that OS X is
making gains against Linux in professional astronomy.) I know that at
least some of Bisque's development is being done on Macs now, and that
bodes well for the result, because Mac-trained programmers bring strong
human-interface discipline to the art and science of programming, and
that leads to better software. I cite Excel, Word, and most of the
Adobe apps as examples. Images Plus might be a good example of the
opposite.

People used to -- still do, I guess -- talk about Mac and Windows as an
either-or proposition. This is patently silly, since one could always
own a Mac and an Intel computer. But things have gotten much easier
with Apple's switch to Intel processors. One can boot either-or, or one
can run the two OS's simultaneously with virtualization. I mostly do
either-or. The Mac OS can read NTFS and read/write FAT32, so once I
have finished doing whatever photon collecting and/or processing I want
to do in Windows I reboot in the Mac OS for final processing, web page
creation, and all the other things I do with computers.

Many people misunderstand Apple's Bootcamp software, which allows
Windows to be run on a Mac. This software does only two things: it
facilitates a non-destructive partitioning of a Mac HD to create an
NTFS or FAT32 partition, and it writes a Windows driver CD. Once
Windows is installed and running the Mac OS plays no part; it's not as
if Bootcamp or some other OS X software is running in the background
facilitating the Windows installation; the Mac *is* a native Windows
machine at that point -- distinguished from other such machines only by
the fact that it can /also/ run the world's /best/ OS. The video card,
RAM, HD, DVD/CD drive, et al, are off-the-OEM-shelf and are identical
to those found in any Intel-based computer; none of these is
proprietary. A quick glance at System Info for this iMac reveals a
Seagate HD, Matsu****a CD/DVD, NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT video, Intel High
Definition Audio, etc.

As for me, in spite of what I might have said here and there I have
been a Windows user for many years because I won't limit my ability to
do what I want to do on ideological grounds. For now, I can't imagine
why anyone who wants to do more than surf and e-mail would buy a
computer that can /only/ run Windows! Apple's sales figures since the
Intel transition show that a lot of people feel that way.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 20:54:34 GMT, Davoud wrote:

People used to -- still do, I guess -- talk about Mac and Windows as an
either-or proposition. This is patently silly, since one could always
own a Mac and an Intel computer.

Yes, but the value proposition of paying a premium for Apple hardware
is still a question. Of course, on the plus side you get access to OS
X as an alternative to Windows (especially Vista, which is a bomb
IMO). On the minus side you purchase Apple hardware which has been
plagued of late by apparently rushed designs that are prone to
overheating and subject to manufacturing defects. The MacBook
overheating problem is just the latest example. I have personal
experience with a Quicksilver G4 that eats optical and hard drives
like crazy, compared to my PCs, because of poor ventilation design.

Sexy case designs and great advertising alone do not make for a
reliable computer.

---
Michael McCulloch

Michael McCulloch wrote:

Yes, but the value proposition of paying a premium for Apple hardware
is still a question.

Well, be careful to compare comparably equipped and specced machines.
Throw in support costs, add it all up and come up with a TCO figure.
What's the cost of adding FireWire 800 to a Dell? An anti-virus
subscription?

Linux Insider: "At the low end, therefore, the PC desktops are
marginally less expensive than the Macs -- if you can do without their
connectivity and multimedia capabilities -- and considerably more
expensive if you can't. At the very high end, however, all of the
design focus is on multimedia processing and the PCs simply aren't
competitive from either hardware or cost perspectives."

ZDNet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=211 (Dec 2006.)

On the minus side you purchase Apple hardware which has been
plagued of late by apparently rushed designs that are prone to
overheating and subject to manufacturing defects. The MacBook
overheating problem is just the latest example. I have personal
experience with a Quicksilver G4 that eats optical and hard drives
like crazy, compared to my PCs, because of poor ventilation design.

Every manufacturer of everything has problems -- makes mistakes -- with
specific designs from time to time. To say that "Apple hardware has
been plagued..." implies widespread problems, and that is simply
untrue. The reliability of Apple computers has been at or near the top
of the industry for a long time. I'm not going to Google every computer
reliability report on the net, but a quick scan has CR choosing an iMac
as its most reliable computer a while back; Rescue.com reporting in
late 2006 "Whether it's due to hardware quality or vendor customer
support, clearly IBM/Lenovo and Apple are well ahead of their rivals
when it comes to reliability."

Machead loyalty says something. Macheads aren't /really/ idiots. I know
that I wouldn't keep buying a computer that didn't work right, now
matter how good it seemed in certain areas. There is no match in the
Windows world for the software that is most important to /me/ , but I
could and would find a Windows workaround and be happy enough with it
if Macs just didn't work. In in this one instance I feel OK saying that
I speak for the majority of Mac users.

I make no claims whatsoever on either cost or reliability, because I am
not qualified to do so. I'm hard pressed, however, to find
/independent/ writers or reviewers, that is, people who have nothing to
gain or lose regardless of what computer I buy, who find the Mac to be
more expensive or less reliable that other brands.

Sexy case designs and great advertising alone do not make for a
reliable computer.

OK...

Davoud

Since this thread is entirely about astronomy: Quick now: fast
decision. Your mission is to send two rovers to Mars. It's going to
cost $1 billion. You must decide right now whether you are going to
rely on Unix/Mac or Windows to help achieve this mission. Which will it
be? Have you seen the excellent PBS documentary that portrays the
drama, tension, and ultimate joy in the JPL control room when both
Spirit and Opportunity landed successfully?

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Michael McCulloch wrote:
I have personal
experience with a Quicksilver G4 that eats optical and hard drives
like crazy, compared to my PCs,


I am surprised here. My 2002 Quicksilver G 4 733
(the so called *server*) purrs like no tomorrow,
and the 533's work great. The G 4 400's tho seem
to want to eat logic boards. Well two out of five
of them so far.

I have bought a bunch of G 4's, and handed them out
to neighbors and friends as an easy box to get on
the net with. Works like a charm.....
Never paid more than $100 for one off of craigslist.


My watercooled over clocked pc (I call it the
power station) is for nothing but online gaming.

Oh, and running my idea of an almost perfect OS,
Linux 8-)



--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net