Watec 910HX (First impressions and caveat!)

[Macavity]

No first light yet, but I have been playing with my new Watec 910HX camera.

For those NOT actually under the Lodestar X2 spell [teasing] an alternative?

(Fwiw, my impression is that it uses the same "X2" chip anyway...) 

For owners of the previous (excellent, but obsolete) Watec 120N+, the 910HX

boasts improvements and (at least on paper) takes comparative sensitivity up

by a factor of Eight! (0.0000025Lx @ f/1.4, 256x, agc hi, gam:0.35, 3DNR on.)

It also has OSD control for camera settings - And therein lies a minor caveat!

In response to "user demand" for an OSD handset, Watec replaced their "jog

switch" control with a JST six-way plug / socket plus small remote control box. 

Anyone wanting to use the camera "in the field" (the dark) will be immediately

concerned by a 1.25mm pitch plug, connected to delicate 34(?) awg wires.

For those wanting an immediate solution, Bernard @ Modern Astronomy is

supplying the camera with a "cable boot" permanently fixed to the socket.

http://www.modernastronomy.com/camerasAstroVideo.html

Me? I was a tad less keen on cables permanently attached to a £500 cam.

But, in the process of reversing Bern's excellent work, I broke the wires.

Fortunately, Bern, being an overall *great* guy (sic!) has provided me with

an unmodified handset to play with. He is also "taking to Watec" about it...

Actually, quite a LOT of people are thinking about the issue, so I hope they

will not mind me sharing my (their) thoughts here! Perhaps for extra input? 

If there are any *pukka* electronics technicians who can CRIMP fine wires

you may have a few prospective customers! (And I mean that seriously)

ASIDE: A lot of Video Astronomers (Well, me anyway!) do like to *extend*

the range of remote control handsets! Frankly a bit of nightmare with the

Watec 120N+ 16-way DIN cable! But hey, it worked! At least this handset

is entirely *passive*  -- Just the Five (button) wires and Earth lead only...

P.S. Another interesting idea, I came across (I have no commercial link):

http://www.hristopavlov.net/WAT910BD/

Again, perhaps not for me. (lol) But, as one of many "Arduino hackers"

here, the general idea of sending multiple keystrokes seems interesting!

[Pan Euro]

Thanks for sharing. How much did you extended the remote by?

[Macavity]

For those who haven't entirely "Lost the will to live", reading ALL the above,

I just offer my current (far from unique!) idea for *stabilising* the RC cable:

This would also [in retrospect! sigh] work well with the "Bern method"?

I do vaguely wonder about developing some kind of "protective shroud"

to fit around the cables...   To protect against accidental finger pokers.

Again, comments, alternative IDEAS are more than welcome...

[Macavity]

Thanks for sharing. How much did you extended the remote by?

Haven't actually got to that bit yet! But I am optimistic. 

It is just straight forward DC level "button pushes"? 

If you don't fancy cutting and stripping fine wires,

an easier point to attach the extra cable is maybe

the solder pads within the handset. (Just musing).

[johnno]

Chris how many wires on that plug ?

[Macavity]

Hi Johnno, there are SIX!

Double check of course, but:

Black = Ground

Red = Enter Button

White = Up Button

Yellow = Left Button

Blue = Down Button

Green = Up Button

For anyone *brave* enough to try crimping fine wires,

the plug is a JST (Japan Solderless Terminals) type: 

GHR-06V-S 1.25mm. Available from CPC Farnell etc. 

Details: http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/5438.pdf

[JamesF]

Perhaps you already do, but in addition I would also tie the cables to the camera mounting so that any stress from flexing of the cable isn't transmitted to the plugs at all.

James

[Macavity]

An important point, James. Bern's solution is pretty good, but it was my

concern that any wire wiggle might be transmitted via the "boot" to the

socket, within the Watec. If this is *surface mounted*, it may detach?

At least, as you can see, these THIN wires, do allow for strain relief! 

Previously, I have left camera leads to dangle randomly (from cams).

This time, a little more effort? An intermediate junction box maybe... 

[johnno]

I would of thought a ps2 type connector would of been better either on the back plate or a short 6 inch fly lead. When I did the remote osd remote box for my Sammy that's what I did so I could use different length extension leads if I wanted to be by the scope or from inside the house.  

That flat type connector looks a bit delicate if it gets snagged. At lease the ps2 wires are all enclosed in the plug.

[Macavity]

We're on the same wavelength, Johnno! A six pin DIN (aka PS/2) plug?

Now, if only I could source pre-made 6-inch "wire harnesses" (fly leads)

You could even put the Watec in a box, especially if you add a small fan.

Now retired, I no longer know pukka electronics technicians. They were

always happy to show uz scientists "how it should be done"! lol [banter]

[johnno]

Chris for my use what I did was to buy a meter length male and female end ps2 cable, instead of breaking into the plugs I cut off about six inches and soldered it direct to the pcb board in the camera.

If it was my watec, I would cut the remote cable 6 inches from the plug that goes into the camera and cable tie it to the body, buy a short ps2 cable with male and  female ends and cut about 6 inches from the female plug and solder these wires to the original cable at the camera end. do the same with the remaining ps2 cable at the remote end just have to make a note of what colour wires are linked to the original wiring. so now you should have a male ps2 plug at the remote end. and if you want to extend the length just buy a male/female extension cable to the length you require.

I'm no sparky so someone could come up with a better way of doing.

very crude drawing.

[allcart]

I agree that the handset plug is the Achilles heel of the cam.

I would secure the handset cable to the cam as Johnno has suggested, rather than strap all the cables together. Once all the cables are strapped together, as Chris has done, you cannot disconnect the cam from the cables.

I used RJ45 connectors and cat5 cable to extend my handset so that I could adjust the settings from inside the house. A 15mtre extension worked without problems.

[Macavity]

I had certainly taken the signal and supply cable out of the loop.

Will probably adjust some lengths / genders of BNC connectors...

Yes - to bending the control cable back over the camera. Maybe 

for the Mk.II version! I sense this would work rather better with

ribbon cable. Much more amenable to bending, without breaking.

[Macavity]

Having convinced myself that nothing was likely to fall off, I finally

got out to do a brief test. Naturally, there was the full moon...

But, without any detailed tuning, a simple stacking of 100 frames

of M57 at 256x (gamma 0.45, gain 20db) with my ED 66 f/6 gave:

(The "histogram" was clipped, within Registax, to boost contrast.)

There is a bit of (characteristic!) Watec "heat haze" at the top of

the image. But despite summer temperatures, this now appears

reduced, compared to my previous efforts with the Watec 120N+. 

I usually CROP images at 640 x 480 to get rid of edge effects! 

*** Significantly, there is no longer any Left to Right gradient? ***

I can now avoid processing via IRIS (or GradientXterminator)?

At the moment, there seems to be fewer (no) hot pixel "trails"...

It would be a blessing not to have to take "darks" every session!

A closer examination (stars around M57) shows that I'm already

getting to around mag +15.5 with small aperture + full moon?

Of course, "I would say that"! lol. But, I genuinely feel the new

camera is an improvement. My normal "deep sky setup" - The

8" f/4 Newt, should go at least another 2.5 magnitudes deeper.

This corresponds (easily) to the Mag +18 limit with local skies.

As "we know", to go deeper, is not impossible either? Increase

the number of frames or work a bit harder on post-processing.

I look forward though to somewhat reduced exposure times.

P.S. I still have to fully explore the OSD options. I notice e.g.

the slight "black bracketing" of stars at boosted contrast. The

default options include a slight "sharpening" of the image?

I think I might turn that off as well as other *known* options!

P.P.S. I can confirm that it seems possible to SAVE settings

in a non-volatile way, by judicious "exiting" via OSD buttons. 

At least you are not starting from default at each power up...

[Martin Meredith]

Chris, glad to see you're up and running with the new camera. Having very few hot pixels is a real boon (though I still take darks myself since with long stacks the trailing of even a few pixels can be distracting).  I know nothing about this camera: what is the basic exposure time you're using per frame? 

Looking forward to seeing some shots thru your photo-Newt. 8" f4 is a great deep sky hunting combination ;-)

cheers

Martin

[JonC]

Problem is that proper crimpers cost a fortune, I have some small molnex crimpers at work and they cost about £400 a set

 Other option is to get some connectors with the cables ready fitted, and sort the other end out with something easier to use. Heat shrink could be used to stabilise things a bit. Think these are the right cables

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/20-SETS-Mini-Micro-JST-1-25-T-1-6-Pin-Connector-with-Wires-Cables-150MM-/251223129956?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item3a7e10bf64

[nightfisher]

For those who haven't entirely "Lost the will to live", reading ALL the above,

I just offer my current (far from unique!) idea for *stabilising* the RC cable:

Watec910HX.JPG

This would also [in retrospect! sigh] work well with the "Bern method"?

I do vaguely wonder about developing some kind of "protective shroud"

to fit around the cables...   To protect against accidental finger pokers.

Again, comments, alternative IDEAS are more than welcome...

Chris, the connections on the back of the Watec....is it a straight forward male rca plug and what size is the 12v dc fitting

[Macavity]

Hi Folks - Back again to wibble (minor real life intervention)!

Hi Martin: Yes, should bring me MORE up-to-date re. Camera hardware?

I have heard rumours that the Watec 910HX uses the SAME "chip" as the 

Lodestar X2. But, of course, my "signals" are sent via simple 30m coax.

Watec quote the "minimum illumination" camera sensitivity in LUX at a

specified integration time and gamma, for a optical setup f-stop of f/1.4.

Minimum illumination Watec 910HX = 0.0000025 lx

Minimum illumination Watec 120N+ = 0.00002 lx

On the face of it, an increase of EIGHT times. But (as ever), you have to

be a bit careful re. sensitivities and exposure times?

I did indeed use the above settings for the quick M57 image above. BUT,

quickly spotted, on the 256x setting, the screen was updating every *five*

sec. Whereas on the 256x setting a Watec 120N+ it updates every ten!

But a careful reading of the documentation reveals that Watec changed

their definition slightly. The maximum integration of the new 910HX is

256x FIELDS, whereas that of my old Watec 120N+ is 256x FRAMES!

(This actually noted by at least one other nerd person on the internet)

And, as "we all know" (Eh kiddies?):

ONE 1/25s Frame actually consists of two 1/50s (interlaced) Fields...

The basic exposure: 1/50 sec per field, 1/25 sec per frame (I think!). 

WHO CARES!!!!! lol. But... you might, if you want to economise on disk

space or be sure you aren't stacking identical frames (or missing any).

Aside: If you are looking for a "good number", I now think in terms of

REAL TIME exposures. With the 910HX, I record 100 "events" in 512

sec. otherwise 100 Frames (or 200 Fields!) 

Whatever! I am getting a subjective feeling the Watec 120N+

had slipped slightly behind Lodestar X2 performances here? 

Whether I gain a factor two, four or eight remains to be seen.

From my own point of view, I was finding that the really deep objects

(Hicksons etc.) needed 100x (10.24s) Watec 120N+ events. Twenty

minute exposures were getting a tad beyond personal endurance!

But, back to planet earth...

John:  Aye, if you want a shock, check out the price of crimp tools! 

I'm pretty confident I have ID'd the connectors correctly:

http://www.jst-mfg.com/product/pdf/eng/eGH.pdf

If I don't actually break anything from now on, I can probably avoid

having to crimp them! For what it's worth, I tried out *Extending the

control cable* to 30m. As hoped (others suggest) it works just FINE!

  

I can also conform that the WATEC cable is sufficiently robust to

withstand *my* soldering techniques. FWIW, here's my preferred

(easy) method of adapting any fine cables to CAT5 connectors:

The (ultra-handy!) RJ45 breakout boards are available from:

http://proto-pic.co.uk/breakout-board-for-rj45/

I'm happier work at a standard 0.1" (veroboard etc.) pitch! 

P.S. Was pleasantly surprised to receive a call from "Bern at

Modern Astronomy" last week. Having admitted to destroying 

his modded cable, still prepared to provide me a replacement! 

I suspect it is OK to reveal that he's in active dialogue with an

(interested) Watec representative on this very matter. Video

Astronomers are perhaps not the *main* Watec customers?

And perhaps rather "demanding" too! But ya never know...

[Macavity]

Still not happy with a fragile dangling remote cable on my Watec 910HX

I thought I'd try to make a little BOX to protect the emergent lead(s)... 

With limited skills (And no workshop etc.) I wasn't getting on too well! 

Then it occured to me that I might make a case based on standard sized

Aluminium U-Channel (fairly commonly available off Ebay!). Fortuitously,

40x40mmx2mm pretty much first the basic size of the Watec Cam body!

After a day of (scary!) angle grinding and (less scary) soldering:

I do need to check whether the box causes the camera to overheat. 

Who knows, adding extra metal it might even aid the overall cooling...

If all else fails I can drill a few HOLES in the thing. 

What I am hoping is that there is less chance of making an quick grab

for the camera (in the dark) and breaking off fine wires. Happy to give

details of what I did, but generally feel I'm getting too old for this. LOL!