Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

Mick UK

Members
  • Content Count

    509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

3 Followers

About Mick UK

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Location
    Middlesbrough England
  1. Pat, i downloaded it myself off Youtube so that i could play it on my HD tv along with the sound track i added from youtube but when i checked, it downloaded at a lower resolution than what it was uploaded as. Ive just converted the original video i took with the lifecam studio which was 48.8GB into a MPG2 format video which is now 832MB and is 1920 x 1080 which is obviously full HD and looks splendid on a 55" samsung tv screen. Not sure why its lost some of its resolution when it downloaded from youtube, strange one indeed.
  2. I captured this video tonight and added some music to it that i found on Youtube. Not sure why, but perhaps its because of the music that it gives you some sort of feeling for just how massive the moon is and the music also gives you that "Space walking" feeling people talk about when using very expensive wide field eyepieces......well..it does me anyway! :grin: To watch it in 1080p (1920 x 1080) you will need to watch it on Youtube.
  3. Humpty is right Pat, the software that comes with the Lifecam Studio will only record at 720p. Heres something of interest, im just out now imaging the moon and when im recording at 1920 x 1080, the monitor video image often sticks a couple of seconds and then starts again but when i check the video ive recorded, theres no sticking, it plays smoothly which would suggest that the USB2 is not getting bogged down (well i reckon it is slightly as sharpcap tells me its recording at 24 - 27fps.) so thats something to bear in mind if your using the Lifecam.
  4. Humpty, heres a video ive shot at 1080p, what i did was to take 4 recordings with the lifecam of 3 minutes each (to warm the chip up) then i took this very short one to show how much noise was been made. Im not sure if this is classed as a lot of noise or not to much noise?? (watch the video in 1080p to see the noise the best) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKguCpbWAw&feature=youtu.be
  5. chris, i dont think its at all possible to view the Apollo landing sights, the area they are in but not the sites themselves im afraid which is a real shame. I dont think the earths atmosphere allows for telescopes to acheive a high enough magnification to be able to see any of the Apollo artifacts that are still up there. ====================================================================================================================================== Humpty, ive screen printed a couple of pics as the video was turning from white to black, ive managed to capture around 3/4 of the image on both so the center of the image is either to the left or right in these pics. Im not entirely sure what im looking for as to me both these images look as though they dont have very much noise in them at all? I see what you mean about these cameras built for focusing on a face as opposed to the whole scene and maybe a field flattener might help this out on Lunar imaging?? Just for the record, that video (and obviously these 2 images) were take with my Lifecam without any lens attached to it.
  6. Humpty, heres a quick vid uploaded onto youtube at 1920x1080 and uploaded in its original state which is 237mb at 8 seconds length. Im not sure if this helps or not, i just took it pointing it at my pc monitor and moved it slightly now and then to give it some different contrast. The marks are not there now and i after checking i noticed they were on my baader filter which ive now cleaned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFtGePCzgZ4&feature=youtu.be
  7. 3 dead pixels? are you referring to the 3 black dots at around 7 oclock below and left of the crater? i think thats muck on the camera/powermate if you are :shocked: :grin:
  8. As i mentioned earlier in the thread Humpty, theres a usb3 1080p webcam just come out although the price is over £200 at the minute, hopefully it will quickly be reduced as other companies bring out their own models. The future is looking exciting technology wise for us astro imagers :smiley:
  9. Heres a photograph ive just taken of the moon video been played on my 55" HD TV. The qaulity is spot on although around the edges of the screen there are some grey dotting which i assume is down to the telescope not been as focused on the outside of the image as it it towards the middle. Perhaps i should invest in a field flattener to sort this out? would that work using a webcam?
  10. Pat, sorry about that, i posted the link to the wrong video, i have 2 of the same area, this is the one i should have put up thats at 1080 resolution. heres a screen shot of the video information..... I use Sharpcap to capture the footage then convert the file which is 4.88gb using Freemake Video Converter (free) into an avi file (49.5mb) for uploading onto Youtube. When you open Freemake add your video then chose avi, another box opens (avi output options) then choose HD 1080p and convert. Im just going to put the original 4.48gb file on my 55" HD tv and see what it looks like!! brb
  11. Pat, ive been looking at your Youtube videos (some really cracking ones there by the way ) and i was wondering (im trying to compare camera's here) in this video... which you used the dmk21 mono camera, have you uploaded it at its original resolution? the reason im asking is that if you look at this video i took with the MS Lifecam Studio and put both videos at maximum settings and open them both up to full screen, the one with the dmk21 loses a lot of sharpness and pixelates where as the the one with the Lifecam doesnt. I guess it begs the question.... is the dmk21 really a better camera for £285 as opposed to the Lifecam at £48 ?
  12. My error Pat, i was always under the assumption that the webcam was classed as the equivalent of a 6mm eye piece, and judging by the replies it looks like ive been mistaken. How would i find out what the true magnification is? is it a given that the webcam is the equivalent of a 15mm eyepiece? The highest practical power for the 250pds is 500x.
  13. Cath i think bringing more detail out in the image tends to create to much noise when you enlarge it, its certainly a lot sharper but if you enlarge them both and compare them side by side its a trade off between more detail and more noise or more natural looking and no noise, and to honest, once printed out as a photograph, my personal choice is the more natural look, although as the saying goes....beauty is in the eye of the beholder
  14. Possible contender to be modded? Hover Cam 3PO just released this year so obviously this price will come down from $299 in the not too distant future. Sensor Type: 8.0 MegaPixel HD CMOS Optical Resolution: Optical Format 1/3.2" Image Resolution: 2592x1944, 2048x1536, 1600x1200, 1280x720, 800x600 Maximum Still-Image Resolution: 8MP Frame Rate: 3K or 1080P @ 30fps http://www.thehovercam.com/press/product-information/352-3po
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.