Any opinions on this Orion camera

[geppetto]

Looks a good spec for planets and lunar 8)

http://www.scsastro.co.uk/it030084.htm

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

It looks similar in spec to the Fusion, but costs more and has less long exposure ability. Can't see it catching on myself.

Captain Chaos

[geoff_k]

Keiron (from SCS Astro) showed me one at Astrofest.

I'm not entirely sure if this particular model is still being made as there may be newer versions on the horizon.

As CC suggests, probably only a planetary camera. Don't know about the Fusion, but this one from Bern for example, would be better value: http://www.modernastronomy.com/toucampro.html

Geoff

[GazOC]

As CC has said, its one I looked at before I bought the Fusion. I can't see what it can do that Fusion can't at half the price. They are both CMOS, the Orions chip is bigger than the Fusions but the pixels are as well so I'm not sure if the images would be any better?

[russ]

The Orion is a re-housed Microsoft VX6000 with the same 1/2" CMOS chip. What you are paying for is the reworked control panel and supposedly easier control for newbies. A bit like the Celestron Neximager which is a Toucam Pro II rehoused with easier control for double the money.

These CMOS chips seem to be catching on now and I did read that the difference in performance between a CCD and CMOS is closing all the time.

The main appeal of these webcams is their USB 2.0 High Speed connection, which means more FPS with less compression. Even the latest Toucam is stuck with steam powered USB 1.1.

Russ

[geppetto]

Thanks for that guys...

Looks like a fusion may be on the cards sometime soon

[GazOC]

These CMOS chips seem to be catching on now and I did read that the difference in performance between a CCD and CMOS is closing all the time.

And whats a little extra noise when you are getting an extra 10 FPS to help S/N ratio?

[russ]

And whats a little extra noise when you are getting an extra 10 FPS to help S/N ratio? Wink

Exactly And if they could just get the sensitivity down to 1 Lux to match the Toucam that'd be ace.

[FLO]

... the Orions chip is bigger than the Fusions but the pixels are as well so I'm not sure if the images would be any better?

In theory at least, yes. Bigger pixels should be more sensitive in the same way larger apertures collect more light.

[GazOC]

But less detail (more 'grainy')? Or am I missing the point?

[FLO]

Not necessarily. If the imaging chip is the same size then more pixels = greater resolution but at the risk of lower sensitivity (which produces noise that resembles film-grain).

Generally, larger and deeper pixels are preferred for their improved sensitivity and dynamic range. Think of a pixel as a bucket and photons as drops of rain. The wider the bucket, the more rain is collected. The deeper the bucket, the more rain can be stored....

[GazOC]

IAh, think I see. For lunar, a big chip with small pixels will be OK but not for much else?

[FLO]

I guess so...

Bear in mind that my digital imaging theory is born from regular photography where trickery like stacking, Maximum-entropy-deconvolution and drizzle don't apply!

[GazOC]

Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up....

[FLO]

Maximum-entropy-deconvolution is my word of the day

I saw it on the AstroArt site. Haven't the foggiest what it means but thought it sounded pretty cool 8)

[geppetto]

Maximum-entropy-deconvolution

I had a touch of that in my left leg last year.

Tablets cleared it up though

[geoff_k]

This site explains maximum entropy whatsit in terms we can all understand (providing you have drunk several bottles on tequila or similar).

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/computing/software/atca_aips/node88.html#SECTION000172100000000000000

I prefer Richardson-Lucy deconvolution myself, especially Lucy. She is quite delightful and worth convoluting with.