Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Celestron NexImage Webcam

TROJAN

By TROJAN
in Discussions - Cameras

Recommended Posts

TROJAN

TROJAN

Posted
Posted

Ive just recieved my Skywatcher Explorer 200p, but really want to get into the Astrophotography side of the hobby. I was trying to find out how to set up and take images using the webcam technique. I found Ray Shores Astronomy and Astrophotography Site quite intuitive and was considering the purchase of the Celestron NexImage Astrophotography Webcam for this purpose. Does anyone have any experience of this camera ? and is it suitable for connection to my 200p.

Also has anyone else taken a look at Ray Shores site ? and if I follow his instruction will i go too far wrong ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted

It's expensive Tarn - It's a very useable camera but at around £130 last time I looked, it was vastly overpriced. What you should get is the SPC880 webcam from Morgans:

Buy Philips SPC880 webcam (Not pre flashed) at Morgan Computers

You can get them to "flash" it up to an SPC900 for a couple of quid extra, they also do an adaptor so it can be fitted to a 1.25" focuser tube or 2" to 1.25 adaptor. If you have XP then you can flash it yourself and save a couple of quid.

This is probably the most popular webcam used by astronomers at the current time.

The software you'll need is all free: wxAstrocapture for grabbing the .avi frames, Registax for stacking and aligning, then Gimp for post processing (unless you have photoshop).

This will save you around £100 that goes mostly on the brand name and superfluous software that Celestron supply :)

(I have both cameras btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matsey

matsey

Posted
Posted

A lot of people (me included), have this instead... Buy Philips Pre flashed SPC880 CCD webcam bundle at Morgan Computers.

I can't be absolutely certain (hopefully someone else can come along to confirm...), but I am sure I've read that the CCD chip on this is the same as the NexImage, so it is essentially the same webcam. And the Philips webcam is a LOT cheaper.

Webcams aren't really suitable for deep sky photography, but on the Moon and planets, the results are really very good.

Hope that helps,

Matsey:)

Edit.. snap !! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TROJAN

TROJAN

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Fantastic, Ill start off with the phillips webcam on planets and see how I go. In fact im going to see about ordering one now.. Ill post my results as i progress, then later on, as I get more confident, perhaps i can pick everyones brains so that i can advance to DSO's, but thats a long way off....Thankyou as usual...Tarn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
Posted

Good on you for posting your query here first. The Morgans webcams are a thing of folklore on this forum, and the best value bit of kit you will ever buy! They miraculously appeared last year at a time when SPC900s had ceased production and were cropping up on Ebay for £100 a go. As good as, and much cheaper than, the Neximage. I have 3 of them myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Skybrowser

Skybrowser

Posted
Posted

I made the mistake of purchasing a Neximage as I got fed up with Ebay prices I was seeing for SPC 900s. I have recently ordered both a pre flashed one with adaptor and filter from morgan Computers, plus another not flashed with adaptor for around £50. Less than half the price of a Neximage and two cameras too. If I could go back I would not have purchased the Neximage and getting it to work with the system I was using at the time (Vista) was an absolute nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skybrowser

Skybrowser

Posted
Posted

I have both the Neximage and the SPC cameras and whilst many people say they are essentially the same, the results I got on testing them side by side showed a marked difference with the SPC winning hands down. It may be down to pure luck as we all know that seeing conditions can change so much in a few minutes when imaging planets.

At least I have the hobby standard and bought two of them from Morgans with the second one being a back up. Whoever thought of flashing and preparing these old cameras with adaptors and filters deserves the mint they must now be making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
Posted
I have both the Neximage and the SPC cameras and whilst many people say they are essentially the same, the results I got on testing them side by side showed a marked difference with the SPC winning hands down. It may be down to pure luck as we all know that seeing conditions can change so much in a few minutes when imaging planets.

At least I have the hobby standard and bought two of them from Morgans with the second one being a back up. Whoever thought of flashing and preparing these old cameras with adaptors and filters deserves the mint they must now be making.

That is an interesting comparison........ I wonder if anyone else has done this and had similar results.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted
That is an interesting comparison........ I wonder if anyone else has done this and had similar results.

Gary

Gary,

I have a standard SPC880 flashed (one of the Morgan bundles) and a NexImage. The next time I'm observing I'll try and do a comparison to see if there is any difference in the results. I'll use sharpcap for capturing, and registax 5.1 to do the processing.

Lets hope for clear skies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skybrowser

Skybrowser

Posted
Posted

I was surprised when I compared them but binned the unused Neximage results (sorry). As I said above guys, it could just have been slightly better seeing conditions but I took a few images one after the other over about two hours and the SPC just seemed better. I can't explain it as I understand the only difference is the box which holds the bits inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
Posted
Gary,

I have a standard SPC880 flashed (one of the Morgan bundles) and a NexImage. The next time I'm observing I'll try and do a comparison to see if there is any difference in the results. I'll use sharpcap for capturing, and registax 5.1 to do the processing.

Lets hope for clear skies.

Nice one Malcolm, I look forward to your findings......

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted

Steve,

Looks like my totally un-scientific test has contradicted your results.

Comparison between Flashed SPC880 and NexImage web cameras.

1/11/11. 18:57 GMT - outside temp 9.3c - Average seeing - Humidity 95%

Sharpcap settings:

640 x 480 - YUY2 Codec

15 FPS

-7 EXP

31 Gain

21 Gamma

2x Astro Revelations barlow used. 1000 frames captured.

Registax settings were default straight out of the installed package. Of the 1000 frames 822 were picked out by the software as being above the limits when using the NexImage, compared to 908 for the Phillips.

Wavelet settings were

1:1 = 79

1:2 = 39

As you can see the NexImage produced a much more sharper image (on this occasion) from lower frame stack - slightly smaller due to the focusing position (I had to re-focus between exchanges).

Conclusion:

Well not conclusive really... the fact the seeing was so variable, the air stability very changable, you can't really run a real test as the raw data is different. The only conclusive way, would be to capture data through two identical telescopes at the same time so the footage would be as near identical, recording the same turbulence etc. One thing I have noticed when comparing the two images is that although the gain in Sharpcap was set the same, there is more "noise" in the Philips capture than the Neximage, resulting in a blueish background, where the Neximage is black.

My guess is that whilst the NexImage has the same chip, there is possibly something in the firmware that gives these subtle differences.

post-23388-133877687026_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
Posted

mmmm, an interesting result. As you say guys there are loads of variables. I cant join in on the 'tests' as I dont have a SPC.

Still, it makes for interesting reading, thanks for trying, are you going to do this again another time?

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Russe

Russe

Posted
Posted

Speaking of the blueish hue on long exposure pics with the spc880 - has anyone of you tried converting it as described in this link:

www.boltonastro.org.uk/members_area/Projects/spc880conversion.pdf

?

It looks fairly simple but, I don't know...

The blue hue seems to be due to the electroluminescence generated by the CCD's on-chip amplifier.

The problem is, you'd need a soldering iron and some non-lead-free solder... (sounds a bit like monkey island to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yesyes

yesyes

Posted
Posted
Speaking of the blueish hue on long exposure pics with the spc880 - has anyone of you tried converting it as described in this link:

www.boltonastro.org.uk/members_area/Projects/spc880conversion.pdf

?

Yes, many on here including myself have done this:

http://stargazerslounge.com/diy-astronomer/148315-spc900-lxmod-yesyes-style.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yesyes

yesyes

Posted
Posted
How long did it take u to make it? Was it difficult? Do you have any practical tips for "dummies?"

I do indeed.. :) on my website:

yesyes DIY and astro :: Modding an SPC880/900 webcam for long exposure

It took me about 4 hours to do one mod, probably quite a bit more the first time.

Was it difficult? Not really, but then I do do a lot of electronics tinkering. When you attempt this mod you should have some previous soldering experience, ideally positive experience... :)

There's some very tiny solder points to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.