Webcam choice

[long_arms]

Greetings,

I know this is probably quite a well debated topic but I could not find a decent comparison of the two anywhere else.

I don't have toucam or DMK sort of money so which is better, the Microsoft Lifecam cinema or the Quickcam 4000 pro for strictly planetary and moon work? (I'm not bothered about long exposure mods etc)

The lifecam I believe has a cmos sensor and the quickcam a ccd but obviously one is more modern than the other...

Thanks,

Dan

[riklaunim]

Lifecam is newer and can do more (true USB2 webcam). You can also check very cheap Firefly on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Point-Grey-Research-USB-2-0-Digital-Camera-/290793219351 - it's a "dedicated" mono planetary/lunar camera (although with low gain).

There is Chameleon too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chameleon-1-3-MP-Mono-USB-2-0-OEM-Camera-CMLN-13S2M-CS-from-Point-Grey-Research-/281003808282 but at much higher price (still lower than new one).

[JamesF]

I've not been very impressed with the Lifecam so far, but it may well depend on what kind of aperture you're using it with. SPC900s are going for around the £50 mark now. For the money I still think they're hard to beat.

James

[long_arms]

Thanks for the replies!

I will be using it on an f/5 200p.

That firefly seems very interesting, at the price I am tempted although without rgb filters and a filterwheel I will obviously be limited to monochrome.

I hadn't realised the toucams were that low now, I had always assumed them as still being around 100 pounds. James if i could get a telescope-ready lifecam for 30 quid would you say the toucam is worth the extra money?

Thanks again,

Dan

[JamesF]

My experience with the lifecam is not brilliant, but I've had no chance to try it on Jupiter this apparition and I'm using it on a 127 Mak so have a lot less aperture to play with than you. For me the SPC900 blows the lifecam into the weeds, to be honest.

That said, Gary Honis, webcam modder extraordinaire, has said that he reckons the lifecam could be as good or even better than the SPC. He was testing it using a 20" OTA though and I've never seen any evidence from him that persuades me that the lifecam is better. The only images of his I've seen are ones that were taken on a night of poor seeing and they're not that great.

In fact, I've never seen a lifecam image that is comparable to some of the images that I and others on SGL have produced with the SPC900, so for about £50 I'd go for the SPC every time.

James

[riklaunim]

That firefly seems very interesting, at the price I am tempted although without rgb filters and a filterwheel I will obviously be limited to monochrome.

You can shoot mono only with it. For Moon or Sun it's better than a color camera, and for planets as this camera has only low gain - imaging mono luminance is a good choice. Just an orange or red visual filter and you have a real planetary camera, not a webcam with compression (although no color).

Friend of mine is using one - http://astro-blog.pl - and he even merges color from a webcam (Lifecam) with the sharp ifraredish luminescence (red or orange filter) from the firefly.

[bus_ter]

SPC900s are going for around the £50 mark now. For the money I still think they're hard to beat.

James

I remember when they were under £7 off the Morgan computers website. Who knows how much they bought them for! I think it's funny how we now spend £50 to buy a second hand webcam that was a budget camera 5 years ago. How is it that camera sensor technology has moved on leaps and bounds over the last few years (compare your current compact camera to your last one..), yet our best option is an old outdated webcam not even designed for Astronomy? Why is there not a cheap better option available?

/sorry off topic!

[JamesF]

I remember when they were under £7 off the Morgan computers website. Who knows how much they bought them for! I think it's funny how we now spend £50 to buy a second hand webcam that was a budget camera 5 years ago. How is it that camera sensor technology has moved on leaps and bounds over the last few years (compare your current compact camera to your last one..), yet our best option is an old outdated webcam not even designed for Astronomy? Why is there not a cheap better option available?

I think I bought all four of mine from Morgan for £5 each.

The reason they sell for £50 now is because that's what people are willing to pay. If there were no buyers at £50 then the prices would drop. That's the way the market works.

It is however something of a coincidence that what was always intended to be a cheap webcam turned out to be an unusually good planetary webcam, especially as that use for them became most popular when they were being sold off cheap because they'd been largely superseded by other webcams that may well have been better when used for their original purpose. Whilst sensor technology has improved a great deal those improvements have generally been CMOS based sensors as far as webcams are concerned and they haven't generally been as good as the CCD sensor in the SPC900. What works as a good webcam now rarely if ever works as a good planetary imaging camera and the markets have diverged, which is why dedicated cameras such as the DFK21 are so much more expensive: they're targetting a niche market and much smaller sales volumes equate to higher unit costs.

Without some significant step-change in technology I can't see that there ever will be a cheap planetary imaging camera. Webcams generally won't fit the bill because the developers aren't really interested in low-light, high sensitivity, low-noise applications and dedicated cameras have a much smaller market from which to recoup the development costs.

James

[riklaunim]

developers aren't really interested in low-light, high sensitivity, low-noise applications

Thats not correct. You just pointed out key selling points of sensors found in modern high end webcams and similar cameras. Omnivision sensors found in for example webcams hand much higher QE than ICX098 in old SPC webcam. The difference in IR is even bigger.

ICX098 has QE above 30%. Nowadays mass made sensors in not-rubbish equipment has QE around 60%. Sensors for 2013 cameras will be in 70-80% QE range (plus low read noise, very fast framerates, falling prices). Even now modern machine vision cameras can be bought new for ~half or less the price of similar TIS DMK.

[JamesF]

Thats not correct. You just pointed out key selling points of sensors found in modern high end webcams and similar cameras. Omnivision sensors found in for example webcams hand much higher QE than ICX098 in old SPC webcam. The difference in IR is even bigger.

Which webcams are you talking about here? Are people modding them for astro use? And if not, why not?

One other thing I meant to add was that webcam designers seem to be heading down the route of automating all sorts of features (gain, white balance, exposure etc.) and not exposing those controls to the user in the name of simplicity. For astro use that isn't what we want.

James

[bus_ter]

There was a time when CCD was the better option, but everyone seems to be going CMOS now. My current DSLR is CMOS, and in terms of low light and noise performance it's way way better than my last dslr with a CCD chip. It just amazes me that we're using such an old and outdated camera (because it appears to be the best option available). The blumming things are USB 1, we can't go above 10fps because of that limitation. Current computers are now USB 3.0, and USB 2.0 was around for years! There must be some cheap cameras (say £50 range) built with a modern day sensor and fast BUS that will run circles around the SPC900 without us having to stretch to several £100s for a dedicated camera!

I found this page about CMOS vs CCD: http://www.pcworld.com/article/246931/cmos_is_winning_the_camera_sensor_battle_and_heres_why.html?page=2

[long_arms]

I really wish I had been into astronomy back in the days when a spc900 was a fiver!!

As a newbie I would never attempt it myself but I was wondering if people ever by a sensitive sensor and fit it to a webcam? Wonder if its more cost effective than buying a DMK or similar?

I went out and bought an asda webcam after seeing a thread on this forum and whilst I am more than happy with the results from a 7 pound webcam and no experience it has made me want a better camera. (Heres a badly processed jupiter with 3 moons from the other night)

It sickens me that you bought a toucam for less money than this asda one

[bus_ter]

I'm getting 'No Permission' instead of an image..

[long_arms]

How about now?

[bus_ter]

Yep! Nice little webcam shot!

[nicks90]

I'm still a big fan of mobile phone cameras and firmly beleive the technology in them far outweighs webcams in most aspects.

Being a complete noob - but a major tech head geek - i dont know how to apply this tech to AS, but i cannot wait to have a go with my own camera phone on a proper mount.

My old mobile had an 8mp camera with carl zeiss lense and there are android camera apps to make infinite adjustments to exposure and gain and stuff. If you look on ebay there are plenty of phones with decents cameras for sale as spares or repair due to faulty wifi/blue tooth or speakers/microphones with fantastic camera quality that do 8-10mp with full 1080p HD recording. One just went for £12 a couple of minutes ago... and i bet 'out of the box' that would outperform most webcams in terms of quality and definitely in functionality.

[nicks90]

you also have the advantage most smartphones have decent internal memory and therefore you dont need to have a laptop lugging around to plug the webcam in when doing AS - just copy it to your pc when you get in later on.

[bus_ter]

Camera phones are an interesting option. But remember MPs mean nothing for planet imaging. You've seen the images produced, nobody is running out of sensor resolution. The important factors are low noise in low light conditions. Next to that is being able to record a high frame rate without having to apply compression that will reduce the quality of the captured frames. For an equal size sensor, low MP (resolution) equates to more sensitivity. The bigger the pixel the more photons of light landing on the surface.

[long_arms]

Hi,

I would like to thank riklaunim for the suggestion as I just bought one of the firefly's. After a look at reviews it seems for lunar it blows the toucams out of the water and for planetary it is quite close.

Would anybody recommend a #21 orange filter for enhancing jupiter/moon?

I'm still a big fan of mobile phone cameras and firmly beleive the technology in them far outweighs webcams in most aspects.

Whilst I am a newbie, I did try lunar/jupiter with my Samsung Galaxy S2, (it has a 8mp 1080p camera) and it wasnt great. I found the cheap asda webcam to be much better, you are right with the fact there are lots of aftermarket apps for exposure etc but the noise levels were incredible (I attempted milky way shots) and it just didnt bring out any detail on jupiter.

I'm sure with a lot of tinkering and a solid holder you could get half decent shots but with my limited experience I would say the cheapest webcam you can find with an old film canister duct taped to it (what i went for) will be just as good and in my case it was much better.

[long_arms]

I may next clear night try and fabricate a little holder for my mobile phone and give it a proper side by side. Not sure whether you can adjust the fps on an s2 but now I'm thinking about it I always attempt recording at full HD (1080p) perhaps at a lower resolution my phone could do better than it did with me last time.

[Radders]

I'd love a Phillips SPC but I struggle to justify the £50-90 asking price.

I managed to get a V Gear Tracer Talkcam as they were going for £9 on fleabay. This apparently has the same Sony ICX098BQ sensor as the Phillips SPC880/900. I have found that it has no Gain option so not sure how it will do.

Was hoping to try it out tonight but the Cloud Gods seem to be against me.

[Willard]

Try a search on Ebay for 'DSLR body', prices start about £40 for an Olympus E300.

[JamesF]

In case it's of interest I've posted some details comparing the SPC900, Lifecam Cinema and Xbox Live cameras here:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/168060-spc900-vs-xbox-live-webcam-vs-lifecam-cinema/

James