Jupiter 13/12/2012 AM

[cgarry]

This was the best seeing that I have had this opposition and was also the first light for my new ASI120MM camera.

Jupiter (S upwards)

13/12/2012 00:12

Cambridge, UK.

Scope: C14, x2 barlow

Camera: ASI120MM

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

Personally i am not sure what to make of it Chris, it seems very soft, oversmooth and lacking the very fine detail i know this area on Jupiter will show. Dont get me wrong its a good image, and noise is completely absent. But almost too much. Did you do some kind of noise reduction ? My images have often been too noisy lately i know. This seems the exact opposite. with exactly the opposite problem this is bringing. Theres something oversmooth going on. I am just not sure what it is ? I hope you appreciate the honesty, I could just have said Great image. But i always appreciate your honest opinion. Even when its one that makes me rethink my processing options. Like it did recently on one that i posted that didnt look intirely right. After reading what others were saying i kind of partly agreed they was correct.

Wonder what others think. As you mention the best seeing youve had so far.

[cgarry]

Yes Neil, I most certainly do appreciate your honesty. I have played around with this version quite a lot, almost certainly too much but eventually thought I would just post it to stop me carrying on forever. I am not sure when it got over softened, but I think it was a result of trying to lose the more detailed but 'unnatural' look the image had.

I think I shall be processing the data again from scratch over the weekend and see if I can get it to come out better.

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

Yes Neil, I most certainly do appreciate your honesty. I have played around with this version quite a lot, almost certainly too much but eventually thought I would just post it to stop me carrying on forever. I am not sure when it got over softened, but I think it was a result of trying to lose the more detailed but 'unnatural' look the image had.

I think I shall be processing the data again from scratch over the weekend and see if I can get it to come out better.

Cheers,

Chris

I get obssesed with noise too Chris, infact its driven me to the point of under sharpening on occassions. ( quite a lot actually ) Or over smoothing. Over smoothing, being the worst of the two. Dont fear the noise to much. The texture that Stuart just posted up under average seeing looks about right to my eyes. The very fine detail, has not been squashed. but still doesnt look overly noisy. I havent seen a lot of shots with this camera though. So not sure how much thats influencing what i am thinking what im seeing. Im not sure ?

[Space Cowboy]

I see what Neil is saying Chris especially the north pole detail. Maybe its the new camera producing a smoother image? Still an excellent image!

[cgarry]

It could be that the new camera needs a slightly different processing routine, I certainly did not change anything I did to allow for it.

However, looking at the individual R, G & B TIFFs it is obvious that the blue channel is is a much lower quality that the red and green channels. This is a real shame as the R ans G channels look great. I do have another set of R, G and B AVIs to process, but the seeing had obviously deteriorated by the time they were taken so I do not think that they will turn out to be particularly special.

The wait for the night of great seeing continues!

[Space Cowboy]

Definetely worth trying different wavelet settings with less noise reduction. Maybe you can get away with less frames? I shall be watching your progress with this camera very closely Chris.

[cgarry]

I think the camera has a lot of potential and I am looking forward to seeing what it can produce. Watch this space as they say.

I did settle on the wavelets for the red channel and then just blindly applied the same ones to the green and blue channels. Very lazy I know, but time was limited.

Just to give a better idea of what I am working with, here are the red and the blue channels after stacking and wavelets:

Red:

Blue:

Cheers,

Chris

[Space Cowboy]

Blimey that Red has got some detail!

[Ewan]

Hi Chris can you tell us your processing technique & programs used ?

I'm not expert but it looks slighlty 'milky' but each too their own & i feel it's too easy to overprocess (i have done) and the belts come out all big & bold, a fine line is to be trod between sharpness, pure detail & overall image finish shall we say & sometimes it's just not that easy.

All the same a nice picture Chris i like it.

[ether823]

Well I think its blumming good.

[neil phillips]

Thats very strange Chris as the red and blue look much finer than the colour result. Comparing your red to one of mine, that seemed to have much less softening as a colour image.

Yet your red looks comparable, possibly better. Though darker.

If it helps. Heres a example of a red, one of the better ones of a grs side. The original looked much softer than yours, but i suspect it was because i held back on the wavlets prefering to sharpen more as a colour image.

So i sharpened it some more on wavelets to give a similar balance to yours to show you what i mean. All the GRS blues ive had have been bad. Get used to it. is probably good advice, ive found so far.

Your blue also looks smilar to mine i think. though would have to check. But certainly the red leaves it for dead. It doesnt look like the camera has produced the softening. It looks like its happened in the colour combine somewhere. How many frames did you stack ? mine has 5 or 6000 which likely explains the slight blur compared to yours. i suspect youve far less on yours ? I think your red looks better. Though will likely have less tolerance in sharpening the colour combine some more, i suspect ?

[cgarry]

Cheers guys.

Yes Stuart, I guess you can see why I thought I was onto something good when that red channel popped out from a quick process.

Ewan, I would hesitate to call this processing used here a technique. I definitely spent too long messing with the image whilst doing other things, probably doing multiple iterations of noise reduction followed by sharpening.

There is a reason why the images are slightly dark Neil, I adjusted the gamma for focusing and forgot to change it back for the capture. This is not the first time and I am sure will not be the last time I make this mistake! Each channel was a 90s capture which worked out at a bit over 5600 frames, the best 2000 stacked. I shall run through the processing again from scratch and also post the intermediate images.

Thanks again for all the comments and advice, they really do help.

Chris

[Kokatha man]

Well I think its blumming good.

Heck, I'll echo ether823's comments here Chris :icon_salut: - although I'm sure you'll manage to find some improvements upon reprocessing, that's something we all engage in!

Quote: "I definitely spent too long messing with the image whilst doing other things, probably doing multiple iterations of noise reduction followed by sharpening." - each to their own as my dear old departed Mum would say, but it must be "an English thing" what with all the emphasis on noise reduction.....and i have to say that although I appreciate why some prefer the aesthetics of "the softer look" I think you can definitely overdo it.....whenever I come up with worthwhile images I send them on to the BAA and JUPOS - and I know they want so see and measure details etc so you have to strike a balance where detail resolution is still the number one priority.

Not trying to stir things up but just stating my own opinion/perspective and reasoning.....if we were using an ep and sending in drawings (which some do and are still relevant) then we'd be first and foremost trying to ellicit as much detail in said sketch primarily, and not trying to make it look "pretty".....so as such my objective is to get a detailed image where there's a bit of balance with grain/noise/smoothness but not to the detriment of what the image might be able to reveal re details!

I'm sure Neil will have a somewhat different view but that's the beauty of planetary imaging/processing and the benefit of forum discussions where we can read slightly differing viewpoints.....but principally from my perspective this is a very good image and if you can tease a tad more detail/clarity out and not go too far towards a "painting" in your endeavour to create a "smooth" aesthetic you will have struck a nice balance and created an even better outcome than you have at present - which imho is already a great image!

[neil phillips]

Hi Darryl not much to dissagree with really from what youve said here.

Ive only ever really said that noise is JUST as much a false return, as is over smoothing. Is the only thing you havent publicly agreed with me on. Since weve had these discussions. Though i suspect you do agree ( how can you not as they are both false ? ) The only difference is, as you rightly point ou,t one adds a element of falseness. And one trys to takes away.

I actually belive that good noise control, doesnt always mean detail will suffer to be honest. Though it can sometimes be difficult.

Of course those interested in nothing but detail, will happily accept images where the noise levels may make the planet look like a thousand false snowflakes. But as long as the real detail can be seen underneath this, ( which to be honest sometimes i find it difficult to determine noise from real detail ) in extreme cases, so good on them for being able to tell. with perhaps the extreme noisey images.

And i am certainly not pointing out any particlar images from anyone here. ( god knows how many images ive processed with a abundence of false noise ) we all do it.

Of course again poor noise reduction really can remove detail, and sometimes in a big way. So this is the opposite of the problem here, and possibly the more seriouse of the two problems, from a researchers point of view, fully agreed with you on that Darryl. Because its one thing being able to guess real detail from noise, but intirely another were the detail is completely absent couldnt agree more.

I belive we possibly agree a lot more than you might realize Darryl. Infact i belive as ive got older my aim now isnt actually just to make pretty pictures. Or infact to let science completly rule my appreciation of a planetary bodies ultimate beauty. By allowing a level of noise that really distracts from that beauty to a degree.

But it is infact to allow all the detail that can be got with the equipment i posses, my location will allow, and perhaps my rather limeted abillty to process.

BUT WITHOUT A EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF FALSE DIGITAL NOISE INFORMATION . If that happy medium can be struck, , with the so called equipment and location i posses.

Then that happy medium is infact probaly closer to the truth, than a over smooth, or over noisey image.

Its just the removal of detail, that is the problem. The idea that both extremes are infact FALSE is something i dont see how we can dissagree on.

So we may choose a different path, but the belief is the same as far as i can tell. Ive already said to Chris its a good image. But from what he has openly said here

Quote: "I definitely spent too long messing with the image whilst doing other things, probably doing multiple iterations of noise reduction followed by sharpening End

Clearly indicates to me that just possibly i might be helpfull to Chris by being honest the way i know ( and appreciate ) from him, the way he does about my own images.

Especially when hes spending many thousands of pounds and a great detail of effort to achieve the best he can. If that is something that is frowned upon on any forum. Then im sorry it may well not be the forum for me ?

And i will no longer interact that way with any member who i think does not appreciate this learning and sharing. That i personally find so helpfull when the same said honesty is talked about on my own images from any member.

if we was visually observing jupiter, and for some reason there was a ton of false noise in the imaging train, that was upsetting the view. We would want to find out what the cause of that is. And certianly attempt to correct for, or remove such said noise from the visual view as was possible.

I dont see how imaging is really any different. Infact some of the best images i have ever seen taken by amatures, By the likes of DP and Chris Go on many occassions show absolutely no trace of any false digital noise grain at all. completely absent infact from such false appearances.

Yet the detail doesnt seem to be suffereing in any mysteriouse way. And is very highly complex and rich. As such i will prefer to use there ideals in processing and capture over any that allows vast amounts of noise of any kind. when often the same renowned Telescope ( C14 ) is being used under the guise that Scientists dont care about noise. Well good for them.

But clearly these great amatures ive mentioned. Have found a way to get the detail, and a lack of false noise, that will keep both the scientists, and those who appreciate planetary beauty happy.

That is my sought after ideal. I just wish i had a telescope that was large enough to allow this, without having to resort to very carefull processing, or noise reduction. To try and achive a similar result. But with a much smaller primary.

I may fail miserably. But the ideal is based purely in truth. I have on many occassions. used no noise reduction at all period. And chose infact to use careful wavlet strength and any sharpening routines to achieve this.

The older i get. the more i seem to be wanting to do this. As i dont trust any noise reduction. And find i am slowly coming away from thinking there is any quick fix. from images that have clearly been oversharpened from the outset ( i have and still do create loads ) Just like Chris or anyone. often i do not get it right.

So i am not sure if we have a different view or not really Darryl. From where i sit. i think our views tally quite well. But feel free, to dissagree if you do not. I think ive explained myself about as clear as possible where i sit on this issue of noise reduction. But to be honest the more i learn. This question about my views is fast turning more into a question about noise avoidence rather than reduction. As such its fast becoming a global, not just a ENGLISH thing.

[Kokatha man]

Hi Neil!

Maybe you're reading way too much into my post above.....ether823 said "Well I think its blumming good." and initially I thought it worthwhile to second his opinion despite any of his, your's, mine or anyone else's additional thoughts!!!

That said, in the same spirit that I read your comments I thought it worthwhile to give my own take on the whole issue of noise Vs clarity as I read matters.....as you comment, i don't think we're world's apart but perhaps there is a little difference in emphasis - although I think a lot of that becomes somewhat irrelevant with good seeing - regardless of aperture or elevation!

Within limits of course, but I've seen great images with 10" to 16" gear that cuts it with anything else going, regardless of whether the scope is of the smaller or bigger aperture....personally I'm still to get better images with the C14 than the Saturn images from 2 years ago taken with my C11, even though the planet was also higher last year..!

I think the main thing is that folks are willing to espouse their thoughts on everything/anything planetary imaging-wise.....we'd all be poorer if we all just agreed and said "great image" or whatever and didn't try to investigate the reasoning behind our personal thoughts.....I never take offence at anything you write and I certainly hope you don't with mine - and variety and respectfull debate is the spice of life imho..!

[neil phillips]

Hi Darryl no offence, its just a discussion. Though as far as noise is concerned, at 9 to 11 meters at 60 fps i would prefer a C14 rather than 245 mms so i dont think my comments there will change.

But as far as detail goes, yes Its mostly in the seeing isnt it, when all things are perfected. But resolution on those nights can also be of a lower quality, with all else equal.

Going back to Chris image. Looking at the red. It certainly seems the noise reduction he mentions may not have done the image the respect it deserves. we will know this when a better one pops up. Hope Chris finds time to experiment, as i can see now, looking at hes red, why he said its the best seeing hes had so far

Its ok for people to say, i think its a great image. Nothing wrong in saying that, as it is a good image, when we are discussing the finer things. Its those finer things that keep me interested here. perhaps without that, and reduced to no discussion. I think i would tire of it quite quickly. Not sure if others feel the same ?

[Kokatha man]

Yes, I tend to agree with your last paragraph here Neil.....although I've quite often had durn good red channels that are let down by the green & blue: the beauty of the ASI cams is they are most sensitive in the green actually, and blue doesn't seem to suffer so much as it does in the Flea3 imo.....one of the reasons I actually think it's a better camera and won't be using the Flea3 very often from now on...

Saturn will be another test - but it was Sam's detailed comparisons with the 618 chip (in a DMK618) on Saturn initially that really got me interested enough in his camera to put in the hard yards we have getting it up and running properly!

[Freddie]

Hi Chris, like the image a lot, however to my eye it is not quite as "pin sharp" as those I have seen from you before the change of cam. Processing and seeing may or may not have impacted on this.

Interesting comments in the rest of the post. Must admit I have concluded that if people post up an image just stating "here is an image" then they are obviously happy with it and it is giving them pleasure. So that is a good thing as I think that is what we are all trying to get out of this. Low noise to someone is low detail to someone else. For me, it's low noise as I want something I would see with my eyes if I was a bit closer and not 400 million miles away. Not booked my next summer holiday yet, how are they getting on with those moon trips !!??

If however someone posts up saying I can't get more detail or how do I get rid of the noise, then that's where SGL is at its best and people can help out. From what I have seen though, generally people want to see as much "detail" as possible from their images at the expense of noise or a natural look trying to get the "best" from their setup. It makes things more interesting though to see a range of images/processing rather than have them all look the same!!

Having said all that, back to the origins of the thread, a very nice image.

[neil phillips]

Hi Chris, like the image a lot, however to my eye it is not quite as "pin sharp" as those I have seen from you before the change of cam. Processing and seeing may or may not have impacted on this.

Interesting comments in the rest of the post. Must admit I have concluded that if people post up an image just stating "here is an image" then they are obviously happy with it and it is giving them pleasure. So that is a good thing as I think that is what we are all trying to get out of this. Low noise to someone is low detail to someone else. For me, it's low noise as I want something I would see with my eyes if I was a bit closer and not 400 million miles away. Not booked my next summer holiday yet, how are they getting on with those moon trips !!??

If however someone posts up saying I can't get more detail or how do I get rid of the noise, then that's where SGL is at its best and people can help out. From what I have seen though, generally people want to see as much "detail" as possible from their images at the expense of noise or a natural look trying to get the "best" from their setup. It makes things more interesting though to see a range of images/processing rather than have them all look the same!!

Having said all that, back to the origins of the thread, a very nice image.

Kind of agree with most of that Freddie, Though i would suggest from my own perspective on many occassions, i actually havent really been sure of some of the images ive posted, ive looked back on them. and on some ocassions havent been happy with them at all.

Though intially perhaps i thought i was. I think we all get processing blindness from time to time, i know i certainly do. So thats a possibiltie ? on some occassions ( quite a few actually Stuart im sure will agree ) They have actually stated they might not be fully happy with the image after all.

So even this is something that is hard to tell from people. I think the more advanced members sometimes can be the ones that do change there mind often maybe ? Which is why i think theres so many repros that happen on here.

I also have been known perhaps as the champion of the low noise brigade on here ( for lack of a better term ) so fully agree with that view you have.

But i do think theres a difference between low noise, and losing some very hard earned detail. With rather a lot of over smoothing. Which looking at Chris's very detailed red and hes blue, and hes comments about a number of noise reduction routines further convinces me that my comments might be actually helpfull, in as much as Chris might have changed hes mind if he likes the processing or not ?

I cant speak for Chris, only Chris knows this.

But i certainly on occassion have looked at my images again, when i have have had that blinkered processing madness that we do all get. After some comments by others guys views on here who i respect intirely. Have taken a step back and said, yes i see what you mean. I think i need to try something else. Which can only be a positive for me.

I would so hope it would also be for others on here. But can not really be certain of that i guess, untill either they agree with me, disagree with me. Post up a better processing repro. Or consider that its right as it is. We are all different, tastes can play a big part in any of this. So if someone says they disagree, and they think the image is as good as they can get it, or would like it. Then thats great. I certainly dont always agree with what people say about my images. Or most often i tend to only partly agree. Still seeing some positive, in any such said discussed image. As Chris might well do here ( infact i do too ) the positive of course is very low noise. But the point i think ive been making. is the cost may be too high. whats too high a price for me, may not be too high price for you, or Chris or anyone on here. So again thats great. Its great that we dont all agree. Though we all perhaps might stubbornly still feel our view is the one that might be best. Its just human nature. Nothing wrong in that at all, i dont think. Even if we dont agree.

The images will never all look the same Freddie. No matter how much we give our honest opinions to each other, and attempt new processing ideas, Based on group discussions.

On many occassions, i havent asked for a opinion on processing. But i got it anyway. Which to be honest, i actually like, as i dont have a sore spot going on in the work i do, But i do worry if some i try to be helpfull to, may infact have one ? which is a worry that really prevents many members being very open with each other about all our work on here.

I try to talk honestly with those that i feel may appreciate it. Or that have infact suggested negatives on some of my images in the past. reasoning, they actually like speaking the truth. so wont mind if i do the same if i think there image could in some way be improved.

Like for example when you said this about one of my not so good images

quote

• Advanced Members
  
• 727 posts
  

• Location:Kent
  

Not the best you have ever done Neil, but at least you were out there giving it a go. Sounds like it was also useful to confirm your collimation

Which i fully 100% agreed with ( i dont always mind ) but thats how it should be. As we are all different with different tastes.

Replying to you

Agreed Freddie, Its also interesting to see whats happening up there. So its all good

Cheers

I think i am discussing this in more detail because, youve said people are happy with there image if they have posted it up with no further reference to any problems they might be wondering about. Yes i agree that could well be the case for many members. But i am not sure thats true for all members. And certainly not me. But again i agree sometimes its actually hard to tell. Which is were the worry comes in, giving a personal opinion. Rather than a applaud. Doesnt it.

If anyone ever wants to suggest we stick to, thats a great image, a nice image or a fine image, and go no further than this, because they may, or may not be intirely happy with there image. Which is always hard to tell.

Then i will be the first to sign up for such a response. Though i would likely not interact as much, probably wouldnt frequent the forum as much. As personally ( i cant speak for others ) being totally honest with everyone, and trying to learn, and improve with interactions with everyone on here. Is such a big part of wanting to be here in the first place. I learn so much from many on here. Enjoy talking planetary imaging with many on here. That such short responses. although they have there place. I think after a while would get a little tirsome. and not very interesting or very productive for any of us. But thats how i feel. many others may not. Apologies Chris for the long winded discussion. But being honest, perhaps makes me parenoid in my old age, and i start to question if its really productive. or even wanted by perhaps some members. Sometimes i think i know these type of discussions are all good. Other times i am less sure ?

Perhaps i just have to much time on my hands. and really the whole question really is rather too risky, as far as if its really wanted or not ? perhaps the Mods would like to suggest a code of conduct where only if a question is asked, would reall opinions be given. if thats so. im certainly fine with it, if everyone else is. But i may not appear as often as i did. I suspect. As i think thats one of reasons i enjoy the forum so much

Ps i hope your doing a repro with those sequences, i still think theres loads more to come from that

[cgarry]

Thanks again for the comments. This is a great discussion going on here, the sort of discussion that I think makes this forum such a great place. I really appreciate the openness of the imagers on here, especially the likes of Neil and Stuart who are more than happy to discuss their processing techniques so that others can learn from them.

Thanks for you comments Darryl, the views of anybody who can produce images of the quality you do are always going to be welcome. This would be a good time to thank you again for your WinJupos tutorial which made a massive difference to my processing and your posts on AS!2 have really helped me get the best from that great program.

Anyway, after taking on board the comments here is the inevitable reprocess. This time I did not use any noise reduction at all after the wavelet stage.

And for comparison, here is the original version:

Cheers,

Chris

[atmenterprises]

Thanks again for the comments. This is a great discussion going on here, the sort of discussion that I think makes this forum such a great place. I really appreciate the openness of the imagers on here, especially the likes of Neil and Stuart who are more than happy to discuss their processing techniques so that others can learn from them.

Agreed! SGL is full of bright individuals who don't mind sharing. I wouldn't even be close to the level I am today without this great forum.

[neil phillips]

Thanks for saying that Chris, Being open, it all starts to feel a bit uncertain sometimes. I start to Question the limits or otherwise of that openess.

Hence the long winded waffle. Apologies again.

But back to the astronomy. This is very interesting. I think you may agree, looking at the southern pole detail, the untouched version, does seem to have a ton of detail, that is either severly subdued, or completly absent on the first version. Though it does pay for it, with that rather less pretty appearance. so can see why you tried to balance these effects with noise control. to start with.

I think if this was my data, and i had just processed these two versions. My brain would be wondering if i could somehow keep the detail of the second. But with a bit more naturalness of the first. Thats my take.

I am actually surprised how much was lost on the first processing attempt. I think its the poles that suffered the most on the first attempt. though other areas seem very detail subdued compared.

Now we have seen whats going on. I wonder when you have time. if you might try to strike a balance perhaps between the two approaches. Thats what i would be thinking if it was my data. Well done for taking the comments on board and experimenting some.

Just hope as i say i am actually helping rather than just annoying.

Nice redo Chris. The detail in and around and above the white ovals are really starting to come out now. Btw where did you order the camera from, and how much readys ? i was very interested in Darryl saying, he will likely be using the cmos camera more than the flea. Thats a pretty powerful statement thats hard to ignore. i will be watching shots with this camera closely by both you and Darryl. ( and anyone else ) come to that.

All very interesting

[cgarry]

Thanks Neil. It was a deliberate effort to try for detail over smoothness, trying hard to avoid that painted look. I don't think that is the best image that can come from the data, but for the moment I am very happy to sit back and digest the lessons I have learned from this process.

I bought the camera directly from the ZW Optical website, paying by PayPal. According to my PayPal statement it cost me £191.56. Sam at ZWOptical was very communicative and it took about a week to arrive.

You can also buy them from within the EU now:

http://www.teleskop-...fotografie.html

I have not used the ASI120MM enough to confidently say it is better than the DMK, but I do think TIS will be losing a lot of business if they do not quickly revise their prices.

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

Thanks Neil. It was a deliberate effort to try for detail over smoothness, trying hard to avoid that painted look. I don't think that is the best image that can come from the data, but for the moment I am very happy to sit back and digest the lessons I have learned from this process.

I bought the camera directly from the ZW Optical website, paying by PayPal. According to my PayPal statement it cost me £191.56. Sam at ZWOptical was very communicative and it took about a week to arrive.

You can also buy them from within the EU now:

http://www.teleskop-...fotografie.html

I have not used the ASI120MM enough to confidently say it is better than the DMK, but I do think TIS will be losing a lot of business if they do not quickly revise their prices.

Cheers,

Chris

I will certainly agree with that Chris, the performance versus price, is rather unsettling, for both TIS and TIS dealers. I would like to think the jurys still out as far as what is better, but it seems that Darryl may have decided already. which i dont take lightly at all. But this can only be a good thing for planetary imagers on a tight budget. I am sure Darryl would say at any budget.

As far as your attempt at processing the new shot is concerned, that makes perfect sense in everything we have been discussing, and noticing regarding the differences in detail and presentation.

Thanks for the info regarding the camera, very usefull.

Another thing that springs to mind for Newt users is weight, what with filter wheels and the weight of the DMK, i do like using tubes to alter Focal length. Which at there longest, can put rather a bit of strain on the focusser ( and i am finding collimation too ) So any reduction in weight from a quality camera is interesting to me, I think for those that already have a quality mono camera. it may well be worth thinking about a single colour version of this chip. Especially for long run motion AVIs.

I wonder if theres any info about that yet. And its performance on jupiter compared to the mono version. Ive wanted a cheaper single colour cam for sometime, especially a low weight device. So you can see my interest here.

Any info i can find out about the colour version. Will be a godsend. I am off to have another look at the website. Cheers for the feedback Chris. Hope you have found some the interactions useful.