Imaging with a Webcam

[JamesF]

Stay clear of those phillips ones they cost 12 pound a year ago and most of them come from a company called morgans who were have in them made to the same spec as a phillips one by some dodgy asain company ,any one who pays ove 20 pound for a 12 pound web cam is crazy tesco do a webcam for 4:99 just as good and cheap you can get an adapter of ebay for a fiver ,

and i hate the idiots that sell them for silly money i seen one sold on here for £80 blumming stupid

Eh?

The Philips SPC880/SPC900 is quite possibly still the best planetary imaging webcam you can buy for under £100. In fact it's built around exactly the same sensor as the DFK 21AU04.AS that FLO currently sell for £274, though unlike the DFK it doesn't support USB2 so faster frame rates aren't really an option. If you have loads of aperture then perhaps there are other cameras that will do as well. Maybe.

I had some of the last of the SPC880 cameras that Morgans sold and regardless of where they were made and who made them they're still excellent imaging cameras that easily exceed the capabilities of most modern webcams where planetary imaging is concerned. It may be that Morgans sourced them from an Asian distributor, but I don't believe they're any different from any other SPC880.

And if someone offers one for sale at £80 and someone else is willing to pay regardless of the fact that the original purchaser only paid £5 for it, who is the idiot? The seller, who achieved the price they wanted for something they were willing to sell, or the purchaser who paid a price they were happy with to obtain something they wanted? That's just the western market economy at work. It's the world we live in.

James

[lensman57]

I've got my scope and mount (see my signature for details) and now I'm getting imaging itch! Being a cheapskate, I want to go for low, low budget - my aim is to have fun.

I realise I'll need to get the motor drive kit for my EQ3-2, that's a given. What I'd like to know is, what are the options for using a web cam, and are cheap (£20 ish) webcams any use (I've read about a Philips one in another thread, but that costs nearly £100)?

Also on my mind: -

-What software is available to capture/process the images (preferable cheap or free)

-Do I have to take the lens off the webcam and use it in the focal plane or is there any mileage in taking pics through the eyepiece (thus allowing different magnifications)?

Just to give a flavour of the low standard that I need to beat, here's my first ever pic of Jupiter taken with my camcorder in still mode held up against the eyepiece of my scope: -

Hi Nebula,

I am new to this astro imaging but quite experienced in other areas of photography, I used to be a semi pro sort of thing. From the image you have posted it looks as if a little practice and experimentation on your part with gain and exposure will improve things quite a lot. I have 3 of these little x box things and they do sort of work depending on your scope's aperture and the quality of the mirror or lens as these are not really high sensitivity camears but will do for getting you started. There are a couple of issues with using a web cam to do serious imaging. The most imporatant part is ofcourse the sensor and the one from the Philips webcam is a good one as it is used in a lot of other dedicated cameras the problem with this is the circuit that is associated with sensor as these were not designed or optimised for long exposure high frame rate application that we are talking about. The noise build up as the result of long exposure, heat built up and high gain coupled with data compression applied to maintain high frame rate will seriously dent how much detail will be available to RegiStax to stack and give you a decent image. As for the Philips Toucam, they are worth as much as People are willing to pay for them. They are not worth £80.00 or so Pounds to me . I have seen some very good images done with them with some 8* or 10" Newt Scopes but I have seen some mind blowing images of the planets done on the same aperture scopes and dedicated planetary cameras. So it all depends on how serious you are going to take this and your budget. So if you are after some nice images to show your friends and family the webcam is more than adequate, if you want to seriously get in to imaging particularly of DSO objects then you'd better look elsewhere. Your scope is more than capable of delivering excellent images of both the palnets and the DSOs so you have the right tool there.

Regards,

A.G

[Aenima]

Stay clear of those phillips ones they cost 12 pound a year ago and most of them come from a company called morgans who were have in them made to the same spec as a phillips one by some dodgy asain company ,any one who pays ove 20 pound for a 12 pound web cam is crazy tesco do a webcam for 4:99 just as good and cheap you can get an adapter of ebay for a fiver ,

and i hate the idiots that sell them for silly money i seen one sold on here for £80 blumming stupid

pat

I LOVE my philips spc880nc and am grateful to have paid 'only' 50 quid all in, however having said this it really depresses me to see them being treated like high-tech/spec planetary imagers with very high prices on ebay, and the fact that they are just webcams gets forgotten in the haste to make a profit out of astronomers who want to take decent images without breaking the bank.

Making the most of the demand and using auctions to get the best prices is fine, people will bid how they want to bid - I just hope folks remember not to cross the line into simply exploiting hopeful stargazers especially considering how expensive the hobby is in virtually every other aspect of the market.......

I wish philips would re-make and restock those webcams, they could really fill a niche there!

Anyways soz for interrupting - James has a excellent point, comparing the SPC to the DFK price-wise - cant complain too much.

Regards

Aenima

[todd8137]

If ya can not aford a dmk then take the cheaper alternative if you want to get funny but if you like getting ripped then pay 80 quid for some thing that cost 12 quid morgans told me the first 300 they ordered in had a ccd chip in and its not the same as the dmk so stop saying it is .its not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,they then became popular and they had a cheaper ccd put in i no this as i rang them and they told me on the phone that this "new batch do not have the ccd chip in the first ones did" even with the amp of mod hey rubbish i stand by my comment and do not wish to upset no one but pay in over twenty pounds for these is crazy i will stick with the dmk

tell ya what do 5 avi and check the noise out on them its horrible

[todd8137]

Eh?

The Philips SPC880/SPC900 is quite possibly still the best planetary imaging webcam you can buy for under £100. In fact it's built around exactly the same sensor as the DFK 21AU04.AS that FLO currently sell for £274, though unlike the DFK it doesn't support USB2 so faster frame rates aren't really an option. If you have loads of aperture then perhaps there are other cameras that will do as well. Maybe.

I had some of the last of the SPC880 cameras that Morgans sold and regardless of where they were made and who made them they're still excellent imaging cameras that easily exceed the capabilities of most modern webcams where planetary imaging is concerned. It may be that Morgans sourced them from an Asian distributor, but I don't believe they're any different from any other SPC880.

And if someone offers one for sale at £80 and someone else is willing to pay regardless of the fact that the original purchaser only paid £5 for it, who is the idiot? The seller, who achieved the price they wanted for something they were willing to sell, or the purchaser who paid a price they were happy with to obtain something they wanted? That's just the western market economy at work. It's the world we live in.

James

rubbish rubbish rubbish they do not have the same chip in as the dmk ,the original phillips ones may have the first batch of 300 morgans had did and the rest had a cheaper one in ,its a urban legend that hey all have this chip in because people wanted a budget one and the story got out of hand

[JamesF]

So these images, taken through a 127 Mak with one of the later cameras sold by Morgans are from a rubbish camera? I know it can't be from any "first batch of 300" because I was very late to the party when it came to picking mine up.

I think I'll be hanging on to my "rubbish" camera then.

James

[todd8137]

Can you get of ya high horse for one minute i can stick my images up of mars and saturn and jupiter venus ect and we can go round in circles all day what do these pics prove ? So what shall i post my images up to back my point up

[todd8137]

Ps i no some one with a 4:99 tesco web cam that gets images just as good as yours lets not high jack this thread pm me in future with any comments

[JamesF]

Then perhaps you should post examples so that other people can go out and benefit from this camera, because no-one else seems to know about it.

James

[knobby]

Ps i no some one with a 4:99 tesco web cam that gets images just as good as yours lets not high jack this thread pm me in future with any comments

No... Don't pm him, this is getting interesting, keep it open for us all to see / contribute

[JamesF]

Can you get of ya high horse for one minute i can stick my images up of mars and saturn and jupiter venus ect and we can go round in circles all day what do these pics prove ? So what shall i post my images up to back my point up

I posted the images because they were created with a (relatively) small aperture scope using a camera you describe as rubbish. Do they look like the product of a rubbish camera to you?

James

[JamesF]

For what it's worth, I have never, ever heard a story before that Morgans sold cameras as SPC880 models that weren't actually the genuine article. Nor have I ever heard anyone say "I bought an SPC880 and it's a heap of junk". I've tried a few cheap webcams and I can't get even close to the results that I've had with mine.

That doesn't mean that the cheap webcams can't produce better results when you have plenty of aperture to play with and I've always said that when I've posted comparisons of cameras, but if you're comparing images from a C11 with an Xbox camera and a 127 Mak with an SPC camera then it's not exactly a fair test. And not so many people can afford the care and feeding of a C11

My suspicion is that someone at Morgans somehow got their wires crossed and has unintentionally misled Pat as I have no doubt that he is posting what he believes to be true. If we can turn up a Morgans SPC880 that was genuinely sold without the expected sensor (ICX098BQ, I think?) then that will put the cat amongst the pigeons and I unreservedly apologise to Pat for doubting him.

James

[todd8137]

I will remove all my comments and leave sgl comments to those who care

thanks and good bye

[todd8137]

if any mods could remove all my comments as i must be talking rubbish ,james seems to no all the answers how i no this is because a company i worked for had over 60 laptops of them and tons of office equipment of them i got to no one of the staff there rather well any

could moderators please remove my comments am done with sgl

[JamesF]

I'm very sorry you feel that way, because I think there's an important issue here that ought to be cleared up.

You have asserted that some of the cameras that Morgans were selling as SPC880s are rubbish because they weren't actually based on the original camera sensor and I am struggling to believe that is true because of my experience with such a camera and have posted images to support that view.

Now either you are right and people need to be seriously wary about buying SPC880s because they may not be getting what they think they're getting, or you are wrong and it's better that the story doesn't get repeated any further. There are people reading, I feel sure, who would pay £50 for an SPC camera if they knew they were getting what they thought they were getting and would like to know what the truth of the matter is. What's required now is hard evidence rather than hearsay.

Equally, if you think there's a Tesco camera that's as good as the SPC, let's hear about it. I am more than happy to run back-to-back tests with it and the SPC if I can get hold of one. I've done exactly the same with several others and posted the results.

Personally I have nothing to lose either way. I have my camera and I'm happy with it. I'd like to think that other people can buy one in the confidence that it will perform well for them (though I'm not saying it's easy

James

[sparkyjon]

i for one would like to know as i have been bidding on everyone phillips that comes up on ebay , but if they aren't what i think they are i'll stick with my xbox webcam..

to be honest running off and not replying or backing up your statements isn't filling me with confidence and i'm sure everyone would like to have a link to the £4.99 tesco webcam i'll buy a few as back up at that price if they are just as good as the phillips... saves me bidding over £50 for the phillips..

[todd8137]

James i respect your views and you as a planetary imager you images prove you are good at this and getting great results with your cam am sorry if i upset any one with my comments saying idiots i regret this now and as i said i will leave now and keep of sgl and not bother with it as i always drop my self in it i hate to see fellow asto buffs getting ripped take care and keep looking up and imaging

pat

[JamesF]

There really is no need to leave, Pat. Everyone thinks they've put their foot in it at some point and it's rarely as bad as they think. And if you find someone who has a "dodgy" SPC webcam, please come back and tell people. Paying good money for a webcam that does the business is one thing, but paying good money for a webcam that can't is something no-one should be doing.

James

[knobby]

Pat... Forums are about opinions as well as facts, sometimes the debate can be more interesting than anything factual

Don't go!

sometimes an interesting debate can pull people in... Sometimes they have the answers

Also this kind of debate may throw up an unexpected result, there may just be a little gem out there. I just won a Logitech 4000 pro on eBay for £4.70... Some of them have the same sensor as the SPC 900, alas this one didn't... But it is at least a CCD... Just waiting for the clouds to clear

[simonmc]

James,

There is quite any easy way to tell if you have the bq version of the sony chip. They have a blue band around the substrate of the actual ccd. Whats more interesting is that you are getting good pictures and if it is from a ccd that isnt a icx098bq then what is it? IIRC the substarte also has the chip id on it. You may be able to focus down on it using the a webcam as a microscope and get a pic to post up.

Pat,

I dont think that there is any reason to leave, all you posted was what you were told by the supplier at the time. Its quite probable that they may have changed chips, i have an old d-link camera that has the same basic hardware as the phillips but with a sharp sensor. When i was messing with this a few years ago, the windows driver had provisions for a few ccd chips including the sony which where all pin compatible. This was so that alternative sensors could be used in case of a supply problem.

Simon

[JamesF]

There is quite any easy way to tell if you have the bq version of the sony chip. They have a blue band around the substrate of the actual ccd. Whats more interesting is that you are getting good pictures and if it is from a ccd that isnt a icx098bq then what is it? IIRC the substarte also has the chip id on it. You may be able to focus down on it using the a webcam as a microscope and get a pic to post up.

I have two cameras that I can easily lay my hands on, both labelled Philips SPC880NC/00 Made in China. One serial number KFA106220 02352 and the other KFA106240 00742. Both appear to have a blue band around the substrate though I have no idea if it's actually what I'm looking for. This is the best image I can get with the macro mode of my compact camera (not very good, I'm afraid):

James

[simonmc]

James,

That looks about right. See these images from another forum if found on the web as i could not find the original website i learnt this from. Has close ups of sony and sharp ccd's.

Simon

[JamesF]

Ah, yes, the second set of pictures there make it look quite clear. I guess if there's any doubt about the provenance of any given camera then such a photograph should clear things up.

James

[knobby]

The other tell tail sign is the Sony legs look all over the place whereas the sharp ones look nice and neat

[JamesF]

I have been pondering on this a little more and recall that the Logitech QuickCam 3000 had one of the ICX098 sensors, as did early models of the QuickCam 4000. After the first production run (or something like that) the 4000 was switched over to the Sharp CCD which wasn't as sensitive (I believe). Perhaps confusion between the two cameras ended up with Pat being given the explanation he has.

I'm just about to have dinner so I don't have time to hunt down all the relevant details now and I may have got the models slightly wrong or something, but I think that's the gist of it.

James