The Moon at 1000x Magnification (video)

[Mick UK]

Very nice, i must ask have you ever pointed at the Apollo landing site ?  

chris, i dont think its at all possible to view the Apollo landing sights, the area they are in but not the sites themselves im afraid which is a real shame.

I dont think the earths atmosphere allows for telescopes to acheive a high enough magnification to be able to see any of the Apollo artifacts that are still up there.

======================================================================================================================================

Humpty, ive screen printed a couple of pics as the video was turning from white to black, ive managed to capture around 3/4 of the image on both so the center of the image is either to the left or right in these pics.

Im not entirely sure what im looking for as to me both these images look as though they dont have very much noise in them at all?

I see what you mean about these cameras built for focusing on a face as opposed to the whole scene and maybe a field flattener might help this out on Lunar imaging??

Just for the record, that video (and obviously these 2 images) were take with my Lifecam without any lens attached to it.

[Mick UK]

Humpty, heres a video ive shot at 1080p, what i did was to take 4 recordings with the lifecam of 3 minutes each (to warm the chip up) then i took this very short one to show how much noise was been made.

Im not sure if this is classed as a lot of noise or not to much noise??

(watch the video in 1080p to see the noise the best)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKguCpbWAw&feature=youtu.be

[todd8137]

Why are you use in sharp cap to record your vid why not the soft ware that came with it unless your stacking every time

Pat

[HumptyMoo]

Sorry Mick, the frame by frame comment meant youtube was jumping about, not that I needed static frames, just the ability to transition between them a lot slower to see the difference. The 2 static shots don't really show anything unless you switch between frames next to each other.

As for the video, you are probably right, the lens and the shot are giving it a bit more presence. I can't comment on a field flattener as I don't yet partake in anything more than afocal AP. I certainly don't think it's too much noise, you only really notice it if you scrutinise it.

@Pat, the software that comes with the cam only supports 720p not 1080p although the cam itself is capable of it.

[Mick UK]

Humpty is right Pat, the software that comes with the Lifecam Studio will only record at 720p.

Heres something of interest, im just out now imaging the moon and when im recording at 1920 x 1080, the monitor video image often sticks a couple of seconds and then starts again but when i check the video ive recorded, theres no sticking, it plays smoothly which would suggest that the USB2 is not getting bogged down (well i reckon it is slightly as sharpcap tells me its recording at 24 - 27fps.) so thats something to bear in mind if your using the Lifecam.

[todd8137]

Humpty is right Pat, the software that comes with the Lifecam Studio will only record at 720p.

Heres something of interest, im just out now imaging the moon and when im recording at 1920 x 1080, the monitor video image often sticks a couple of seconds and then starts again but when i check the video ive recorded, theres no sticking, it plays smoothly which would suggest that the USB2 is not getting bogged down (well i reckon it is slightly as sharpcap tells me its recording at 24 - 27fps.) so thats something to bear in mind if your using the Lifecam.

Why what software ya use in 50 get 1080p in raw mode ? Ps if you drop in frames ,drop the gain and or exposure to get the frame rate back you can lighten your images later

Pat

[HumptyMoo]

Heres something of interest, im just out now imaging the moon and when im recording at 1920 x 1080, the monitor video image often sticks a couple of seconds and then starts again but when i check the video ive recorded, theres no sticking, it plays smoothly which would suggest that the USB2 is not getting bogged down (well i reckon it is slightly as sharpcap tells me its recording at 24 - 27fps.) so thats something to bear in mind if your using the Lifecam.

What you will find is the on screen stutter while capturing is just the buffering process triggered by saturation of the USB link, once the data is saved and played back it's all there so it won't stutter. like youtube, sometimes it has to wait for the data to get to the pc, once its there and you play it back it wont stutter or pause. What you may find is the 24-27 fps are a result of frames being dropped as they can't be transmitted (when stutter occurs) yet when you play back, it all looks fine because lets face it, the human eye won't spot a few missing frames at that speed.

Try to think of it as the camera takes 30 frames per second, the camera hardware is negotiating with the USB link on how many frames it can transfer, it transmits and then works out that it can't transfer enough to keep up a constant feed, so instead of sending corrupted or incomplete data it simply discards frames while it waits for the USB link to say it's good again. Hence the reason the software reports 24-27. Playback the saved file and all data is there for it to play back stutter free, you are just missing a few frames here and there which to the average eye is invisible.

That is one of many methods for frame (packet) transfer, but it does seem to fit your description of the symptoms.

Whether correct or not though I can categorically state given the video statistics you posted earlier that you are taxing the USB 2.0 connection at 1080p, the figures don't lie unless the figures are wrong