Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

zwo asi 174

sooot

By sooot
in Discussions - Cameras

Recommended Posts

michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

One thing I forgot to say also, the amount of different frame rates on the new camera seems very limited compared the the previous ones, it has the maximum of 1936 x 1216 then right down to 640 x 480 and 320 x 240, there seems a big gap between the top two.

Oh and there is a 2x2 binning option which gives 968 x 608.

So if your computer can't cope with the top rate, your only option is to drop right down to 640 x 480...... So surely I may as well stick with my 120mc......

And at 640 x 480 @ a massive 309fps, do we need it that high for planetary imaging...

I am a beginner at all this so hence all the questions.........

Regards

AB

They only list the maximum frame rates for these resolutions. The frame rate will drop automatically if the computer cannot cope, or you tell it to go slower (that is down to the capture software). There is also the option of only passing a region of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply
rwg

rwg

Posted
Posted

Another thing that people sometimes forget is that the exposure sets a limit on the frame rate too. For instance a 10ms (1/100s) exposure means that you are never going to get more than 100 distinct frames per second (probably nearer 90 allowing for overhead time). Some webcams (notably the SPC900 if I remember correctly) cheated at this and sent 30fps whatever the exposure, but at longer exposures you were just getting the same frame over and over...

cheers,

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rwg

rwg

Posted
Posted

What I also meant to say is that it will be interesting to see how the global shutter works in planetary when you are sampling through less than perfect seeing. Will the global shutter result in cleaner frames because it is capturing the seeing at a true single point in time rather than at varying times depending on how far down the frame you are?

cheers,

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroboffin

Astroboffin

Posted
Posted

I bought a well-used HP laptop and it still has USB3.  It seems pretty much down to the manufacturer.  And of course there are Macs on the second hand market with USB3 now.  If you don't have USB3 it may well be possible to get a separate USB3 interface card even so.

If USB2 is your only option however, then I think the case for a camera such as this isn't too compelling.

I have a permanent pier with a warm room 5 metres away, and all cables are buried underground, from pier to room, that includes USB repeater cable, but it is a USB 2.0 one, so really that is my only option, unless I sit outside at the scope, with my laptop which does have a USB 3.0 port, but then this will defeat the object of having a warm room......so you see my dilema.

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroboffin

Astroboffin

Posted
Posted

They only list the maximum frame rates for these resolutions. The frame rate will drop automatically if the computer cannot cope, or you tell it to go slower (that is down to the capture software). There is also the option of only passing a region of interest.

Yes I understand that, but my point is, if I have the camera set on 640x 480 then the fps will drop to what my PC will cope with, which with the camera I have ASI120mc, is about 60fps, on USB 2.0, so with the new camera I guess that will be the same, why would it be any different ??

so what would be the point in having the newer camera? As I am limited with USB 2.0

Hope that makes sense

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

In my case it would offer much better performance than the ASI130MM I have (the ASI120MC is only used for planetary), in terms of noise, sensitivity and lack of Newton rings (bad in the 130MM). It would be much better than the 130 on solar H-alpha, and somewhat better on lunar (where the ASI130 gets good results, provided you use flats and darks to get rid of pattern noise). For planetary I would probably still use the DMK21. If you already have an ASI120MM and are limited by USB2.0, the new camera has less to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sooot

sooot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Welcome to the dark side. My finger slipped yesterday and accidently typed in my password. Price got me and with 100 knocked off is bound to crush any uk prices when they are available on the shelves

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blazar

Blazar

Posted
Posted

Craig,

will they hit you for import tax on it? I would like to get involved, but not sure whether its the right thing to do  (still pushing the 120mm-s).... what was the damage with the exchange rate you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blazar

Blazar

Posted
Posted

335 with free worldwide shipping. Not sure about import tax we will take it when and if it comes. Ill blame you though steve for turning my attention to this camera in the lunar section :D

Hey...not fair.....I was just saying that a new camera was coming out 8-)....and I almost pressed the button a minute ago...but resisted. might fail though tomorrow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sooot

sooot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My previous direct import from ZWO wasn't hit, but I will simply see how much I need to pay.

nice to know, ive never dealt with import tax and even if i do still going to be cheaper than buying from a retailer(hope im right lol)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amra

Amra

Posted
Posted

I just placed an order for a mono asi 174, looking to get into Ha solar soon (got a Lunt50mm on pre-order.) This seems like a perfect fit for this purpose. I've got an i3 laptop with usb3 and 500MB/s write speed to SSD, so will be interesting to see how it performs on my setup. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amra

Amra

Posted
Posted

Can anyone tell me how to convert the 1/1.2" sensor size to mm width & height? I want to plug it into Stellarium and see how much it covers with different telescopes.

Taking pixel size x number of pixels width & height, would that be correct? That gives a 11,3mm x 7,1mm sensor size with rounded numbers. Seems accurate enough in Stellarium..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

Can anyone tell me how to convert the 1/1.2" sensor size to mm width & height? I want to plug it into Stellarium and see how much it covers with different telescopes.

Taking pixel size x number of pixels width & height, would that be correct? That gives a 11,3mm x 7,1mm sensor size with rounded numbers. Seems accurate enough in Stellarium..

That sounds about right, certainly compared to the 1" sensor format listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luke

Luke

Posted
Posted

An exciting price point! I hope we'll see more people come into solar imaging. With options like this if it does well (I've seen some excellent images taken with the same chip), the Quark, the Lunt 50, it could be an interesting year for solar imaging :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Can anyone tell me how to convert the 1/1.2" sensor size to mm width & height? I want to plug it into Stellarium and see how much it covers with different telescopes.

Taking pixel size x number of pixels width & height, would that be correct? That gives a 11,3mm x 7,1mm sensor size with rounded numbers. Seems accurate enough in Stellarium..

1/1.2" seems a bizarre way to specify the dimensions of a sensor.  I really didn't understand what it meant until I read the "Table of sensor formats and sizes" in the wikipedia page that Michael linked to above.  That table does give the dimensions for 1/1.2" sensors.

James

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.