Lodestar X2 Colour

[lucid]

Hello,

How different is the sensitivity of the colour compared with the mono of the Lodestar X2?

And how well does colour work in Lodestar Live?

I'm close to pulling the trigger on an X2, just not sure which one to choose.

Primary function is going to be for playing with Lodestar Live, then secondly it will be purposed as an autoguider.

I also wonder how well it would work as a planetary camera, although i suppose its chip is probably too big?

Thanks,

Andrew

[f15p5]

Hi Lucid,

The color is a bit less sensitive than the mono. Color works well from what I've seen here in Ver.11. It will not work well as a planet imager using LL. Not short enough exposure. For guiding I would go mono, and with a Ha filter some pretty images have been done by Hilodon and others. Don has both color and mono, seems to use mono more often though since he has been using Ha with color version I'm not sure his mind has not changed.

It all depends on what you like I guess. I had a color, now have a mono. Have not yet got the mono working, so I can't give you personal opinion.

Richard

[HiloDon]

Hi Andrew,

As Richard wrote, I have both and enjoy both immensely. Here's a link to my SGL gallery where you can see results from both. Color is less sensitive because of the Bayer mask that is applied to generate the color. The underlying sensor is the same for both. The color rendition is much better now with Lodestar Live since Paul's version 0.11. It is a wonderful and simple program to use. The download is free thanks to Paul. The LS is not a planetary or lunar cam because of the inability to get short enough exposure.

Color or mono is your choice. Can't go wrong with either, but the best solution is to get both.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have questions. You may want to search other threads and sites. Look for Martin and Nytecam. They both have gotten some unique and outstanding results with the Lodestars.

Don

http://stargazerslounge.com/gallery/member/36930-hilodon/

Just saw this post from Nytecam that you might enjoy.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/236148-is-this-it/?p=2563234

[lucid]

Steady on, one at a time... haha!

Perhaps I'll start with the mono...

Thanks

[lucid]

In 3 mins, I've just talked myself the other way now, reasoning that perhaps my girlfriend might show a little more enthusiasm when I show her something in colour...

Maybe you're right, I need both - if only the money tree was endless.

[nytecam]

Steady on, one at a time... haha!

Perhaps I'll start with the mono...

Thanks

Welcome - when you pull-the-trigger please don't shoot yourself

[lucid]

The only point of contention is that above f15p5 says that the mono is the better guider... is the colour going to let me down as an autoguide in future?

[Martin Meredith]

Hi Andrew

It depends on what your main interests are going to be. If getting details in larger galaxies or pulling out faint galaxies then the mono is probably the way to go. It's also a little easier to control (no distraction of colour during live manipulation). 

If you're into nebulosity in general, or planetary nebulae or perhaps even double stars, then that's a possible argument for colour. Take a look at Nytecam's 'poster' on a recent thread for some colourful examples. Even the old colour model which is less sensitive than the colour X2 goes incredibly deep. 

Martin

[arkosg]

Andrew,

I was in the same boat as you a while back; I have a mono Mallincam Jr. Pro, and opted to complement it 

with the colour Lodestar X2C.  While the weather hasn't allowed me to play with the new colour controls 

of Lodestar Live 0.11 yet, it sounds as if it has solved some of the (minor) issues with getting colour images 

relatively easily (saturation and colour balance were challenging).

As Don & others have said, it really depends on what you are planning to look at.  If you are going for faint 

galaxies or want to view in Halpha, then the mono is probably a better choice.  If you are going to look at 

planetary nebulae, and reflection nebulae, or just want to see some colour in brighter objects, go X2C.

Here is a link to my image albums with the X2C:

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&search_app=gallery&mid=38433&userMode=all&sid=41fbc206868ca55afd09c5203cdcd03c&search_app_filters[gallery][searchInKey]=albums

Cheers,

- Greg A

[lucid]

At least for now I'll be bolting it onto the back of my CPC Edge 800, with .7x reducer, so given that I'm more likely to be pointing at faint galaxies than the larger nebula (given the field of view) I think you've swayed me towards the mono.

Thanks Martin.

[lucid]

arkosg: It looks like you have the same setup as me, albeit with a f3.3 reducer. How much of a difference to the field of view will this make compared to the .7x edge reducer. And where can one pick the f3.3 up these days, i see FLO doesn't carry it.

[Dom543]

The mono also has finer resolution than the color. 2x2 blocks of base pixels make up one color "superpixel" that is the finest unit of resolution that one can get with a color sensor . In mono, every pixel is an independent unit.

I have the color LS and went after some of the objects, whose mono images I saw in HiloDon's album. I could get them in color but wasn't able to match their fine resolution. For the upcoming galaxy season color is not very important and I wish that I also had a mono LS. But I am still happy with my color camera. I had a color Samsung 2000 video camera before the Lodestar and thought that losing the colors would be a disappointment.

I am participating in some public outreach and this week's runaway favorite is the Heart Nebula. I have overheard some lovebirds saying to one another that "we should also get such a camera". The Rosette is also popular. I posted some of those images in the "Daring the Full Moon with Lodestar" thread on this forum and HiloDon also has them in his album. Try them out on your GF and see her reaction. (By the way, these larger nebulae are best in the field of a 135-200mm telephoto lens or a finder scope.)

Clear Skies!

--Dom

[HiloDon]

arkosg: It looks like you have the same setup as me, albeit with a f3.3 reducer. How much of a difference to the field of view will this make compared to the .7x edge reducer. And where can one pick the f3.3 up these days, i see FLO doesn't carry it.

Andrew,

Attached is a comparison of the Horsehead Nebula using my Meade 8" SCT (same FL as your Edge 8) at f3.5 and 6.3. At F7 your edge is going to have a really narrow field of view with the Lodestar. It's will be nice for small objects, but will really challenge your tracking. I think you might want to consider looking for a 3.3 focal reducer. I understand that the available FR's will work with the Edge, but I have no direct experience. Perhaps others can advise.

Don

[f15p5]

Andrew,

Astro Video systems has a couple of new reducers out, don't know if they will work with a 1/2" chip/ One is a 2" .18 reducer made for SCT's 10" and up, the other is a 1.25" @ .20 reduction for up to 8" SCT's. Images I've seen with them show a pretty flat field.

Richard

[lucid]

This is all I've been able to find on the web...

http://www.optecinc.com/astronomy/catalog/17403.htm

[arkosg]

arkosg: It looks like you have the same setup as me, albeit with a f3.3 reducer. How much of a difference to the field of view will this make compared to the .7x edge reducer. And where can one pick the f3.3 up these days, i see FLO doesn't carry it.

Hi Andrew,

Don seems to have covered it nicely - the FOV with the f3.3 is noticeably larger, and also faster, cutting exposure times by quite a bit. I'm running my 8" Edge on a CPC fork mount (alt/az) so tracking is a limitation; I find about 30 s is about the limit to keep things sharp. I go deeper by just stacking exposures, which thankfully Paul's Lodestar Live does very easily and nicely, even for alt-az mounts.

The f3.3 reducer works fine with my Edge, though I still think I could tweak the spacing to better eliminate some of the slight distortions near the edge of the resulting images. I think these reducers are only available second hand now, and there may be several versions kicking around (and not of equivalent quality, unfortunately) from what I've read, so it's a bit of a crapshoot to get a (good) one.

Cheers,

Greg A