Lodestar x2 color x Atik Infinity

[mystyco]

Hi everyone,

I've been doing astrophotography for a couple of years now, and I want to start doing video astronomy.

I've been trying to decide which camera I should get. I have two options on the table: a Lodestar x2 Color and a Atik Infinity.

There's a huge price difference between them, so I'm trying to understand if spending €1000 in the Atik makes any sense since the Lodestar x2 color seems to have some very nice reviews?

Is there too much of a difference in terms of image resolution and sensitivity between these two? I have a Celestron 130 SLT (5'') newtonian and a Orion ST80 (4'') both on a Alt Az mount.

How about the Starlight Live software, is it easy to use ?

Looking forward for your thoughts.

Thanks in advance!

 

 

 

[stash_old]

£1000 on the Infinity - where do you buy them from ! £800 more like. I am in a similar situation but I am stuck between X2 mono  and the Ultrastar mono. I ditched the idea of the Infinity due to the fact the Xpress camera's seemed very well supported / developed by Paul81 Starlight Live software not so sure the Infinity software is that mature (or will be). IMHO

[mystyco]

7 minutes ago, stash_old said:

£1000 on the Infinity - where do you buy them from ! £800 more like. I am in a similar situation but I am stuck between X2 mono  and the Ultrastar mono. I ditched the idea of the Infinity due to the fact the Xpress camera's seemed very well supported / developed by Paul81 Starlight Live software not so sure the Infinity software is that mature (or will be). IMHO

Thanks for your thoughts mate. I was speaking in EUROS  In pounds is around 800 that's correct. 

And yes, from what I've been reading, it looks like Paul's software keeps getting better, and better, and I've seen him helping members in many threads. It's just amazing to see his efforts and makes me want to support these cameras even more.

I'm just trying to figure out of the image quality/resolution will be almost the same. I'm not too picky, but if I'm going to spend so much money, I have to make sure it's worth it.

[stash_old]

2 hours ago, mystyco said:

Thanks for your thoughts mate. I was speaking in EUROS  In pounds is around 800 that's correct. 

And yes, from what I've been reading, it looks like Paul's software keeps getting better, and better, and I've seen him helping members in many threads. It's just amazing to see his efforts and makes me want to support these cameras even more.

I'm just trying to figure out of the image quality/resolution will be almost the same. I'm not too picky, but if I'm going to spend so much money, I have to make sure it's worth it.

Missed your location and the Euro sign looked like a pound sign 

[Astrojedi]

The X2C offers a lower resolution and smaller FoV but higher sensitivity. It also works better with higher focal reduction and produces less vignetting if used at f3.3 in SCTs

Atik will produce images more akin to proper long exposure astrophotography but is much slower and you need better optics to minimize aberrations.

If EAA is your only goal and you prefer speed I would go with the X2C. If you want to do casual astrophotography go with the Atik.

Also see my review here: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/522727-atik-infinity-color-camera-initial-impressions/?hl=%20atik

[mystyco]

2 hours ago, Astrojedi said:

The X2C offers a lower resolution and smaller FoV but higher sensitivity. It also works better with higher focal reduction and produces less vignetting if used at f3.3 in SCTs

Atik will produce images more akin to proper long exposure astrophotography but is much slower and you need better optics to minimize aberrations.

If EAA is your only goal and you prefer speed I would go with the X2C. If you want to do casual astrophotography go with the Atik.

Also see my review here: http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/522727-atik-infinity-color-camera-initial-impressions/?hl=%20atik

Thank you for your thoughts. Do you happen to have any image of the same DSO made with both cameras, some sort of side by side comparison? I currently own only a canon 1200d and a panasonic micro 4/3 so I really have no idea if the Atik or Lodestar would be a step above in terms of sensitivity or resolution. Speed, for sure. But would I sacrifice my current resolution for a faster speed? Probably not. My goal is to use it for casual astrophotography. Just not sure if the Atik is worth the extra 500 Euros.

 

 

[mystyco]

Also, after reading your review, it appears that with the Atik you can do exposures longer than 30 seconds on a alt az mount without field rotation? That's brilliant!

[HiloDon]

SX also makes an 825 sensor based camera in competition with the Atik Infinity called the Ultrastar.  It has the same housing as the Lodestar and uses Paul's Starlight Live software.  The software has been recognized as one of the best for EAA and is not only a free download thanks to Paul, but is compatible with both Mac and Windows.  I have both the Ultrastar C and the Lodestar X2c.  Both have their advantages as Hiten pointed out.  Here are some comparisons.  LSX2c first then Ultrastar C.

I like both.  They both do a great job for EAA.  I think the Ultrastar works best with Hyperstar and must be stacked to reduce random noise more noticeable in the 825 sensor.  The lodestar is very easy to use and I always recommend it for those just starting out in EAA.

Hope this helps.

Don

[mystyco]

Hi Don,

Thank you so much for the images. It does helps. The Ultrastar pictures are absolutely breathtaking. There's definitely a difference in terms of resolution between both cameras. The Ultrastar looks great. I'm wondering if I'll be able to achieve similar results with my Celestron nexstar alt az mount (5''). It appears that the Lodestar X2 resolution/noise is like what we could expect from a DSLR perhaps?

Also it looks like the Infinity software will allow me to do exposures over 60'' in my Alt Az mount and that is getting me extremely curious. There's only one way to find out and that is become €1000 more poor

[HiloDon]

I also have a 6SE, but with Hyperstar.  Here are some recent Ultrastar images with that setup.  60s exposures would likely result in field rotation problems.  Just take shorter exposers less than 30 seconds and Paul's software will stack them with field rotation correction.  

Don

[mystyco]

Hi Don

Have you ever used your Ultrastar in the 6SE? I think the mount of the 6SE is basically the same as the nexstar mount. I'm wondering if I can get the same results you got with the ultrastar with my current mount. If not I would have to spend quite a lot. 

With my current astrophotography setup (Orion ST80 refractor + nexstar alt az mount + Canon 1200d) I can go over 45 seconds with no problems. Here's an example from last night:

 

 

[HiloDon]

The three images in my last post were taken with the Ultrastar and SE mount.  The C6 scope had a Hyperstar attached.  My Latitude is only 20 degrees, so field rotation becomes a bigger problem.  You're at about 39 degrees, so you should be able to take longer exposures depending on object location.

I have an ST80 as well, and it works well for EAA.  Haven't tried the Ultrastar in it yet.

Don

[Astrojedi]

Just keep in mind Don's amazing images were taken from one of the best places to observe in the world. Also he used a Hyperstar to make the optical system run at a super fast F1.9. I think F2 is a must to realize the video astronomy/EAA potential of the 825 based Color camera. The mono version is much faster especially with x2 binning.

For me the experience with the Ultrastar Color has been very poor (and I am a very experienced imager - 15 years). 

Once you add a LP filter to deal with sky glow it substantially slows things down. See attached a capture of M33 using the Ultrastar from my heavily light polluted location. This was using my Evo C8 @ F4, Orion LP filter and Ultrastar Color.

The Atik Infinity color performed a little better due to Atik noise reduction circuitry but was still slow compared to the X2C. So in summary of you are looking to get one of these color cameras you need to be at F2 at least. But if your location has LP your results will not match Don's.

Note this discussion only applies to the 825 sensor based Color cameras. The mono versions provide excellent results even in my conditions.

 

[Hibou]

All these pretty pictures do not impress me as much as simple physics :-) The Atik Infinity and the SX-Ultrastar use the same CCD and cost the same i.e. over €1000 in Portugal; they will give similar performance. The SX-lodestar costs half as much (€500) for the same CCD technology but with half the resolution and half the chip area.  The smaller chip will give a smaller FOV for the same focal length, and its lower resolution (larger pixels) will give a brighter image. But the larger chip will still win, even for intensity, if you can adjust your focal length and binning to give the same FOV and resolution.

To answer your questions, if you are a beginner and worried about the cost, go for the cheaper solution. If you have been using an SLR camera for astrophotography for a couple of years now using short exposures on an alt-az mount, you may be disappointed by the smaller FOV but pleased by the higher efficiency of the Sony CCDs and the ability to dynamically stack with drift correction to  allow longer exposures. 

Both the Atik and SX software are well developed and easy to use, and if stash_old is "stuck between the X2 mono  and the Ultrastar mono", the above physics still applies :-)

[Astrojedi]

45 minutes ago, Hibou said:

All these pretty pictures do not impress me as much as simple physics :-) The Atik Infinity and the SX-Ultrastar use the same CCD and cost the same i.e. over €1000 in Portugal; they will give similar performance. The SX-lodestar costs half as much (€500) for the same CCD technology but with half the resolution and half the chip area.  The smaller chip will give a smaller FOV for the same focal length, and its lower resolution (larger pixels) will give a brighter image. But the larger chip will still win, even for intensity, if you can adjust your focal length and binning to give the same FOV and resolution.

To answer your questions, if you are a beginner and worried about the cost, go for the cheaper solution. If you have been using an SLR camera for astrophotography for a couple of years now using short exposures on an alt-az mount, you may be disappointed by the smaller FOV but pleased by the higher efficiency of the Sony CCDs and the ability to dynamically stack with drift correction to  allow longer exposures. 

Both the Atik and SX software are well developed and easy to use, and if stash_old is "stuck between the X2 mono  and the Ultrastar mono", the above physics still applies :-)

Please stop giving people bad guidance and inventing new Physics concepts like 'intensity'. There is no such thing.

Note that if you bin the Ultrastar or the Infinity Color cameras you lose color and you will end up with lower resolution (compared to the mono sensor) due to the RGB matrix. This does not apply to the mono versions of the cameras which do see a significant sensitivity gain as I have mentioned above.

[HiloDon]

Hiten brings up some good points.  The images I posted were taken with arguably the best skies in the world.  I was at 9000 ft on Mauna Kea with perfect skies.  I was using a Hyperstar system at F1.9.  I first tried the Ultrastar at my home observatory at 600 ft elevation.  Skies are good here, but not like the mountain.  Here's  M33 with my M8 at F3.3.  Notice the coma created by having the larger sensor.  I don't get that with the Lodestar.  F4.5 to 5 is about the lowest you can go without vignetting and corner coma.  Required exposure is considerably longer and noise becomes more apparent as seen in the next image of the Flame.  Still not bad results, but the Lodestar's ease of use makes it better for EAA at my home conditions.  I don't think I'll use my Ultrastar much without Hyperstar.

Don

[mystyco]

I currently live in a green zone, (not very far from Dark Sky Alqueva, the first place to get a dark sky certification) no LP here other than a street lamp, but since I usually image from my balcony or backyard it never bothers me. Guys you have been extremely helpful and knowledgeable. Thank you for taking the time to post the pictures and sharing your thoughts with me. I've just ordered the Atik because of the larger chip. Centering objects in my DSLR chip takes me always a long time, so I appreciate the extra chip space of the Atik. I should be getting the CCD next week, and I'll capture some images as soon as I get it, and post them here, please make sure you keep following this thread to see my progress and feedback. Hopefully this will be a step up from my current DSLR setup. If not, I'll get a more modest SX2 just for the live EAA  experience. I can't wait!

Thanks again, your awesome!

[Hibou]

14 hours ago, Astrojedi said:

Please stop giving people bad guidance and inventing new Physics concepts like 'intensity'. There is no such thing.

...if you bin the Ultrastar or the Infinity Color cameras you lose color...

Wow you've "Trumpted" me there :-) Actually I have a Ph.D. in Physics and I didn't invent "intensity". I was using it as a synonym for "brightness", which increases if you have bigger (or binned) pixels. And you can indeed bin colour images without necessarily binning the discrete RGB pixels and losing colour.

If you were offended by my "pretty pictures" phrase, I apologise. I didn't mean to knock HiloDon's brilliant astro-images, but only to say that such images depend on many more parameters than the choice of camera - your experience, your telescope, your sky conditions, your location etc... It is perhaps more helpful when choosing the camera to be guided instead by simple physics - the size of the CCD and the focal length of your telescope, the size of the pixels and the brightness and resolution you need, the software etc. 

Astrojedi, perhaps you could elaborate on my "bad guidance" :-) Probably as beginners we would have both chosen "the cheaper solution" that I advised. But Mystico's choice of the larger CCD will give him more possibilities, the Infinity software is excellent, especially concerning noise reduction and binning, and the camera is actually made in his home country, Portugal.

Thanks for the thumbs up Stash_old and Mystico. 

[mystyco]

1 hour ago, Hibou said:

images depend on many more parameters than the choice of camera - your experience, your telescope, your sky conditions, your location etc... It is perhaps more helpful when choosing the camera to be guided instead by simple physics - the size of the CCD and the focal length of your telescope, the size of the pixels and the brightness and resolution you need, the software etc. 

That's so true, and a very good piece of information for anyone considering buying a camera. You can buy the best camera in the world, but if you have the wrong telescope, or the wrong skies, it will be useless. Nothing beats a dark sky. People often  don't believe that I'm using a ALT AZ telescope when I show them my images. Many of them look better than what I've seen done with EQ mounts. I'm truly satisfied with my setup but I just hate spending 3 hours in the cold to make one image, and that's the only reason for buying the Atik Camera. But is it better for imaging than a DSLR? Only testing will tell. We'll see

 

 

[Astrojedi]

7 hours ago, Hibou said:

Wow you've "Trumpted" me there :-) Actually I have a Ph.D. in Physics and I didn't invent "intensity". I was using it as a synonym for "brightness", which increases if you have bigger (or binned) pixels. And you can indeed bin colour images without necessarily binning the discrete RGB pixels and losing colour.

If you were offended by my "pretty pictures" phrase, I apologise. I didn't mean to knock HiloDon's brilliant astro-images, but only to say that such images depend on many more parameters than the choice of camera - your experience, your telescope, your sky conditions, your location etc... It is perhaps more helpful when choosing the camera to be guided instead by simple physics - the size of the CCD and the focal length of your telescope, the size of the pixels and the brightness and resolution you need, the software etc. 

Astrojedi, perhaps you could elaborate on my "bad guidance" :-) Probably as beginners we would have both chosen "the cheaper solution" that I advised. But Mystico's choice of the larger CCD will give him more possibilities, the Infinity software is excellent, especially concerning noise reduction and binning, and the camera is actually made in his home country, Portugal.

Thanks for the thumbs up Stash_old and Mystico. 

Yes I may only have a lowly engineering degree but I do understand the physics of imaging very well including pixel size and sampling. You really don't need a PhD to do imaging.

In this instance NO you cannot bin the Infinity and still keep color (hence my comment on bad guidance). Without binning the sensitivity is much lower than other CCD cameras including the X2C. 

Further if you had actually used the various 825 based cameras which I have you would understand that pixel size is not everything. The output from these sensors is very 'noisy' and it actually takes longer/more stacks to get a cleaner image.

Again these cameras are fine for casual imaging but slow for EAA (unless you use a very fast optical system e.g. F2). That was my only point. We are all too familiar with spending money in this hobby and still not getting the experience we expect.

[aparker]

On February 22, 2016 at 19:42, mystyco said:

Hi Don,

Thank you so much for the images. It does helps. The Ultrastar pictures are absolutely breathtaking. There's definitely a difference in terms of resolution between both cameras. The Ultrastar looks great. I'm wondering if I'll be able to achieve similar results with my Celestron nexstar alt az mount (5''). It appears that the Lodestar X2 resolution/noise is like what we could expect from a DSLR perhaps?

Also it looks like the Infinity software will allow me to do exposures over 60'' in my Alt Az mount and that is getting me extremely curious. There's only one way to find out and that is become €1000 more poor

You will not need 60 sec exposures, unless you combine dim stars with a narrowband filter like Ha.  You really only need the exposures to be long enough to allow the stacking algorithm to find stars, then stacking and total integration time does the rest.  For the record, Starlight Live will account for field rotation when stacking, although it does not attempt to compute rotation out of individual images.  I would be impressed if the Atik sw did that.  But I am still firmly in the SX camp.  Love my Untrastar.  And I love Don's Hyperstar images.  My dream scope once I have a paermanent observatory is a C11 or 14 with Hyperstar.

[Hibou]

20 hours ago, Astrojedi said:

Yes I may only have a lowly engineering degree ...

Further if you had actually used the various 825 based cameras... The output from these sensors is very 'noisy'...

 

You're too modest Hiten :-) I only mentioned my degree after you hit on my  "bad guidance" and questioned my physics. If you read my signature you will see that I have indeed used 825 based cameras both from Atik (414EX) and from SX (Ultrastar). The 825 sensor is an improved version of the famous 285, which I have also used (Atik 314L+). Your criticism of it is curious given its success. It's true that I have not used the colour versions, but the technology is the same apart from the Bayer filters (which will reduce sensitivity).

It is also true that the simple binning used by the Atik Infinity software also bins the RGGB filter, but that is software not physics. The raw FITS file from a colour camera contains intensities for the complete Bayer matrix and could be binned to preserve the filter structure before de-Bayering; I suspect some applications may already do that (Nebulosity ?). I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong :-)

In any case, Mystyco has chosen the 825 camera, he has better skies than you have, and a couple of decent telescopes; HiloDon has shown that he should be able to obtain great images. Actually Mystyco already has 2 years experience in getting great images with an SLR camera with smaller pixels (and probably more raw noise), so let's wait and see.

[Astrojedi]

Again, NO you cannot bin the Infinity and keep color. Come back and argue this point when you find a software that does it and then I will agree with you. Don't speculate/argue without evidence. 

Hint: you will not find one as the binning is done in the charge domain by the camera and this camera does not support keeping color with binning. 

Also you keep confusing the issue. I am not advising against the camera. Only setting expectations as to what you can expect. The 825 based color cameras are much slower than the Lodestars and current video cameras. My Lodestar X2 color typically requires 1/3 the total exposure time of the Atik Color to observe the same object at the same speed. At that point you start entering the realm of imaging and that is absolutely OK as long as that is what you are looking for.

And the success are you talking about.... Almost all the best examples I have seen are either from many stacked 'longer' sub exposure  (I.e. 60s or more sub exposures) or using the Hyperstar. Which is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Hibou]

13 minutes ago, Astrojedi said:

NO you cannot bin the Infinity and keep color.  Come back and argue this point when you find a software that does it and then I will agree with you. 

Hint: you will not find one as the binning is done in the charge domain by the camera and this camera does not support keeping color with binning. 

Well, you seem to be confusing binning in the camera, with binning of the FITS file with software. Certainly I don't expect in-camera binning to preserve colour, since that only changes how charge is read out, but I do expect to find software to bin the RAW FITS file once exported. After all, it's just a matrix of intensities from which I should be able to extract the RGB components, bin them and re-combine them. If you can point me to a raw FITS file from an OSC camera, I would like to try, even though I personally have no use for colour cameras. Professional astronomers routinely combine multiple sources of images to produce pretty pictures for publicity. I suppose you would call that "imaging" rather than "EAA", but I don't see why you mightn't do it in real time. BTW, "speculating without evidence" is one difference between physics and engineering :-) 

[Astrojedi]

Haha... True, all ideas do start from speculation but we eventually need to ground them in evidence for them to become accepted theories.

Note that binning in SW has no impact on sensitivity.