Goodbye to Live Video astronomy

[memoryman]

2 hours ago, DoctorD said:

Hi Memoryman

Have a look at this thread on the Ultrastar - 

 

I think that you'd be better off with the Lodestar to Atik Infinity as Don suggests that a Hyperstar reducer is needed to get the best from an Ultrastar with sub 60s exposures.

If you are looking at guided exposures then the Ultrastar should be OK - but we're discussing this in the Video Astronomy Forum (and EAA).

HTH

 

Paul 

 

[memoryman]

Thanks DoctorD.

My main interest is not in imaging as such, but just on seeing faint objects more easily from my present location. I would have though that a fast scope like my Meade SN10 @ f4 would have been ideally suited for live viewing (or building up and image within less than a minute at least) as it was originally optimised by Meade for imaging by being capable of gathering a lot of light quickly.

I looked at the link you suggested which was interesting, but seemed to be mainly concerned with using the Hyperstar equipment to allow much quicker exposures for long focal length scopes like Schmidt Cassegrains. As my scope is pretty fast anyway (you'd need an expensive Astrograph scope to beat it) therefore I'm a bit confused? Perhaps I'm missing or misunderstanding a basic fact?

Edited April 25, 2016 by memoryman
Spelling mistake

[HiloDon]

Hi MemoryMan,

I think Doc provided some sound advice.  The Ultrastar C is a great camera, but the trade off is sensitivity.  The Lodestar has lower resolution, but it gives a fast view and can really go deep.  Your scope is a great EAA scope and both cameras will work, but the Ultrastar will be more difficult requiring longer exposures and stacking to reduce the noise inherent in the sensor.  You will have a field day looking at DSO's with the Lodestar.  Most of the time you don't even have to stack.  If you're not set on color, the mono is even faster and deeper.  Martin Meredith has done some fantastic really deep deep sky work with his Lodestar and 8" F4 Newt.  The Lodestar speed allows for narrow band Ha viewing as well.  The filter will require longer exposure times and you have some cushion with the Lodestar.

if you're in a LP area, the Lodestar again will have the advantage.  Take a look at some of the great work Nytecam has done with his Lodestars in the light polluted skies of London.

Hope this helps.

Don

p.s.  Here's a recent thread I started showing a session with the Lodestar.  Others joined in as well.  The Lodestar with Paul's SSL v3.0 software is the easiest setup going for deep sky viewing.

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by HiloDon

[DoctorD]

Hi Memoryman

I'm sure the Meade SN10 @ F4  will make a great EAA rig - just not with the Ultrastar - HiloDon works at F2.1 using the Hyperstar and even then from his "lo" light polluted location the Ultrastar struggles to perform in EAA mode - only in his "hi" clear skies location does he generate the stunning images with the Ultrastar.

Drop a Lodestar X2 in your SN10 - mono or colour and you will get good results at 30s - or go with the Atik Infinity - both have good software and decent sensitivity.

Hope this helps.

Paul

 

[Dom543]

5 hours ago, DoctorD said:

Drop a Lodestar X2 in your SN10 - mono or colour and you will get good results at 30s - or go with the Atik Infinity - both have good software and decent sensitivity.

DoctorD,

Your post suggests that the Atik Infinity has a better sensitivity than the SX Ultrastar and more comparable to the sensitivity of the Lodestar. Is this the general concensus about the Atik Infinity? Based on the fact that the Infinity and the Ultrastar are using the same ICX825 sensor, I thought that their sensitivities were comparable. Does the Infinity have additional gain circuitry or is it known how does Atik bring out more sensitivity from the same sensor?

I wasn't able to log in frequently and follow these forums in the past few months. If there was a discussion of this, then I apologize for asking this question again but I have missed that discussion.

Thank you,  --Dom

[HiloDon]

Hi Dom,

You may have missed this post by Hiten (Astrojedi) recently addressing this question.  He did PM me a comparison shot of M33, but I don't know if they were taken at the same time.

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/533670-evo-6-and-hyperstar/?p=7160241

There are a number of new users of the Atik Infinity and the results appear to be very good, even in some LP areas.  I think definitive side by side tests would be necessary to confirm it is better, but the gain circuitry could be different and a factor.  I doubt they could do anything to the sensor to change it's inherent sensitivity.  The Infinity does require separate 12v power, so it is different than the Ultrastar's USB power.

Don

[RobertI]

13 hours ago, memoryman said:

Thanks DoctorD.

My main interest is not in imaging as such, but just on seeing faint objects more easily from my present location. I would have though that a fast scope like my Meade SN10 @ f4 would have been ideally suited for live viewing (or building up and image within less than a minute at least) as it was originally optimised by Meade for imaging by being capable of gathering a lot of light quickly.

I looked at the link you suggested which was interesting, but seemed to be mainly concerned with using the Hyperstar equipment to allow much quicker exposures for long focal length scopes like Schmidt Cassegrains. As my scope is pretty fast anyway (you'd need an expensive Astrograph scope to beat it) therefore I'm a bit confused? Perhaps I'm missing or misunderstanding a basic fact?

The Lodestar will give you guaranteed results on dim objects - its easy and quick and amazingly detailed considering the relatively low resolution. You can't go wrong with the X2 mono, and if you need colour you have the option of using RGB filters with Starlight Live s/w which also produces really nice results, not as convenient as the one shot colour but I think the consensus is that the results are better.

rob

[DoctorD]

Hi Dom

I can only comment first hand on the Lodestar-C - which is the camera I have, my other comments are based on what I have seen from other users and HiLoDon's thread on the Ultrastar. Paper specs are all well and good, but real world results are what we are looking for.

There's been plenty of discussion about the relative merits and sensitivity of these cameras on SGL and other boards - I'm no expert, just a simple Lodestar user who's happy with his results.

CS

Paul

[memoryman]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all your advice. It seems like although the Infinity and Ultrastar use the same chip and are similar there are significant differences regarding sensiivity. The main reasons that I thought the Ultrastar C would be better was the reduced size and weight, plus no need for a separate power source, the renowned software and the thought of immediate results. After reading what you all say though the Lodestar seems like a viable option for LP affected sites. Up until now I'd have preferred a colour model as I have a perception that using filters (or filter wheels) involves a lot of faffing around etc, but now I'm not so sure.

Is there a thread where I could check up on images from the different cameras and setups?

[DoctorD]

Hi Memoryman

Have a look at  my gallery and my recent video of what I have acheived with a Lodestar-C.

This is from my light polluted garden and is the older Lodestar, the newer X2's are more sensitive (both mono & colour).

 

HTH

 

 

 

 

Paul

[HiloDon]

Here's a link to mine.  The skies are very good here, but it will give you an idea about what setups can be used.  The narrow band Ha stuff is interesting because the filter blocks out all soures of light pollution, including the moon.

Cameras used are Lodestars X2 and X2c, and Ultrastar.  Software is Paul's Lodestar Live/Starlight Live.

Don

https://stargazerslounge.com/profile/36930-hilodon/?tab=node_gallery_gallery

Edited April 26, 2016 by HiloDon

[memoryman]

DoctorD and Don

Great images from both of you thanks for sharing them. I've got a lot  to think about now!

[stash_old]

And of course the Lodestar x2 is cheaper - you could have a colour (sorry Color :-) ) and a mono for nearly the same price!IMHO The other point is the software updates - they come thick and fast from PAul81 - not sure the update frequency of the Atik but then they have other models to support. 

[alberto91]

On 09/04/2016 at 04:53, cuivenion said:

Some pretty impressive stuff here with a modified Sony A7S. At 4fps, not stacked either just live video.

 

Here's the post it's from:

 

Cool.

A shame that the Takahashi Epsilon 180ED costs 5,000 dollars.

[cuivenion]

1 hour ago, alberto91 said:

Cool.

A shame that the Takahashi Epsilon 180ED costs 5,000 dollars.

Yeah that's the extreme end of the spectrum, but there are much cheaper alternatives. I can get a good representation of the brighter messiers though my F5 newtonians and an uncooled ASI224 in a fairly light polluted area using 4-8 second exposures. It would be great to see what is achievable with some of the more recent cooled astrocams and a more reasonably priced newtonian with a suitable corrector reducer like this:

https://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/optical-accessories/flattener-reducer-correctors/ts-optics-2-newtonian-coma-corrector-0.73x-reducer-astrophotography

Camera, scope and corrector should be about 1/2 what the takashi costs.