Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

NEW ZWO ASI-183 Series Cameras

FLO

By FLO
in Sponsor Announcements and Offers

Recommended Posts

FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

A lot of people have been asking for these! :smile:

We recently received our first delivery of ZWO's new ASI-183 series cameras. 

All models feature Sony's highly sensitive 20mp (5496×3672) Back-Side-Illuminated IMX183 sensor with amp glow reduction and incredibly low read noise. 

The Cooled Pro models have the same mechanics as the ZWO ASI1600 Pro with four screws sealing the sensor chamber and a 256MB DDR3 Memory Buffer. 

 

ZWO ASI 183MC USB 3.0 Colour Camera

zwo_asi_183mc.jpg

 

ZWO ASI 183MM USB 3.0 Mono Camera

zwo_asi_183mm.jpg

 

ZWO ASI 183MC-PRO USB 3.0 Cooled Colour Camera

zwo_asi183mc-pro.jpg

 

ZWO ASI 183MM-PRO USB 3.0 Cooled Mono Camera

zwo_asi183mm-pro.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Stub Mandrel

Stub Mandrel

Posted
Posted

I am even more confused. It says Sony 1" sensor and 15.86mm diagonal - which is correct?

I really think using anything other than the height and width of the sensor is meaningless. Only by having these numbers can you see exactly how it will frame with different imaging setups.

I would be upset if I bought it thinking it was 1" diagonal and found it was only three-fifths of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LightBucket

LightBucket

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I am even more confused. It says Sony 1" sensor and 15.86mm diagonal - which is correct?

I really think using anything other than the height and width of the sensor is meaningless. Only by having these numbers can you see exactly how it will frame with different imaging setups.

I would be upset if I bought it thinking it was 1" diagonal and found it was only three-fifths of that.

Yes I saw that, and agree it’s totally confusing, they have a different way of measuring....lol, I have seen on the ASI185  that say 1/1.9” well what does that mean....as the sensor is well under an inch... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Steady on chaps. You know how it works - products arrive, we add them to the website ASAP then announce them here. If someone then spots typos or other errors we fix them, in real-time. 

I ‘think’ 1” refers to the sensor format, not the physical size. We have added metric dimensions to prevent confusion. Regarding unused sensor area, again I ‘think’ it is not unusual for an area around a sensor to be masked, from memory the area is sometimes used for ‘dark-frame subtraction’ noise reduction, or something like that. I will investigate. 

Lightucket, your posting style is familiar, do we know you? 

My wife has put tea on the table but I’ll be back later tonight and will make edits where necessary. 

HTH, 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LightBucket

LightBucket

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, FLO said:

Steady on chaps. You know how it works - products arrive, we add them to the website ASAP then announce them here. If someone then spots typos or other errors we fix them, in real-time. 

I ‘think’ 1” refers to the sensor format, not the physical size. We have added metric dimensions to prevent confusion. Regarding unused sensor area, again I ‘think’ it is not unusual for an area around a sensor to be masked, from memory the area is sometimes used for ‘black-frame subtraction’ noise reduction, but I will investigate. 

Lightncket, your posting style is familiar, do we know you? 

My wife has put tea on the table but I’ll be back later tonight and will make edits where necessary. 

HTH, 

Steve

No, just made a comment on the Altair issue you had earlier... didn’t mean to offend, sorry if I did....:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stub Mandrel

Stub Mandrel

Posted
Posted

I started a thread here a while ago:

Gina explained the sensor sizes used to relate to old vidicon tubes, but no-one seems to be able to explain how on earth the quoted sensor sizes relate to the actual sensor area.

It's not FLO's fault, or even the camera manufactuyers. It's the sensor manufacturers who insist on using these unhelpful (misleading) inch measurements that seem to have no rational explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stub Mandrel

Stub Mandrel

Posted
Posted

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_format

 

Optical format is a hypothetical measurement approximately 50% larger than the true diagonal size of a solid-state photo sensor. The use of the optical format means that a lens used with a particular size sensor will have approximately the same angle of view as if it were to be used with an equivalent-sized video camera tube where the actual sensitive target is smaller than the overall size.

The optical format is approximately the diagonal length of the sensor multiplied by 3/2. The result is expressed in inches and is usually (but not always) rounded to a convenient fraction. For instance, a 6.4x4.8 mm sensor has a diagonal of 8.0 mm and therefore an optical format of 8.0*3/2 = 12 mm, which is expressed as the convenient 1/2 inch in imperial units. The reason it is expressed in inches is historical, dating back to the early days of television. [1]

Many image device sheets do not list the actual optical format, but do list the size of their pixels in terms of micrometers; a more helpful equation is to convert the pixel size, and array size, directly to optical format. The equation for this is:

OF=pw2+h216000{\displaystyle OF={\frac {p{\sqrt {w^{2}+h^{2}}}}{16000}}}OF={\frac {p{\sqrt {w^{2}+h^{2}}}}{16000}}

with:

  • w = width of array (in pixels)
  • h = height of array (in pixels)
  • p = pixel size (micrometers)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank-you Neil, looks like I have some work to do updating our sensor dimensions.

We will need to settle on a format and apply it across all models, for consistency. 

If you notice anything else that needs attention please say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

The whole "optical format" thing seems bonkers to me when applied to modern camera sensors.  One might as well give the resolution in pixels per foot-fathom or the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight.  Much more helpful to use actual physical dimensions (and in helpful units :D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stub Mandrel

Stub Mandrel

Posted
Posted

Good point - the niceness of the cameras has been lost in the confusion around sizes.

As an alternative to the ASI1600 the sensor size would allow 1.25" filters and be less demanding on field flatteners/coma correctors so you could be up and running for narrowband at a significant saving while still having a good image resolution.

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.