Jump to content

spc900 philips? or the celestron neximage?

algol

By algol
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

algol

algol

Posted
Posted

i've seen the philips spc 900nc thingy webcam for around 50 quid but you gotta buy the adaptor for 20 ish so thats 70- quid.

now the neximage, comes with the adapter and with imaging and processing software for 109 quid, whih is best guys and gals?

mainly for lunar and planetary work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beamish

beamish

Posted
Posted

not a bad price that karlo very nice, not got the webcam yet but i'm tempted to go with the cheap and chearful philips for now, can get one for 40 quid

There's absolutely nowt wrong with the phillips, if you can get one for forty quid JUMP ! As for the adapter , ring S'n'S first, make sure they have one in stock if not pm me :)

Karlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sam

Sam

Posted
Posted

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Neximage had a CMOS sensor - whereas the Phillips has a CCD sensor and is a bit more sensitive - happy to be corrected on that as I only vaguely remember reading it.

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

I'd get the Phillips over the Celestron purely because more people use them and help will be easier to find if you run into problems and you can mod them for long exposure if you want to get into DSOs at a later date.

Just my 2p... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albireo380

Albireo380

Posted
Posted

I'd get the Phillips over the Celestron purely because more people use them and help will be easier to find if you run into problems and you can mod them for long exposure if you want to get into DSOs at a later date.

Just my 2p... :)

Ta Gaz (& Beamish)

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milamber

Milamber

Posted
Posted

Nothing - but the image data would be as collected by the ccd rather than as sent by/through the compression algorithms in the firmware. Gives you a headstart in post-processing since you are working only with the raw image data and not fighting to get rid of half-hearted sharpening and contrast-enhancing routines before you even start.

Arthur

Link to comment
Share on other sites
axolotl

axolotl

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't rule out the LPI. I have it and whilst I can't compare it to the others it is:

1. Cheap

2. Easy to use, working virtually straight out of the box

3. Has some, limited, capacity to image bright DSOs (double stars, open clusters, bright nebulae).

4, Gives decent images of planets and good images of the moon. You can see a couple of pictures I took at http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php/topic,23014.msg235237.html#msg235237

but there are much better examples elsewhere on the web

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Helen

Helen

Posted
Posted

Nothing - but the image data would be as collected by the ccd rather than as sent by/through the compression algorithms in the firmware. Gives you a headstart in post-processing since you are working only with the raw image data and not fighting to get rid of half-hearted sharpening and contrast-enhancing routines before you even start.

Arthur

Thanks Arthur! How can I do it?

Helen

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.