#1  
Old 14-09-2011, 01:51 PM
Martin Pugh
Registered User

Martin Pugh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,243
DSLR use with Solar Scopes

So here is a question for the seasoned solar imagers.

Why wouldnt a DSLR (a Canon 550D in this case) which has a HD video mode, be a good camera choice for imaging through a solar scope?

thanks
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14-09-2011, 01:57 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 7,021
Yes, it will work, but the Bayer matrix still doesn't give the same resolution as a mono camera.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14-09-2011, 02:01 PM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 16,726
I have used the HD video on the 550d to image the moon.
Registax won't recognise the .mov format though. You have to convert it, and I found all that lovely resolution was lost in the process.
Since then, I've stuck to taking tons of hi res jpgs and stacking them instead.
But if you can find a good converter to use. I say go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-09-2011, 12:51 PM
Martin Pugh
Registered User

Martin Pugh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,243
Thanks both.
I am finding that I am getting better results with the simpler Phillips Toucam Pro.

I have also been looking at the PGR Flea3 v Lumnera Skynx. Thoughts?

JJ - I have actually done a lot of testing with a few of the programs you can get to convert the MOV files.

There is a limtation on Registax and AVISTACK on which codecs they recognise also. Otherwise, Quicktime Pro allows you to export to AVI.

So, I have found the freeware by Pazera called movtoavi, does a good job without loss of resolution. Choose Motion JPEG option and you will find it is okay.

cheers
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15-09-2011, 01:19 PM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 16,726
Cheers Martin.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15-09-2011, 06:52 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,060
StreamClip is a great free program for converting video files. You also need the quicktime alternative that they talk about on their website.

Would be interested to see your results with an SLR Martin!

Phil
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-09-2011, 06:30 AM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Pugh View Post
So here is a question for the seasoned solar imagers.

Why wouldnt a DSLR (a Canon 550D in this case) which has a HD video mode, be a good camera choice for imaging through a solar scope?

thanks
Martin
Well because the light from a solar scope is monochrome and a DSLR is bayer matrix. You will be capturing one third of the available light. It will require lots of work to get an image at one third the resolution. Buy a DMK41 or simlar mono camera and get the best possible images. Don't waste your time on DSLR images with this format. If you don't believe me check out the web and you will see all the great images are from monochrome cameras.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17-09-2011, 10:20 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,642
While there are some heroic efforts with DSLR's....go mono. Bigger chips are a two edged sword. Bigger slabs of Sol but slower frame rates... Then again port speeds ( USB 3.0) are getting quicker.... Decisions decisions
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-09-2011, 12:27 AM
Martin Pugh
Registered User

Martin Pugh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,243
Thanks all

Paul - I completely agree. The images taken through my DS90 and the 550D have been nothing but disappointing.

So I will have to consider a mono camera - perhaps the PGR Flea3

cheers
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 18-09-2011, 06:53 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,448
I'd like to hear a comparison of DMK41 and PGR Flea 3 also.

Then there is the Skynyx as well.

Is the Fleas 3 more suited to planets?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 18-09-2011, 07:11 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,403
I'd steer away from 640 x 480 sized chips for doing this sort of imaging. Mosaic work is an enormous task. Even covering a large active region will take a lot of mosaic panels. Another thing to look out for is Newtons rings. In mono light with high mag these beasts show up.

If you go with the point grey flea3, take a look at the largest sensor. That will give you real estate and perhaps even a faster frame rate than the DMK41.

To answer Gregs questions; the skynyx is a bit outdated now. The frame rate is high but it suffers badly from Newtons rings and is very noisey. That means a lot of processing to try and correct for the problem.

The 640 x 480 flea is best on planets and does require an powered adapter and well not suited for solar work. Perhaps look into the camera Peter has too. That is a Lumenera but not the skynyx variety.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18-09-2011, 09:27 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,448
Thanks Paul.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21-09-2011, 03:17 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
the skynyx is a bit outdated now. The frame rate is high but it suffers badly from Newtons rings and is very noisey. That means a lot of processing to try and correct for the problem.

.......... (Peter's) is a Lumenera but not the skynyx variety.
Que?

I use a Lumenera and it is a *Skynyx* 2-2. Never noticed any rings. Noise is well controlled provided you keep the gain low. It typically delivers 12FPS at 1600 x 1200 res. Can't say I seen significantly better specs elsewhere at that res... but must admit to having adpoted a
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it " approach to new gear of late
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 22-09-2011, 06:42 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,403
Yep Peter, Newtons rings abound with the 2-0 version I have. Seen here the rings are running from top left to bottom right. I have done considerable work to eliminate the problem. It gets worse the more magnification I apply.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23-09-2011, 09:22 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
Yep Peter, Newtons rings abound with the 2-0 version I have. Seen here the rings are running from top left to bottom right. I have done considerable work to eliminate the problem. It gets worse the more magnification I apply.
No Link? But to re-iterate, none that I've seen on the Skynyx 2-2 hence making me wonder, apart from chip size, what may be different between the two.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23-09-2011, 03:05 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,403
Sorry here is the link.

Newtons rings are primarily caused from monochrome light passing between two optical surfaces that are very close together. I have similar problems with the DMK41 too. There is a glass cover plate over the top of the sensor which causes the problem on both cameras.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23-09-2011, 05:12 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 7,021
I've also experienced the Newton's Rings with both the DMK21 and the DMK41 cameras I use.
Do you think there's any correlation between focal ratio and the generations of these artifacts? - Steeper light cone = better/worse rings??
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23-09-2011, 05:58 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
I've also experienced the Newton's Rings with both the DMK21 and the DMK41 cameras I use.
Do you think there's any correlation between focal ratio and the generations of these artifacts? - Steeper light cone = better/worse rings??
Yes, I think the longer the focal length (which could be a steeper light cone) the worse the rings get. If I use a 5x powermate it can be quite severe. Although the detail is pretty nice overall. It can be overcome by doing a flat, but that is even more trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23-10-2011, 01:06 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,585
Would these new cameras be of any use for solar work, the 340fps rate sounds promising?
http://www.cmosis.com/products/stand...oducts/cmv2000
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement