DMK firewire webcams "price crash"

Robert_T · #1 15-11-2006, 09:11 AM

Hi All, The Imaging Source in the US who manufacture these cameras just sent me an e-mail indicating that they've dropped the price on all their 640 x 480 firewire cameras, including the DMK 21AF04 that a few of us have been using for planetary pics posted here. If you're interested the price for this has gone from $490US to $390US... might be enough to tip the balance in favour of this over a SkyNx or sps900nc

Link attached

http://www.theimagingsource.com/en/p...mono/1-0-0.htm

cheers,

[1ponders] (Paul) · #2 15-11-2006, 09:17 AM

Does that price drop include the colour and Bayer cameras as well Rob?

iceman (Mike) · #3 15-11-2006, 12:04 PM

Yes, it does.

Dennis · #4 15-11-2006, 12:28 PM

Hi Robert

I've just had a look at the link and I am a little puzzled as the DMK 21AF04 is shown as US $390.00, which is what it was a couple of months ago when I last looked? Perhaps my memory is fading with too much sunspot activity?

Cheers

Dennis

iceman (Mike) · #5 15-11-2006, 12:33 PM

I think you're right, Dennis.. the DMK21F04 has dropped to US$290.00.

The only difference I can see between the 21F04 and 21Af04, is that the "A" version can do 60fps while the 21F04 can only do 30fps.

Can't believe it though, my version the "A" version, cost US$490 only a few months ago, and it was 30fps - upgradable to 60fps via a firmware patch which I haven't done yet.

So US$290 is a bargain.

The 60fps is good for the moon and sun, but no good on the planets unless you had a 25" telescope

Robert_T · #6 15-11-2006, 12:43 PM

Hey Dennis, the DMK 21AF04 was $490US when I was looking to buy. The DMK 21F04 was $390US and both appear to have dropped $100US.

Have a look at the specifications via the links, but I was told by the Imaging Source people that the "Af" version had significantly improved noise properties - and that that was the distinguishing feature - which I regarded as important for our sort of thing!

. Improved noice was meant to be obatined in the way the thing was put together.

cheers,

Robert_T · #7 15-11-2006, 12:55 PM

Dug up the old e-mails from imaging source on the benefits of the "AF" over the "F".... they say...

"The DMK 21AF04 has an identical mount and nearly identical form factor, however, the quality of the internal components are far superior to the DMK 21F04. This camera is a very low noise camera ....The DMK 21AF04 cameras are capable of longer integrations times and have superior digitization technology than the 21F04 models. These models have a seperate Analog Front End, DSP and firewire packet renderer, all on different layers of the board. This is much better than the problematic all in one TSB15LV01 chipset from Texas Instruments included in the 21F04 series. The bottom line is a higher quality image and more control over exposure settings and frame rates."

iceman (Mike) · #8 15-11-2006, 01:10 PM

ah good info, thanks Rob.

Dennis · #9 15-11-2006, 01:38 PM

Thanks guys - I just checked the specs and noted differing exposure ranges 1/3300 to 1/30 s for non A and 1/10000 to 30 s for A, so it looks like the A version at US $390 is the only way to go.

Cheers

Dennis

[1ponders] (Paul) · #10 15-11-2006, 01:47 PM

These questions might deserve a thread of their own but I think under the context of helping to decide which camera is suitable for the price I'll put them here.

I've checked the site out fairly well and while I can find information on how colour cameras work I cant find anything that generally describes the difference between the "Colour" version and the "Bayer" versions. Rob, Dennis or Mike, can one or all explain the difference.

Also when looking at the various tables of cameras available in each capture catagory (mono, colour, bayer) there are the headings 'Trig' and 'I/O'. What do these stand for and how do would they affect camera operation?

anthony2302749 · #11 15-11-2006, 02:00 PM

Hi all

While we are on the subject of cameras I came across this camera while looking at Turnkey Solutions website http://www.turnkey-solutions.com.au/...brain_fire.htm

The B/W model is priced at about A$370

Dennis · #12 15-11-2006, 02:02 PM

Hi Paul

My understanding and knowledge is fairly thin, so take what follows with a pinch of salt!

I think that for high resolution imaging, B&W is the only way to go. Every single charge well (pixel) is devoted to capturing photons.

For Bayer cameras, the “unit of capture” appears to be groups of 4 pixels; x1 Red, x1 Blue and x2 Green. Therefore, the final image is created from the software collecting the appropriate colour information from the particular pixel (e.g. red), but then obtaining the other 2 colour elements from the surrounding pixels (e.g. blue & x2 green).

For the colour cameras in that article, they appear to use 3 ccd chips and split the incoming light via a prism to the relevant ccd.

Cheers

Dennis

[1ponders] (Paul) · #13 15-11-2006, 02:07 PM

I was initially thinking that but wouldn't that make the cameras at least 3x the price (3x the chips) and be equal to the mono cameras for resolution, only you would have your colour filters built in?

[1ponders] (Paul) · #14 15-11-2006, 02:10 PM

I wonder if with the 'Bayer' cameras you can download the images RAW and then do the interpolation in machine rather than in camera? (Like some of the SAC cameras)

Dennis · #15 15-11-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

I was initially thinking that but wouldn't that make the cameras at least 3x the price (3x the chips) and be equal to the mono cameras for resolution, only you would have your colour filters built in?

Hi Paul

You are correct...the article states:

"This evident solution also leads to excellent results
in practice. The decisive disadvantage, however,
is the high price".
Cheers

Dennis

[1ponders] (Paul) · #16 15-11-2006, 03:29 PM

This bit of information is helpful, though brief. http://www.theimagingsource.com/en/r...n/20050419.htm
The bayer might be a better option for those looking for a colour camera but with increased frame rate. If it is similar to the SAC4.2 using Catch-42, as I think it is, then it has taken some getting used to. For me at least that is

[1ponders] (Paul) · #17 15-11-2006, 03:30 PM

And more ...
http://www.theimagingsource.com/en/r...n/20030116.htm

Some interesting reading in the Newsletter Archive

[1ponders] (Paul) · #18 15-11-2006, 03:34 PM

Mike, it's probably somewhere in the forum here, but to save me looking

, can you use your DMK with K3CCDTools and other applications that use Microsoft WDM Image Capture?

Robert_T · #19 15-11-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

Mike, it's probably somewhere in the forum here, but to save me looking

, can you use your DMK with K3CCDTools and other applications that use Microsoft WDM Image Capture?

Hey Paul, Mike might be able to tell you re K3CCD, I think one of the later versions does work with it. That said, the capture program that comes with the DMK is brilliant and once you've tried it I doubt you'll want to play around with K3 anymore...

cheers,

[1ponders] (Paul) · #20 15-11-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

I doubt you'll want to play around with K3 anymore...

Wash your mouth out Robert

Thanks for that, Rob.

Now the final decision, mono/colour/bayer. I know I should be thinking of going mono but I don't know if I could be bothered mucking around with different filters, let alone the extra cost.

Colour I think is out. So looks like the bayer option might be the way to go for me. That is unless you can talk me into a 900nc Rob.