Michael,

The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club Golf
Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to the Hunt
Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first light east
of Riverside on Hunt Club.

- Ken

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@...> wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How about
> starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where exactly on
> Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
>
>
>

Michael,

I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so in case
someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base. For those
who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-Alpha
filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field next to
the hanger for the Central Band.

Cheers, Ken

-- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@...> wrote:

Michael,

The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club Golf
Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to the Hunt
Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first light east
of Riverside on Hunt Club.

- Ken

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How about
> > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where exactly on
> > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
> >
> >
> >
>

Sounds good.  See you at Timmy's -- Michael

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so in
case
> someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base. For
those
> who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-Alpha
> filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
> We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field next to
> the hanger for the Central Band.
>
> Cheers, Ken

Hi Ken:
If I come later, could you please post the location of the "base" again? 
Thanks!!
Richard


----- Original Message ----
From: Ken Whitnall <kwhit@...>
To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:11:50 AM
Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session


Michael,

I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so in case
someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base. For those
who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-Alpha
filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field next to
the hanger for the Central Band.

Cheers, Ken

-- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@...> wrote:

Michael,

The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club Golf
Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to the Hunt
Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first light east
of Riverside on Hunt Club.

- Ken

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How about
> > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where exactly on
> > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
> >
> >
> >
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sounds good.  See you at Timmy's -- Michael

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so in
case
> someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base. For
those
> who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-Alpha
> filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
> We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field next to
> the hanger for the Central Band.
>
> Cheers, Ken

Err.I'd like to come too. By the landmarks offered in the previous
post are unfamilliar to me. Anybody got something I can look up like
an address or a street intersection?

On 7/1/08, RICHARD HARDING <richardharding@...> wrote:
> Hi Ken:
>  If I come later, could you please post the location of the "base" again? 
Thanks!!
>  Richard
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----
>  From: Ken Whitnall <kwhit@...>
>  To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:11:50 AM
>  Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session
>
>
>  Michael,
>
>  I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so in case
>  someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base. For those
>  who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-Alpha
>  filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
>  We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field next to
>  the hanger for the Central Band.
>
>  Cheers, Ken
>
>  -- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@...> wrote:
>
>  Michael,
>
>
> The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club Golf
>  Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to the Hunt
>  Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first light east
>  of Riverside on Hunt Club.
>
>  - Ken
>
>  --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How about
>  > > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where exactly on
>  > > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
attilla danko, danko@..., http://cleardarksky.com/csk

At 12:14 -0400 2008/07/01, Attilla Danko wrote:
>Err.I'd like to come too. By the landmarks offered in the previous
>post are unfamilliar to me. Anybody got something I can look up like
>an address or a street intersection?

Here's the coordinates from one of Ken previous postings. If you just
paste them into Google maps, it'll show the proposed location.
That's what I'm going on right now,. :)

+45° 20' 0.37", -75° 40' 33.18" (45.333436, -75.675883)

Rob

-  I'm thinking of going also will leave in about 40 minutes

They must be around  Breadner Blvd  which runs between Canadair
Street and Uplands Drive in Canadian Forces Base Ottawa (south)
                   old Uplands base
Canadair  and  Uplands Dr.  both run south off  Hunt Club Rd.

Beardner Blvd runs between the two

Dave cell number 613 884-0097  For better directions













-- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Attilla Danko" <danko@...> wrote:
>
> Err.I'd like to come too. By the landmarks offered in the previous
> post are unfamilliar to me. Anybody got something I can look up like
> an address or a street intersection?
>
> On 7/1/08, RICHARD HARDING <richardharding@...> wrote:
> > Hi Ken:
> >  If I come later, could you please post the location of
the "base" again?  Thanks!!
> >  Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message ----
> >  From: Ken Whitnall <kwhit@...>
> >  To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> >  Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:11:50 AM
> >  Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session
> >
> >
> >  Michael,
> >
> >  I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so
in case
> >  someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base.
For those
> >  who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-
Alpha
> >  filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some views.
> >  We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field
next to
> >  the hanger for the Central Band.
> >
> >  Cheers, Ken
> >
> >  -- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@> wrote:
> >
> >  Michael,
> >
> >
> > The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club
Golf
> >  Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to
the Hunt
> >  Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first
light east
> >  of Riverside on Hunt Club.
> >
> >  - Ken
> >
> >  --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How about
> >  > > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where
exactly on
> >  > > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------
> >
> >  Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> attilla danko, danko@..., http://cleardarksky.com/csk
>

-Drove out to uplands no luck finding group








-- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "David Waterman" <davidwaterman@...>
wrote:
>
> -  I'm thinking of going also will leave in about 40 minutes
>
> They must be around  Breadner Blvd  which runs between Canadair
> Street and Uplands Drive in Canadian Forces Base Ottawa (south)
>                   old Uplands base
> Canadair  and  Uplands Dr.  both run south off  Hunt Club Rd.
>
> Beardner Blvd runs between the two
>
> Dave cell number 613 884-0097  For better directions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Attilla Danko" <danko@> wrote:
> >
> > Err.I'd like to come too. By the landmarks offered in the previous
> > post are unfamilliar to me. Anybody got something I can look up
like
> > an address or a street intersection?
> >
> > On 7/1/08, RICHARD HARDING <richardharding@> wrote:
> > > Hi Ken:
> > >  If I come later, could you please post the location of
> the "base" again?  Thanks!!
> > >  Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message ----
> > >  From: Ken Whitnall <kwhit@>
> > >  To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > >  Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:11:50 AM
> > >  Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session
> > >
> > >
> > >  Michael,
> > >
> > >  I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so
> in case
> > >  someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base.
> For those
> > >  who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-
> Alpha
> > >  filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some
views.
> > >  We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field
> next to
> > >  the hanger for the Central Band.
> > >
> > >  Cheers, Ken
> > >
> > >  -- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Michael,
> > >
> > >
> > > The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club
> Golf
> > >  Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to
> the Hunt
> > >  Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first
> light east
> > >  of Riverside on Hunt Club.
> > >
> > >  - Ken
> > >
> > >  --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
> > >  > >
> > >  > > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How
about
> > >  > > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where
> exactly on
> > >  > > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------------------------------
> > >
> > >  Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > attilla danko, danko@, http://cleardarksky.com/csk
> >
>

Sorry you did not make it out.  It was fun.  Not sure where you where on
uplands.


On July 1, 2008 02:57:27 pm David Waterman wrote:
> -Drove out to uplands no luck finding group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "David Waterman" <davidwaterman@...>
>
> wrote:
> > -  I'm thinking of going also will leave in about 40 minutes
> >
> > They must be around  Breadner Blvd  which runs between Canadair
> > Street and Uplands Drive in Canadian Forces Base Ottawa (south)
> >                   old Uplands base
> > Canadair  and  Uplands Dr.  both run south off  Hunt Club Rd.
> >
> > Beardner Blvd runs between the two
> >
> > Dave cell number 613 884-0097

Hi David!
Too bad, we had fun as usual, and I had the BEST solar view yet in Ken W.'s fine
set-up!!
Richard


----- Original Message ----
From: David Waterman <davidwaterman@...>
To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 2:57:27 PM
Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session


-Drove out to uplands no luck finding group

-- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "David Waterman" <davidwaterman@ ...>
wrote:
>
> -  I'm thinking of going also will leave in about 40 minutes
>
> They must be around  Breadner Blvd  which runs between Canadair
> Street and Uplands Drive in Canadian Forces Base Ottawa (south)
>                   old Uplands base
> Canadair  and  Uplands Dr.  both run south off  Hunt Club Rd.
>
> Beardner Blvd runs between the two
>
> Dave cell number 613 884-0097  For better directions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Attilla Danko" <danko@> wrote:
> >
> > Err.I'd like to come too. By the landmarks offered in the previous
> > post are unfamilliar to me. Anybody got something I can look up
like
> > an address or a street intersection?
> >
> > On 7/1/08, RICHARD HARDING <richardharding@ > wrote:
> > > Hi Ken:
> > >  If I come later, could you please post the location of
> the "base" again?  Thanks!!
> > >  Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message ----
> > >  From: Ken Whitnall <kwhit@>
> > >  To: OAFs@yahoogroups. com
> > >  Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 9:11:50 AM
> > >  Subject: [OAFs] Re: solar observing session
> > >
> > >
> > >  Michael,
> > >
> > >  I try to be there at noon.  We can hang out for a coffee of so
> in case
> > >  someone else wants to join in, then we'll head onto the Base.
> For those
> > >  who would like to have a look through an ultra narrow band H-
> Alpha
> > >  filter you should come down for a bit and join in for some
views.
> > >  We'll be at the parking lot right in the middle of the field
> next to
> > >  the hanger for the Central Band.
> > >
> > >  Cheers, Ken
> > >
> > >  -- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "Ken Whitnall" <kwhit@> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Michael,
> > >
> > >
> > > The Tim Horton's I'm referring to is across from the Hunt Club
> Golf
> > >  Course.  It's right in front of the Days Inn which is next to
> the Hunt
> > >  Club entrance to Uplands.  The Uplands entrance is the first
> light east
> > >  of Riverside on Hunt Club.
> > >
> > >  - Ken
> > >
> > >  --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, "mcwolfsonca" <wolfson@> wrote:
> > >  > >
> > >  > > I'd be happy to do noon till 4pm or so at Uplands.  How
about
> > >  > > starting by meeting up at Tim Horton's at noon.  Where
> exactly on
> > >  > > Hunt Club is this Timmy's? -- Michael
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  > >
> > >  >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ------------ --------- --------- ------
> > >
> > >  Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > attilla danko, danko@, http://cleardarksky .com/csk
> >
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://stargazer.dvrdns.org/gallery/v/astro/solar_observing/

Hi Andre,

Thanks for the links.

I've tried deconvolution on the planets but I find it almost always
generates artifacts.  Perhaps it is because the PSF is never quite
known.  In any case, I find wavelets, high-pass sharpen, and unsharp
mask to be the most powerful for enhancing detail.  It all has to be
done with care so as not to bring out artifacts and noise.

-Rolf


--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Although it isn't about image acquisition or processing, I find
> Wodaski's free CCD Calc application to be quite useful for those quick
> calculations of image scale:
>
> http://www.newastro.com/newastro/downloads/ccdcalc/ccdcalcfull.exe
>
> Also, there's a free version of K3CCD Tools that might be useful:
>
> http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?k3ccdtools.htm
>
> I'm not sure what the free version would offer beyond a generic webcam
> capture utility, but it might be worth checking out.
> I bought a copy of the full version and use it with my color webcam
> and even sometimes with the Lumenera.  It supports long exposure
> images with the Lumenera, which come in handy some of the time.  (I
> recorded an occultation of Pluto that way.)  It also has a live
> histogram that you can configure to display info for each color
> channel.  I really appreciated that when I was imaging mars -- without
> it I kept oversaturating the red channel!
>
> You mention deconvolution below and I'm curious if you've done any of
> that in the context of planetary imaging.  Theoretically you should be
> able to correct some of the effects of dispersion by imaging a nearby
> star to capture its PSF and feed that to the deconvolution tool as an
> input.  I tried that with both Maxim and AIP4WIN, and did eventually
> get some improvement but it was always at the cost of other artifacts
> that I didn't like.  If we get some decent weather for Jupiter I'll
> probably take another shot at it.
>
> Thanks for all the great links,
>
> Andre
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Oafs,
> >
> > Some more info for the workshop!  I was thinking tentatively of July
> > 12.  I am going to provide some links now to the free software that
> > can be used for planetary imaging.
> >
> > First, I hope that some of you have some captured videos already or
> > will have some that we can use if it is cloudy.  But let's hope for
> > clear skies!
> >
> > If you don't already have a webcam, get a ToUcam ASAP.  I just got
> > another one (my third) from this site:
> >
> >
>
http://cgi.ebay.ca/NEW-Sealed-Philips-SPC900NC-High-Definition-Pro-Webcam_W0QQit\
emZ220250510803QQihZ012QQcategoryZ4616QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
> >
> > You will have to remove the lens and get an adapter (or make one):
> >
> > http://www.robertreeves.com/900NC.htm
> >
> > For capturing video from a ToUcam, the included Philips Vrecord works
> > quite well.  There are other capture programs out there with more
> > features but they aren't free.
> >
> > I have found, actually, that Vrecord works with many other webcams,
> > including Lumenera, with no issues.
> >
> > For doing collimation, you may want to consider Metaguide:
> >
> > http://www.astrogeeks.com/Bliss/MetaGuide/
> >
> > Registax, the main program for aligning and stacking the frames from
> > an AVI (as well as many other file formats):
> >
> > http://www.astronomie.be/registax/
> >
> > Optional - for editing the AVI prior to align and stack; for example
> > to eliminate bad frames or to adjust contrast to help in the alignment
> > process - Virtualdub.  It will also capture videos:
> >
> > http://www.virtualdub.org/
> >
> > Optional - for doing post processing after Registax - Iris:
> >
> > http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm
> >
> > For noise reduction, there is SGBNR.  Note that you also have to
> > download the Borland visual components library:
> >
> > http://www.jubema.com/pleiades-astrophoto/software/en.html
> >
> > For combining RGBs, final colour adjustments, unsharp masking, high
> > pass filtering, etc., I have not found any good free programs.  I use
> > Paint Shop Pro, which is about $80, but there is a free trial
download:
> >
> >
>
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#tabview=tab6
> >
> > The best is probably Adobe Photoshop but I don't have it.  Some people
> > also use Maxim for the deconvolution, but I have no experience
with it.
> >
> > And finally there are the Lumenera drivers already mentioned:
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Oafs,
> > >
> > > I'm glad to see so much interest in this!
> > >
> > > Some good news to pass on.  Thomas Maroney of Lumenera has kindly
> > > offered the loan of some Lumenera cameras for folks to try out
during
> > > this event.
> > >
> > > In order to make the installation smooth, you should install the
> > > drivers before the event.  They can be downloaded here (Look for the
> > > SkyNyx software):
> > >
> > > http://www.lumenera.com/support/download.php
> > >
> > > Note that you will also need compatible capture software.  Several
> > > capture tools support this camera, but the best would be to download
> > > an evaluation copy of Lucam Recorder:
> > >
> > > http://www.astrofactum.de/Astrofactum/LucamRecorder/index.htm
> > >
> > > Normally one needs a license corresponding to the serial number
of the
> > > camera (for full functionality eval) so let me look into how
this can
> > > be handled during an evaluation session where cameras will be
swapped
> > > frequently.
> > >
> > > -Rolf
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Oafs,
> > > >
> > > > Such cloudy weather!
> > > >
> > > > At the last RASC meeting, I was talking to some folks about the
> > > > possibility of a lunar/planetary imaging workshop.  The idea
is this
> > > > would be held at my place on hopefully a clear night.  I figure
> a good
> > > > time would be when the first quarter moon and Jupiter are
available,
> > > > which would occur in about 3 weeks.  We can't plan for clear
skies,
> > > > but in the event that it is cloudy we could just do the processing
> > > > part, if people have some previously captured AVIs.  Also we could
> > > > have a BBQ before and people are welcome to swim in the pool too.
> > > >
> > > > Planetary imaging is cheap, requiring only a $100 webcam in
addition
> > > > to what a lot of people have anyway (scope and computer).  We
can go
> > > > through the various steps, and I'm sure there are some people out
> > > > there who have some tricks or software that others don't which
they
> > > > could share.  The main software (Registax) is also free.
> > > >
> > > > So what to the collective Oafs think.  Any interest?  I could also
> > > > make some of my scopes available on site.  We could also try for a
> > > > night when ISS passes.
> > > >
> > > > -Rolf
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Allen,

The price-to-performance, like anything else, comes with diminishing
returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the Imaging
Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.

The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my liking.  I
often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The SkyNyx
2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.

If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger chips like
the SkyNyx 2.2.

Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?  The
chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at 10x the
price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.

-Rolf



--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@...> wrote:
>
> What makes a good planetary camera?
>
> Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
>
> I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been looking
at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make
sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two cameras:
the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is fast,
has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!) $1000. The
Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and more
affordable (~$350).
>
> Allen
>

I'm about to restart the poll to decide we're were having pre-RASC
dinner this friday.

Rob, you said you'd like to add a mexican restauarant to the ballot.

Rob or anyone else who'd like to propose a new restaurant to for the
ballot should
add it to the restaurant nomination database (yes, we oafs are very
organized about
some things):
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OAFs/database?method=reportRows&tbl=2

I use that list to restart the poll this eveninng.

-ad

ps. it was lotsa fun solar observing Canada day. Looking though Ken's
solar setup
is well-worth the sunburn.

--
attilla danko, danko@..., http://cleardarksky.com/csk

Hi,

I'd just like to say that when I got my Visa bill, I discovered that
Liangs had charged us twice (2 different amounts).  I remember that
when we paid he ran my card through twice, which I noted.  We won't
ever be going back there and needless to say we won't be voting for
it.  As far as I'm concerned, a merchant doesn't get a second chance
when it comes to credit cards.  Still trying to get money back from Visa.

-Rolf



--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Attilla Danko" <danko@...> wrote:
>
> I'm about to restart the poll to decide we're were having pre-RASC
> dinner this friday.
>
> Rob, you said you'd like to add a mexican restauarant to the ballot.
>
> Rob or anyone else who'd like to propose a new restaurant to for the
> ballot should
> add it to the restaurant nomination database (yes, we oafs are very
> organized about
> some things):
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OAFs/database?method=reportRows&tbl=2
>
> I use that list to restart the poll this eveninng.
>
> -ad
>
> ps. it was lotsa fun solar observing Canada day. Looking though Ken's
> solar setup
> is well-worth the sunburn.
>
> --
> attilla danko, danko@..., http://cleardarksky.com/csk
>

At 10:18 -0400 2008/07/02, Attilla Danko wrote:
>I'm about to restart the poll to decide we're were having pre-RASC
>dinner this friday.
>
>Rob, you said you'd like to add a mexican restauarant to the ballot.

Hi Attilla,

I haven't been able to find one close to the Museum yet, so I guess I
don't have one to suggest at this time. :)

I'll keep my eyes open for new possibilities, though.

I sympathize with Rolf's experience at the Liang, even though I've
never had a problem myself.  Then again, I almost always use cash. :)

On a completely separate note, I think it's vitally important for all
of us to use cash as much as possible.  If cash falls into disuse
because of plastic/bank cards/payment fobs, etc, we will eventually
lose cash altogether.  And that wouldn't be a good thing.  We don't
want a situation where every cent we spend and everything we buy is
subject to scrutiny. And taxation. And approval.  The government
would *love* a cashless society.

Best,
Rob

Ok. I've restarted the poll so we can decide were we'll have dinner
this friday, july 4, before going off to the RASC meeting at the
museum of science and tech on St. Laurent.

Vote early. Vote often:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OAFs/surveys?id=2475552

Thanks Rolf.

It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is no one telescope.
Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around with deconvolution so 16
bits per channel would be a minimum ... I'll have to keep looking into this
stuff. I'll try and pick your brain a bit at the workshop ...

allen



--- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@...> wrote:
From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@...>
Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM











             Hi Allen,



The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with diminishing

returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the Imaging

Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.



The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my liking.  I

often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The SkyNyx

2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.



If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger chips like

the SkyNyx 2.2.



Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?  The

chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at 10x the

price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the

monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap

ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.



-Rolf



--- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...> wrote:

>

> What makes a good planetary camera?

>

> Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.

>

> I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been looking

at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make

sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two cameras:

the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is fast,

has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!) $1000. The

Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and more

affordable (~$350).

>

> Allen

>





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Allen,

16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are stacked.
  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I never
use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is always
more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy of the
camera itself.

-Rolf


--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Rolf.
>
> It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is no one
telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around
with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ... I'll
have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your brain a
bit at the workshop ...
>
> allen
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@...> wrote:
> From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@...>
> Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Hi Allen,
>
>
>
> The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with diminishing
>
> returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the Imaging
>
> Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
>
>
>
> The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my liking.  I
>
> often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The SkyNyx
>
> 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.
>
>
>
> If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger chips like
>
> the SkyNyx 2.2.
>
>
>
> Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?  The
>
> chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at 10x the
>
> price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
>
> monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
>
> ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
>
>
>
> -Rolf
>
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > What makes a good planetary camera?
>
> >
>
> > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
>
> >
>
> > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been looking
>
> at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make
>
> sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two cameras:
>
> the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is fast,
>
> has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!) $1000. The
>
> Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and more
>
> affordable (~$350).
>
> >
>
> > Allen
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Rolf,

In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the Lumenera
comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I set the
gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit mode and
compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot of good
signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In practice
I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are above
50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the gain and
rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out, and it
seems to work.
I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and Hyperstar
adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull out the
faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky down in
those LSBs.

Cheers,

Andre

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Allen,
>
> 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are stacked.
>  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I never
> use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is always
> more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy of the
> camera itself.
>
> -Rolf
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Rolf.
> >
> > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is no one
> telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around
> with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ... I'll
> have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your brain a
> bit at the workshop ...
> >
> > allen
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >             Hi Allen,
> >
> >
> >
> > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with diminishing
> >
> > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the Imaging
> >
> > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> >
> >
> >
> > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my liking.  I
> >
> > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The SkyNyx
> >
> > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger chips like
> >
> > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?  The
> >
> > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at 10x the
> >
> > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
> >
> > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
> >
> > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been looking
> >
> > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make
> >
> > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two cameras:
> >
> > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is fast,
> >
> > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!) $1000. The
> >
> > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and more
> >
> > affordable (~$350).
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Allen
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Hi Andre,

The best noise performance of a circuit will be obtained when the gain
is applied at the earliest stage possible.  If the gain was set too
low, then yes you would need to use 12-bit resolution to get the low
signal level.  What you will end up doing is applying the gain later
in the digital domain.  However, the noise performance would be better
if the gain were set high enough initially, getting at least 80% on
the peak meter.  It is actually the reverse of what you suggested;
12-bit resolution is beneficial for bright objects, not faint.  You
might get by then with stacking fewer frames and achieve an adequate
signal-to-noise ratio.  I normally use f/40 to f/45, and at those
ratios the planets are faint and the gain needs to be so high that
there is no benefit at all to using 12-bit resolution.  The other
thing to be wary of is that the LSBs at 12-bit contain periodic noise,
as opposed to random noise.  The problem here is that Registax will
pick up on the periodic noise during alignment an you will get linear
defects on the final image.

-Rolf



--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the Lumenera
> comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I set the
> gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit mode and
> compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot of good
> signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In practice
> I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are above
> 50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the gain and
> rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out, and it
> seems to work.
> I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and Hyperstar
> adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull out the
> faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky down in
> those LSBs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Allen,
> >
> > 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are stacked.
> >  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I never
> > use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is always
> > more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy of the
> > camera itself.
> >
> > -Rolf
> >
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Rolf.
> > >
> > > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is no one
> > telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around
> > with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ... I'll
> > have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your brain a
> > bit at the workshop ...
> > >
> > > allen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> > > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >             Hi Allen,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with
diminishing
> > >
> > > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the
Imaging
> > >
> > > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my
liking.  I
> > >
> > > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The SkyNyx
> > >
> > > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger
chips like
> > >
> > > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?  The
> > >
> > > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at
10x the
> > >
> > > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
> > >
> > > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
> > >
> > > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Rolf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been looking
> > >
> > > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make
> > >
> > > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two
cameras:
> > >
> > > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is
fast,
> > >
> > > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!)
$1000. The
> > >
> > > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and
more
> > >
> > > affordable (~$350).
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Allen
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Hi Rolf,

Thanks for the feedback.  I've found 80% to be too high when imaging
with the Lumenera and usually keep it under 50%.  Bright or faint,
there seems to be some useful signal down there in those LSBs, but I
have hit the periodic noise you mention.  I'll give 8-bit mode another
look and do some comparisons.  I do most of my imaging at either F/25
or F/40.  Unless I'm doing an occultation and then I'm at F/2.  ;-)

Cheers,

Andre




--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andre,
>
> The best noise performance of a circuit will be obtained when the gain
> is applied at the earliest stage possible.  If the gain was set too
> low, then yes you would need to use 12-bit resolution to get the low
> signal level.  What you will end up doing is applying the gain later
> in the digital domain.  However, the noise performance would be better
> if the gain were set high enough initially, getting at least 80% on
> the peak meter.  It is actually the reverse of what you suggested;
> 12-bit resolution is beneficial for bright objects, not faint.  You
> might get by then with stacking fewer frames and achieve an adequate
> signal-to-noise ratio.  I normally use f/40 to f/45, and at those
> ratios the planets are faint and the gain needs to be so high that
> there is no benefit at all to using 12-bit resolution.  The other
> thing to be wary of is that the LSBs at 12-bit contain periodic noise,
> as opposed to random noise.  The problem here is that Registax will
> pick up on the periodic noise during alignment an you will get linear
> defects on the final image.
>
> -Rolf
>
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rolf,
> >
> > In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the Lumenera
> > comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I set the
> > gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit mode and
> > compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot of good
> > signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In practice
> > I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are above
> > 50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the gain and
> > rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out, and it
> > seems to work.
> > I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and Hyperstar
> > adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull out the
> > faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky down in
> > those LSBs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andre
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Allen,
> > >
> > > 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are
stacked.
> > >  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I never
> > > use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is
always
> > > more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy
of the
> > > camera itself.
> > >
> > > -Rolf
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Rolf.
> > > >
> > > > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is no one
> > > telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around
> > > with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ...
I'll
> > > have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your brain a
> > > bit at the workshop ...
> > > >
> > > > allen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > > > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> > > > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >             Hi Allen,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with
> diminishing
> > > >
> > > > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the
> Imaging
> > > >
> > > > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my
> liking.  I
> > > >
> > > > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The
SkyNyx
> > > >
> > > > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger
> chips like
> > > >
> > > > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?
  The
> > > >
> > > > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at
> 10x the
> > > >
> > > > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
> > > >
> > > > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
> > > >
> > > > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Rolf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been
looking
> > > >
> > > > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I cannot make
> > > >
> > > > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two
> cameras:
> > > >
> > > > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is
> fast,
> > > >
> > > > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!)
> $1000. The
> > > >
> > > > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and
> more
> > > >
> > > > affordable (~$350).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Allen
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Andre,

When you say that you find 80% is too high, is that because the
histogram will saturate during processing?  If that's the case, then
maybe the wavelet setting is too aggressive.  But otherwise, you are
right to avoid saturating and there are times when even 80% can be too
bright.  When that happens, I set the brightness to -20 or so at the
wavelet processing stage.  I would say that if the peak brightness at
capture is less than 50%, then 12-bit capture may make sense,
depending on the analog gain and the amount of noise visible on the
monitor.

-Rolf



--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rolf,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I've found 80% to be too high when imaging
> with the Lumenera and usually keep it under 50%.  Bright or faint,
> there seems to be some useful signal down there in those LSBs, but I
> have hit the periodic noise you mention.  I'll give 8-bit mode another
> look and do some comparisons.  I do most of my imaging at either F/25
> or F/40.  Unless I'm doing an occultation and then I'm at F/2.  ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre
>
>
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > The best noise performance of a circuit will be obtained when the gain
> > is applied at the earliest stage possible.  If the gain was set too
> > low, then yes you would need to use 12-bit resolution to get the low
> > signal level.  What you will end up doing is applying the gain later
> > in the digital domain.  However, the noise performance would be better
> > if the gain were set high enough initially, getting at least 80% on
> > the peak meter.  It is actually the reverse of what you suggested;
> > 12-bit resolution is beneficial for bright objects, not faint.  You
> > might get by then with stacking fewer frames and achieve an adequate
> > signal-to-noise ratio.  I normally use f/40 to f/45, and at those
> > ratios the planets are faint and the gain needs to be so high that
> > there is no benefit at all to using 12-bit resolution.  The other
> > thing to be wary of is that the LSBs at 12-bit contain periodic noise,
> > as opposed to random noise.  The problem here is that Registax will
> > pick up on the periodic noise during alignment an you will get linear
> > defects on the final image.
> >
> > -Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rolf,
> > >
> > > In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the
Lumenera
> > > comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I
set the
> > > gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit
mode and
> > > compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot
of good
> > > signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In
practice
> > > I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are above
> > > 50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the gain and
> > > rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out, and it
> > > seems to work.
> > > I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and Hyperstar
> > > adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull out the
> > > faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky down in
> > > those LSBs.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Andre
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Allen,
> > > >
> > > > 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are
> stacked.
> > > >  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I
never
> > > > use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is
> always
> > > > more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy
> of the
> > > > camera itself.
> > > >
> > > > -Rolf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Rolf.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is
no one
> > > > telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play around
> > > > with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ...
> I'll
> > > > have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your
brain a
> > > > bit at the workshop ...
> > > > >
> > > > > allen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > > > > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> > > > > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >             Hi Allen,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with
> > diminishing
> > > > >
> > > > > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the
> > Imaging
> > > > >
> > > > > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my
> > liking.  I
> > > > >
> > > > > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The
> SkyNyx
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty good.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger
> > chips like
> > > > >
> > > > > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?
>  The
> > > > >
> > > > > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at
> > 10x the
> > > > >
> > > > > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would recommend the
> > > > >
> > > > > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a cheap
> > > > >
> > > > > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Rolf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of help.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been
> looking
> > > > >
> > > > > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I
cannot make
> > > > >
> > > > > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two
> > cameras:
> > > > >
> > > > > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The SkyNyx is
> > fast,
> > > > >
> > > > > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!)
> > $1000. The
> > > > >
> > > > > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller pixels and
> > more
> > > > >
> > > > > affordable (~$350).
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Allen
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Oafs,

The CSC shows clear skies and reasonable seeing tonight.  It might be
a good idea to capture some videos of Jupiter in preparation for the
imaging workshop, in the unlikely event that it is cloudy (ha ha).

-Rolf

No, the 80% problem seems to be happening at image acquisition time.
The raw images start to appear bloated and unnatural up at that level.
  Maybe a good description is that they appear saturated without
actually hitting the max value.  It is possible that this is simply an
attribute of the preview and that it would look fine once processed...
  something else for me to check.

When the time comes to image, I find that I'm often scrambling to get
everything set up and make a few mental notes along the way about what
seems to work and what doesn't -- but I don't often go back and test
those findings.  So it is good to get your input on this stuff and
potentially dispel some myths...

Thanks,

Andre


--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andre,
>
> When you say that you find 80% is too high, is that because the
> histogram will saturate during processing?  If that's the case, then
> maybe the wavelet setting is too aggressive.  But otherwise, you are
> right to avoid saturating and there are times when even 80% can be too
> bright.  When that happens, I set the brightness to -20 or so at the
> wavelet processing stage.  I would say that if the peak brightness at
> capture is less than 50%, then 12-bit capture may make sense,
> depending on the analog gain and the amount of noise visible on the
> monitor.
>
> -Rolf
>
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rolf,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.  I've found 80% to be too high when imaging
> > with the Lumenera and usually keep it under 50%.  Bright or faint,
> > there seems to be some useful signal down there in those LSBs, but I
> > have hit the periodic noise you mention.  I'll give 8-bit mode another
> > look and do some comparisons.  I do most of my imaging at either F/25
> > or F/40.  Unless I'm doing an occultation and then I'm at F/2.  ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andre,
> > >
> > > The best noise performance of a circuit will be obtained when
the gain
> > > is applied at the earliest stage possible.  If the gain was set too
> > > low, then yes you would need to use 12-bit resolution to get the low
> > > signal level.  What you will end up doing is applying the gain later
> > > in the digital domain.  However, the noise performance would be
better
> > > if the gain were set high enough initially, getting at least 80% on
> > > the peak meter.  It is actually the reverse of what you suggested;
> > > 12-bit resolution is beneficial for bright objects, not faint.  You
> > > might get by then with stacking fewer frames and achieve an adequate
> > > signal-to-noise ratio.  I normally use f/40 to f/45, and at those
> > > ratios the planets are faint and the gain needs to be so high that
> > > there is no benefit at all to using 12-bit resolution.  The other
> > > thing to be wary of is that the LSBs at 12-bit contain periodic
noise,
> > > as opposed to random noise.  The problem here is that Registax will
> > > pick up on the periodic noise during alignment an you will get
linear
> > > defects on the final image.
> > >
> > > -Rolf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rolf,
> > > >
> > > > In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the
> Lumenera
> > > > comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I
> set the
> > > > gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit
> mode and
> > > > compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot
> of good
> > > > signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In
> practice
> > > > I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are
above
> > > > 50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the
gain and
> > > > rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out,
and it
> > > > seems to work.
> > > > I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and Hyperstar
> > > > adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull out the
> > > > faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky down in
> > > > those LSBs.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Andre
> > > >
> > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Allen,
> > > > >
> > > > > 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are
> > stacked.
> > > > >  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I
> never
> > > > > use it in that mode because the noise on an individual frame is
> > always
> > > > > more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit accuracy
> > of the
> > > > > camera itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Rolf
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Rolf.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is
> no one
> > > > > telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play
around
> > > > > with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a minimum ...
> > I'll
> > > > > have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your
> brain a
> > > > > bit at the workshop ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > allen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > > > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > > > > > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera Question
> > > > > > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >             Hi Allen,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with
> > > diminishing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way there, the
> > > Imaging
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my
> > > liking.  I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.  The
> > SkyNyx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty
good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger
> > > chips like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw output?
> >  The
> > > > > >
> > > > > > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the ToUcam (at
> > > 10x the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would
recommend the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a
cheap
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Rolf
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of
help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been
> > looking
> > > > > >
> > > > > > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I
> cannot make
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested in two
> > > cameras:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The
SkyNyx is
> > > fast,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!)
> > > $1000. The
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller
pixels and
> > > more
> > > > > >
> > > > > > affordable (~$350).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Allen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

The CSC is looking quite nice for tonight.  Hope folks manage to get
out and do some observing.

I'm out to dinner with friends, but will be home by dark to set up
and absorb elderly photons. :)

No camera yet, unfortunately, so no images of Jupiter for me yet.  I
think I'll try for some faint fuzzies.  Company welcome.

Best,
Rob

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@...> wrote:
>
> No, the 80% problem seems to be happening at image acquisition time.
> The raw images start to appear bloated and unnatural up at that level.
>  Maybe a good description is that they appear saturated without
> actually hitting the max value.  It is possible that this is simply an
> attribute of the preview and that it would look fine once processed...
>  something else for me to check.

I find that the image seen on the laptop screen at capture bears no
resemblance to what it looks like when I process or view in Virtualdub
or Mediaplayer, ie on another computer.  I don't know if that is due
to the laptop screen or Lucam recorder, but I learned early on to not
go by that.  I was making the image look good on the laptop monitor
but ended up with horrible artifacts.  In particular, the contrast,
gamma, and brightness should always be at their default settings, even
though the image can look better on the laptop by adjusting them.

-Rolf


>
> When the time comes to image, I find that I'm often scrambling to get
> everything set up and make a few mental notes along the way about what
> seems to work and what doesn't -- but I don't often go back and test
> those findings.  So it is good to get your input on this stuff and
> potentially dispel some myths...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andre
>
>
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > When you say that you find 80% is too high, is that because the
> > histogram will saturate during processing?  If that's the case, then
> > maybe the wavelet setting is too aggressive.  But otherwise, you are
> > right to avoid saturating and there are times when even 80% can be too
> > bright.  When that happens, I set the brightness to -20 or so at the
> > wavelet processing stage.  I would say that if the peak brightness at
> > capture is less than 50%, then 12-bit capture may make sense,
> > depending on the analog gain and the amount of noise visible on the
> > monitor.
> >
> > -Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rolf,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback.  I've found 80% to be too high when imaging
> > > with the Lumenera and usually keep it under 50%.  Bright or faint,
> > > there seems to be some useful signal down there in those LSBs, but I
> > > have hit the periodic noise you mention.  I'll give 8-bit mode
another
> > > look and do some comparisons.  I do most of my imaging at either
F/25
> > > or F/40.  Unless I'm doing an occultation and then I'm at F/2.  ;-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Andre
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Andre,
> > > >
> > > > The best noise performance of a circuit will be obtained when
> the gain
> > > > is applied at the earliest stage possible.  If the gain was
set too
> > > > low, then yes you would need to use 12-bit resolution to get
the low
> > > > signal level.  What you will end up doing is applying the gain
later
> > > > in the digital domain.  However, the noise performance would be
> better
> > > > if the gain were set high enough initially, getting at least
80% on
> > > > the peak meter.  It is actually the reverse of what you suggested;
> > > > 12-bit resolution is beneficial for bright objects, not faint.
  You
> > > > might get by then with stacking fewer frames and achieve an
adequate
> > > > signal-to-noise ratio.  I normally use f/40 to f/45, and at those
> > > > ratios the planets are faint and the gain needs to be so high that
> > > > there is no benefit at all to using 12-bit resolution.  The other
> > > > thing to be wary of is that the LSBs at 12-bit contain periodic
> noise,
> > > > as opposed to random noise.  The problem here is that Registax
will
> > > > pick up on the periodic noise during alignment an you will get
> linear
> > > > defects on the final image.
> > > >
> > > > -Rolf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Paquette" <andre@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rolf,
> > > > >
> > > > > In a low-light situation, I think the extra resolution of the
> > Lumenera
> > > > > comes in handy.  For instance, I did some experiments where I
> > set the
> > > > > gain so that the moon only got up a peak of about 16 in 8-bit
> > mode and
> > > > > compared 8-bit vs. 12 bit captures.  There was obviously a lot
> > of good
> > > > > signal added when I switched to 12-bit mode in this case.  In
> > practice
> > > > > I find that things get a little non-linear when the levels are
> above
> > > > > 50% capacity (regardless of mode) and so I usually drop the
> gain and
> > > > > rely on some extra LSBs from the 12 bit mode to help me out,
> and it
> > > > > seems to work.
> > > > > I also do occultations with the Lumenera with a C11 and
Hyperstar
> > > > > adapter -- I'm pretty sure the extra bit depth helps pull
out the
> > > > > faint stars, but in this case I agree it gets pretty murky
down in
> > > > > those LSBs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Andre
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Allen,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 16-bit significance only comes into play once the images are
> > > stacked.
> > > > > >  Only the Lumenera does better than 8-bit (up to 12-bit) but I
> > never
> > > > > > use it in that mode because the noise on an individual
frame is
> > > always
> > > > > > more than the 8-bit LSB.  So don't worry about the bit
accuracy
> > > of the
> > > > > > camera itself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Rolf
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, tellurian <i_tellurian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Rolf.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems like there is no one camera ... just like there is
> > no one
> > > > > > telescope. Yes the moon is of interest and I'd like to play
> around
> > > > > > with deconvolution so 16 bits per channel would be a
minimum ...
> > > I'll
> > > > > > have to keep looking into this stuff. I'll try and pick your
> > brain a
> > > > > > bit at the workshop ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > allen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/2/08, Rolf and Linda <skywatch@> wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Rolf and Linda <skywatch@>
> > > > > > > Subject: [OAFs] Re: Planetary Imaging Workshop Camera
Question
> > > > > > > To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 7:30 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >             Hi Allen,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The price-to-performanc e, like anything else, comes with
> > > > diminishing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > returns.  The ToUcam at $40 gets you 90% of the way
there, the
> > > > Imaging
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Source gets you 99%, and the Lumenera maybe 99.9%.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The pixel size of the SkyNyx 2.0 is a bit too large for my
> > > > liking.  I
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > often have to do resampling to increase the image scale.
  The
> > > SkyNyx
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.2 is better (4.4u), but maybe too small.  5.6u is pretty
> good.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you are at all interested in the moon, go for the bigger
> > > > chips like
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the SkyNyx 2.2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are you aware that the DBK is a colour camera with raw
output?
> > >  The
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > chip for the 640x480 is actually the same as in the
ToUcam (at
> > > > 10x the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > price).  If you're going to pay the extra, I would
> recommend the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > monochrome (DMK).  You can use the DMK for luminance and a
> cheap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ToUcam for RGB.  Or else get a filter wheel for the DMK.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Rolf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups. com, tellurian <i_tellurian@ ...>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What makes a good planetary camera?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any general info on planetary cameras would be a lot of
> help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I currently have a Celestron NexImage camera but have been
> > > looking
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > at a better camera for some time but I can't decide. I
> > cannot make
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > sense of the spec / price ratios. I am nost interested
in two
> > > > cameras:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the Lumenara SkyNyx 2-0, and the Image Source DBK. The
> SkyNyx is
> > > > fast,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > has nice large pixels, is a Canadian product! but is (gag!)
> > > > $1000. The
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Image Source DBK colour is also fast but with smaller
> pixels and
> > > > more
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > affordable (~$350).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Allen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I may haul the CDK out to work where I have a decent horizon to try
Jupiter.

Trying a luminance channel doesn't make much sense, with a whopping
2.7" of dispersion assuming 23 degrees elevation, 420-680nm of
bandpass and 9C temperature.  I'll use a minus-violet filter with the
blue filter to restrict the bandwidth of blue -- not sure what I'll do
about green, which will sit at about 0.7" of dispersion.  I have an
O-III, but that will probably cut the light too much.

I'll also remember to image a nearby star to get a PSF for later
deconvolution...

Andre

--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf and Linda" <skywatch@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Oafs,
>
> The CSC shows clear skies and reasonable seeing tonight.  It might be
> a good idea to capture some videos of Jupiter in preparation for the
> imaging workshop, in the unlikely event that it is cloudy (ha ha).
>
> -Rolf
>

When is the workshop Rolf and sign me up.



Gary



-----Original Message-----
From: OAFs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OAFs@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rolf
and Linda
Sent: July 3, 2008 1:43 PM
To: OAFs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [OAFs] Workshop and Jupiter



Hi Oafs,

The CSC shows clear skies and reasonable seeing tonight. It might be
a good idea to capture some videos of Jupiter in preparation for the
imaging workshop, in the unlikely event that it is cloudy (ha ha).

-Rolf





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]