Re: Quickcam and astronomy

Brian Ross (brimorgn@interlog.com)
Thu, 01 May 1997 03:09:37 GMT


I know nothing of astronomy or using a QUICK CAM outside of the
office, however, you might subscribe to the news group
"SCI.ASTRO.AMATEUR" and take a look in DEJA NEWS. I looked for "QUICK
CAM and ASTRONOMY" and found the following articles.
********************************************************

Article 3 of 4

Subject: Re: Digital Cameras
=46rom: jason@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Jason Surace)
Date: 1997/04/21
Message-Id: <jason-ya02408000R2104971750470001@news.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
[More Headers]

In article <01bc4b83$bc426c80$3abd0d0f@dm70690p>, "Dennis Mueller"
<dennism@cup.hp.com> wrote:

> Has anyone had any luck using amateur (~$500) digital cameras for
> astrophotography? =20
> I am thinking of piggyback for sky surveys. It would seem that this =
could
> be an easy=20
> way to capture an image for computer processing and storage. Any =
thoughts?
>=20
> Dennis (dennism at cup dot hp dot com)

Despite all the doomsayers, there is at least one option: the QUICK
CAM.
Now, it will probably be a pain in the ass to mount the spherical
camera to
anything, but I have done stranger hack jobs myself. The color QUICK
CAM
has a 640x480 24-bit color format. You can let it expose as long as
you want.

The big problem, though, is dark current. The QUICK CAM has really
severe dark
current problems. I guess there wasn't enough space to allow a TE
cooler.
That, and it would hurt the camera's funky styling! I'll test mine
tonight
to see how long it takes before the dark current drives it to
saturation.
In fact, I'll do some tests on it tonight to get some other useful
info,
like the gain and full welll capacity. In theory you can take dark
frames
(I do this already when taking 3-5 second exposures at low light
levels),
but doing darks while on a telescope might be a royal pain.
The field also isn't very flat, but it flat-fields very easily.

- Jason Surace
jason@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu

********************************************************
Article 2 of 4

Subject: Re: Digital Cameras
=46rom: larryb@flinet.com (Larry Benjamin)
Date: 1997/04/24
Message-Id: <5jo3oj$1ae$1@news.flinet.com>
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
[More Headers]

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:50:47 -1000, you wrote:

>Despite all the doomsayers, there is at least one option: the quickcam.
>Now, it will probably be a pain in the ass to mount the spherical camera=
to
>anything, but I have done stranger hack jobs myself. The color quickcam
>has a 640x480 24-bit color format. You can let it expose as long as you =
want.

>The big problem, though, is dark current. The quickcam has really severe=
dark
>current problems. I guess there wasn't enough space to allow a TE =
cooler.
>That, and it would hurt the camera's funky styling! I'll test mine =
tonight
>to see how long it takes before the dark current drives it to =
saturation.
>In fact, I'll do some tests on it tonight to get some other useful info,
>like the gain and full welll capacity. In theory you can take dark =
frames
>(I do this already when taking 3-5 second exposures at low light =
levels),
>but doing darks while on a telescope might be a royal pain.
>The field also isn't very flat, but it flat-fields very easily.

Hi Jason,
Have you used your QUICK CAM for astrophotography? I have thought
about trying it but when I have tried to use it in low light all I get
is confeti (noise?). Can you please post on your experiances with
it.

Clear Skies,
Larry Benjamin -DVC-

Astronomy web page:
http://www.flinet.com/~larryb/aspb1.html

*************************************************************************=
****
Article 1 of 4

Subject: Re: Digital Cameras
=46rom: Ted LaFleur <tlsystem@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1997/04/26
Message-Id: <3362223A.7042@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
[More Headers]

Larry Benjamin wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:50:47 -1000, you wrote:
>=20
> >Despite all the doomsayers, there is at least one option: the =
quickcam.
> >Now, it will probably be a pain in the ass to mount the spherical =
camera to
> >anything, but I have done stranger hack jobs myself. The color =
quickcam
> >has a 640x480 24-bit color format. You can let it expose as long as =
you want.
>=20
> >The big problem, though, is dark current. The quickcam has really =
severe dark
> >current problems. I guess there wasn't enough space to allow a TE =
cooler.
> >That, and it would hurt the camera's funky styling! I'll test mine =
tonight
> >to see how long it takes before the dark current drives it to =
saturation.
> >In fact, I'll do some tests on it tonight to get some other useful =
info,
> >like the gain and full welll capacity. In theory you can take dark =
frames
> >(I do this already when taking 3-5 second exposures at low light =
levels),
> >but doing darks while on a telescope might be a royal pain.
> >The field also isn't very flat, but it flat-fields very easily.
>=20
> Hi Jason,
> Have you used your quickcam for astrophotography? I have thought
> about trying it but when I have tried to use it in low light all I get
> is confeti (noise?). Can you please post on your experiances with
> it.
>=20
> Clear Skies,
> Larry Benjamin -DVC-
>=20
> Astronomy web page:
> http://www.flinet.com/~larryb/aspb1.html

Take a look at our site and the moon picture taken with a color
QUICK CAM.
http://www.sunspots.com/tlsystems/

*************************************************************************=
*

Good Luck.
Brian. | You can ALWAYS make a thing FOOL proof.
Brimorgan International Inc.| You can NEVER make it DAMN-FOOL proof.
brimorgn@interlog.com |