[AZ-Observing] FW: RE: Re: The Web Cam
- From: "Tom Polakis" <polakis@xxxxxxx>
- To: AZ-Observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:24:14 -0700
To add to Wil's input, here is what Chris Schur had to say regarding the
high price tag on CCD cameras.
Tom
------- BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE -------
From: cschur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: polakis@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [AZ-Observing] Re: The Web Cam
Tom, Whatever the market will bear is another good answer. Most CCDs are
well machined units built to 35mm camera quality. Certainly plastic web
cams dont meet that requirement. (that goes for plastic digital cameras
as well, but I wont get started on that subject) The most expensive part
of a CCD camera is the sensor. Can you beleive it costs $4800 to upgrade
my st8i with normal non E chip to an E chip? And the ONLY thing they do
is swap the chip out. CCDs are low volume for the NON filter mask
versions found in astronomical cameras. thats the main reason they cost
so much more than the MASKED versions (RGBmask) found in digital cameras
that are cranked out by the zillions.
Take Care,
Chris
Astro: http://www.psiaz.com/schur/astro/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Polakis [mailto:polakis@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:55 AM
To: cschur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [AZ-Observing] Re: The Web Cam
Chris,
How would you answer the question as to why CCD cameras are so expensive?
My answer would be that in addition to cooling, the chips are much closer
to being research grade than in Webcams. The pixel-to-pixel variation in
sensitivity is much less. What else? I guess you could look at the fact
that no good deep-sky image has ever been produced by a Webcam as the
obvious answer! I'm hoping to reply only to Stan and Jeff, as this
discussion has the potential of cluttering a list that's supposed to be
about Arizona observing, not equipment. Thanks.
Tom
------- BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE -------
From: PHXJeff@xxxxxxx
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: The Web Cam
>The web cam Tom spoke of last night and the web site he cites below
brings to
>my mind something I have been wondering about for some time. Why are
>astronomical CCD's so expensive? One can get a digital camera at a
descent
>price with megapixels in the range of astronomical CCD's that cost
thousands
>of dollars more. The web cam Tom talked about last night has a pixel size
of
>only 5.3(6?), which is about as small as you can get, as Tom mentioned.
>
>What is the cause of the high price for astronomical CCD's? Is it the
small
>market, the additional machining that has to be done given the small
market,
>the specialized software that has to be written and supported? Or could
it be
>that the high cost of astronomical CCD's got established before digital
>cameras took off that, had they taken off a lot sooner, would have had
the
>effect of possibly depressing the cost of astronomical CCD's?
I too wonder about this. I picked up several B&W QuickCams for less than
$20 each. The CCD Cookbook kit uses the same detector and when done will
cost nearly $200. I have a Meade Pictor which cost $700 and while it had
a cooler and many other features, it is terribly slow and I think it also
uses the same detector as the QuickCam (at least the one I have).
Jeff
Jeff Hopkins
HPO SOFT
*********************************************************************
Phoenix, Arizona Atlanta, Georgia
7812 West Clayton Drive 12170 Boxwood Circle
Phoenix, AZ 85033-2439 U.S.A. Alpharetta, GA 30005 U.S.A.
(623) 849-5889 (Fax) (770) 619-3322 (Phone/Fax)
www.hposoft.com & amug.org/~hposoft dataman.home.mindspring.com
4th Dimension Partner
FileMaker Pro Expert
BASIC/C++ Programmer & Web Site/e-commerce Site Development
Over 25 years of Computer, Programming and Database Development Experience
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
-------- END FORWARDED MESSAGE --------
-------- END FORWARDED MESSAGE --------
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
