[AZ-Observing] Re: FW: RE: Re: The Web Cam
- From: "Joe Macke" <joe01@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 05:53:18 -0700
> 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.
About once a year or year and a half, someone makes a comment that equipment
discussions may not belong on the list. I guess we need to be cognizant of
the main purpose of the list, but not a month ago we had, what 50, posts
about underwear? These things usually play out pretty quickly and don't
seem to ever crowd out any of the topics more germane to the list. In fact,
they only seem to show up when there isn't much to talk about
observing-wise. IMHO, it doesn't bother me.
Joe
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
rom acooper@xxxxxxxxx Thu Jan 9 23:44:13 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list az-observing); Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:28:44
-0500 (EST)
Return-Path: <acooper@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP
id 6200994641
for <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:44:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pobox.com ([68.105.138.52]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP
id <20030110045051.OQNP20158.fed1mtao02.cox.net@xxxxxxxxx>
for <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:50:51 -0500
Message-ID: <3E1E512A.302B723B@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 21:50:52 -0700
From: Andrew Cooper <acooper@xxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: The Web Cam
References: <3E0D02A00000A246@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-archive-position: 2498
X-Approved-By: dickson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-to: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: acooper@xxxxxxxxx
Precedence: normal
Reply-to: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe:
<mailto:az-observing-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-ID: <az-observing.freelists.org>
X-List-ID: <az-observing.freelists.org>
List-subscribe: <mailto:az-observing-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=subscribe>
List-owner: <mailto:dickson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-post: <mailto:az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <//www.freelists.org/archives/az-observing>
X-list: az-observing
If you consider only the materials and parts to a camera you are not
going to find out why any limited volume piece of equipment costs so
much. This is very true of CCD cameras, but also includes many
telescopes (AP, Losmandy, TeleView, etc.). The parts and pieces of a
camera are CHEAP, maybe only 20-30% of the final cost. What costs so
much is my paycheck!
It takes months of engineering time to design a camera, a team effort by
several people. Then consider manufacturing overhead and hundreds of
thousands of dollars of equipment needed to make a camera (turbo vacuum
pumps, flow hoods, clean rooms, soldering irons, etc, etc, etc). Then
consider the support structure necessary to keep a company operating, an
accountant, a janitor, and an HR specialist to deal with all the
government regulations. If you are making thousands of something you
can divide this cost by thousands (or millions) and add very little to
the cost of each device. If you make only a few hundred you need to add
a bigger chunk of the development and business cost to each unit.
Then you do need to make a profit.
I know, I have in a notebook on my desk a complete cost structure for a
CCD camera for microscopy (essentially the same as we use for astronomy)
and the final cost will be as much as $40k depending on what chip is in
it. Hit the link below, the camera I'm talking about is the one
featured in the first screen.
Now I just have to make it work...
Andrew
Design Engineer, Roper Scientific
http://www.roperscientific.com/
Wil Milan wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> There are several reasons why specialized astro CCD cameras are expensive.
> Some of the primary ones are:
>
> - Very low production volume. Nikon et al can sell consumer CCD cameras
> for a few hundred dollars because they make millions of them. If they were
> only making a few dozen or a few hundred the cost would be far, far higher.
>
> - Astronomical CCDs are cooled, and the cooling system and related
> requirements
> (such as moisture scavenging in the CCD chamber) add quite a lot of complexity
> and expense.
>
> - The CCDs used in most astronomical CCDs are relatively low-production
> units that sell for quite a bit more than the small, high-volume CCDs in
> consumer cameras.
>
> - Astronomical CCDs have much more expensive readout systems, requiring
> the extraction of 16-bit data (vs. 8- to 12-bit in consumer cameras) and
> lower noise figures. Both of those add substantial cost, not just in the
> components involved but also the engineering.
>
> There are some consumer-oriented digital cameras that are becoming quite
> capable of at least some forms of astro imaging. The latest digital SLRs
> from Nikon and Canon have turned out some very good images of bright objects,
> and I think we'll see more people using those for some forms of sky imaging.
Andrew Cooper
Tucson, AZ
mailto:acooper@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.whitethornhouse.com
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
