Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adapting a Webcam for Astrophotography

Posted by timothy on from the astounding-imagery dept.

Alien54 writes "Here's a guy who has done well taking digital photographs of the planets using not only a regular digital camera, but also using an old greyscale Quickcam. Lots of pics, of course, and some very nice shots of Mars and all the rest. He also has some higher end gear. See also these other related pages (link 1, link 2, link 3) Also worth looking at is the website of the QuickCam and Unconventional Imaging Astronomy Group"

10 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Anticipating the Slashdot Effect .... by bizitch · · Score: 5, Informative

    Heres the Google Cache

    http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:vccbQq0yX58 C: www.astrosurf.com/cidadao/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  2. Nice digicam pictures by mmoncur · · Score: 4, Informative

    This moon picture is one of the most impressive digicam pictures I've seen.

    Shame about the expensive telescope requirement, though.

    --

    It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
  3. Webcam astronomy has already been on Slashdot by eap · · Score: 5, Informative

    Timothy posted a story about this earlier this year. You can read it here.

  4. Webcam astrophotography by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    We actually have a number of articles on our website regarding webcam astrophotography here. There are four articles in all discussing first steps, photomontages, imaging of the planets and more.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  5. Quickcam? by Openadvocate · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have had 2 quickcams, and the image quality is anything than impressing. The only good thing about it was that there was a program to get the pictures for FreeBSD. Oh and they are cheap too. But wouldn't you rather use a camera with a bit better image quality for things like that?

    --
    my sig
  6. A good site using a Meade and a *Colour* Quickcam by Internet+Ninja · · Score: 3, Informative

    This guy has done some great work with his Meade and a cheap little Quickcam.

    He's got plenty of information on setting up and processing images including shooting dim objects with the Meade and stacking multiple exposures for better clarity.

    Some of his deep sky objects are awesome. I particularly like M57.

  7. (Telescope) Gear for nerds ! by BuR4N · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before you concider to buy some a telescope , be an informed buyer. Its tricky to buy telescopes (and all the stuff you need to make use of it)

    Here is some good stating points.

    www.cloudynights.com , great reviews
    www.scopereviews.com , also a good review site

    also start a subscription to a magazine , I would recomend sky & telescope

    www.skypub.com

    and visit a local club before you buy.

    --
    http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
  8. Re:why the multi exposure? by Quixote · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'll take a total stab in the dark: could it be because a color CCD is not actually imaging all the colors at all the pixels? A color CCD uses a Bayer pattern (a 2x2 pattern of RG,GB) and then combines the results. This is why you get moire effect in some images. If you want to do astrophotography, this Bayer pattern stuff could cause problems.

    Of course, this is all theorizing here. I have no experience with astrophotography, and I just learnt about the Bayer pattern recently.

  9. Some more pics by kyoorius · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here are some more astro pics taken through a telescope using a butchered Creative Lab Webcam3.
    It only has a CMOS chip (not as photosensitive as the Quickcam CCD) but seems to work ok.

    http://www.datawhorehouse.com/astro/

    The lunar pic is pretty.

    There are plenty more astro photo's on the yahoo digital astro group:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_astro/

  10. Re:why the multi exposure? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 3, Informative
    Why is he doing the color filter thing when high resolution color CCDs are now availble? Is it for clairities sake or something?...

    There are a variety of reasons. Colour CCDs don't have the resolution that monochrome ones do. Cost, which relates back to the resolution. Sensitivity to light: monochrome CCDs can be, and often are, optimized for very low light.

    With filters it is possible to zoom in on any spectral line you wish, like the red hydrogen alpha line, or the blue-green oxygen line (produced by emission nebulae, which is why the Orion Nebula looks greenish-grey).

    ...laura