Hi from SW London. Been looking into NV for a number of years to help with amateur astronomy outreach..... Gen3 and a filter cuts through the light pollution..... Just want o find a cost effective unit! Need raw sensitivity.... No illuminator going to help me!
Had a cheap gen1 unit.... Not impressed.
I Use CCDs and a driven scope for my own astro viewing, but not the same as a live eyepiece view.
Wondering how the camera based nv compares to intensifiers.... Modern camera chips have higher quantum efficiency than intensifiers, so why are intensifiers seen to still be the best option..... Or are we about to see digital overtake analogue as we have in many other areas of life.
All the best
PeterW
Hi.... Gen3 or digital getting better?
-
PESCA
Re: Hi.... Gen3 or digital getting better?
Hello Peter and welcome to the forum. Nice to see the astronomy take on things 
When we're using a unit for shooting, we assess the unit on how much or little illumination we need to illuminate the subject. As you're not able to illuminate the actual target, because of the distance, I'm unsure of your needs, in regard to astronomy.
I'm guessing that you're using large, quality glass, and this will have the effect of dragging in light. I would also guess that at this time, a high grade image intensifier is still the boy for the job, owing to it's high gain, sensitivity and resolution.
It will certainly be of interest if you could give us some examples of the units which are widely in use at the moment.
George
When we're using a unit for shooting, we assess the unit on how much or little illumination we need to illuminate the subject. As you're not able to illuminate the actual target, because of the distance, I'm unsure of your needs, in regard to astronomy.
I'm guessing that you're using large, quality glass, and this will have the effect of dragging in light. I would also guess that at this time, a high grade image intensifier is still the boy for the job, owing to it's high gain, sensitivity and resolution.
It will certainly be of interest if you could give us some examples of the units which are widely in use at the moment.
George
Re: Hi.... Gen3 or digital getting better?
Simple... I need a fast optic and a tube with good signal to noise, wicked photo sensitivity and minimal EBI... The type that uncle Sam hates to see leave his shores. A narrow line filter that only lets through astronomical nebulosity at a waveleng the human eye is almost insensitive to allows amazing realtime views, and makes your scope perform like a much larger one... Hence my obvious interest!
I see suitable 2ndhand kit in the US is very reasonably priced, but costs >5x as much over here with less choice and info on the tubes.
If digital (new bicmos chips) are on paper something like 4x better quantum efficiency than intensifiers, one would expect them to render intensifiers obsolete..... But it doesn't seem that way from what I have found so far.... Digital needs a illuminator?!
A nice UK based NV forum should be able to help with the practicalities of NV outside the US!
Cheers
PEterW
I see suitable 2ndhand kit in the US is very reasonably priced, but costs >5x as much over here with less choice and info on the tubes.
If digital (new bicmos chips) are on paper something like 4x better quantum efficiency than intensifiers, one would expect them to render intensifiers obsolete..... But it doesn't seem that way from what I have found so far.... Digital needs a illuminator?!
A nice UK based NV forum should be able to help with the practicalities of NV outside the US!
Cheers
PEterW
-
some bloke
- NON EMMET
- Posts: 9501
- Joined: 27 Jan 2012, 16:14
- Location: Leicester mostly but DEEP S.West sometimes
Re: Hi.... Gen3 or digital getting better?
Hi Pete, Yep it'll be nice to have the big sky take on things mate, welcome to the forum.
I could be reading this all wrong because most of my limited teachings have been that decent tubed is better than digital. I'll offer my feelings until those with more experiece, particularly of both tubed and digital NVD's are up and about.
In our application we need to be looking at magnified furry light absorbing things in or on light absorbing ground level matter, sometimes into shadowy cover etc. For this, clear digital requires about as much light as decent tubed NVD's. That can be visible light from sources such as sunlight, or reflected sunlight from the moon or stars, streetlight or stray light from a visible source that we cannot directly see such as street lighting reflecting off clouds etc - or we can provide our own artificial light when there is cloud cover and no reflected light. Another of our requirements is to use light that our quarry is unfamiliar with, nor sees very clearly, so we use digital cameras that are able to see near infra red light, and artificially produce that near infra red light from IR illuminators.
Your application has much much more available light than ours so you would not need any artificial light source to view the objects you wish to see. For your purposes you will not need illuminators for digital camera's. Light is generally not damaging to image sensors, though I'm told not to expose the sensors to direct sunlight.
As for which is best for astronomy - well I have no experience of anything other than Watec 902H camera's which you are likely to be very familiar with - but use them for looking at the ground rather than the sky.
I could be reading this all wrong because most of my limited teachings have been that decent tubed is better than digital. I'll offer my feelings until those with more experiece, particularly of both tubed and digital NVD's are up and about.
In our application we need to be looking at magnified furry light absorbing things in or on light absorbing ground level matter, sometimes into shadowy cover etc. For this, clear digital requires about as much light as decent tubed NVD's. That can be visible light from sources such as sunlight, or reflected sunlight from the moon or stars, streetlight or stray light from a visible source that we cannot directly see such as street lighting reflecting off clouds etc - or we can provide our own artificial light when there is cloud cover and no reflected light. Another of our requirements is to use light that our quarry is unfamiliar with, nor sees very clearly, so we use digital cameras that are able to see near infra red light, and artificially produce that near infra red light from IR illuminators.
Your application has much much more available light than ours so you would not need any artificial light source to view the objects you wish to see. For your purposes you will not need illuminators for digital camera's. Light is generally not damaging to image sensors, though I'm told not to expose the sensors to direct sunlight.
As for which is best for astronomy - well I have no experience of anything other than Watec 902H camera's which you are likely to be very familiar with - but use them for looking at the ground rather than the sky.
Re: Hi.... Gen3 or digital getting better?
your looking a good lens for digi.. but as far as i knew the gen3 would be better, more costly by far.
regaurding the gen1..yes they arnt that hot untill IR is used..gen2 is better by far, the image is like a gen 1 with IR without if you know what i mean.
the digi stuff is easier to use, less hassles n worries and cheeper, but as in all photograghy, the lens is the key eliment.
edit in...digi can hook up to the pc, and controll rails and tracking etc..you'd probably get a full satalite tracking system program and remote tracking motors etc for less.
regaurding the gen1..yes they arnt that hot untill IR is used..gen2 is better by far, the image is like a gen 1 with IR without if you know what i mean.
the digi stuff is easier to use, less hassles n worries and cheeper, but as in all photograghy, the lens is the key eliment.
edit in...digi can hook up to the pc, and controll rails and tracking etc..you'd probably get a full satalite tracking system program and remote tracking motors etc for less.
'who is that masked man? its the kemosabby der..the bloody injun tells you every week!'