Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:13 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

>> I Dont know I am Still having trouble on the "Needing a PC connected to the camera part".... <<<

You presented two concepts. The first was placing the sensor from a digital camera in a film body. From that perspective you still need processing power and storage to connect the sensor to. Short of the specialized chips and boards available to the camera makers is the laptop PC ... although you would still need some kind of A/D board to drive the sensor and a lot of software. Of course you might get an SBIG astological camera and graph it to the back of a SLR .... still need a laptop.


>> Mounting the Digital Sensor at a perp angle would be one of the hardest parts. <<

Mirror telescopes use a very simple principle: 3 points determine a plane. The colmination screws are used to align the mirror. Centering it on the axis of the lens might be more fun.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:21 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Do you actualy understand anything at all about digital cameras or photography?


Using a 5MP point and shoot sensor in a traditional slr EVEN IF you could mount and align it properly will give you a focal length multiplier suitable for astrophotography and thats w/o focus, metering, exposure control...


TROLL BE GONE
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 2:18 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

>> Using a 5MP point and shoot sensor in a traditional slr EVEN IF you could mount and align it properly will give you a focal length multiplier suitable for astrophotography ... <<<


The is no MULTIPLECATION FACTOR! That is marketing hype. There is a crop factor that results in the loss of a large portion of the image projected by the standard 35mm lens. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what you put behind it (short of more glass). The optical properties do not change. You get the same effect by simply cropping and enlarging the film negative in the dark room.

Some people do use 35mm film SLR cameras and dSLR cameras for with long lens for WideField astrophotography. That is why they manufacture piggy back camera mounts for telescopes.



People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:08 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

LMAO!!! I did not mean my last post toward you Lewtwo! It was meant for CaptainKaboom lol hahahahahah Sorry for the confusion I should have made mention toward whom, I was referring. I understand the focal length multiplier/crop factor and yes it is a better analogy to refer to it as a crop factor as opposed to focal length multiplier but for most intensive purposes marketing folks name things by their end result... here the crop factor of projecting a 35mm equivalent image onto less then a 35mm panel or target screen(imager) results in "perceived zoom".
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:10 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Yeah That piggy back thing for the telescope is exactly what my friend in the astronomy department uses with his D10..... some of the pictures he has taken look pritty cool hopefully he will make a website for them But... he is mostly concerend with his research more then sharing the astetic value of his pictures.

I was a Bit Vauge with my Idea in the original post But Here is a better explanation:

What I wanted to do was Take the back off of a SLR camera and basically modify it into a digital back...The Biggest problem I forsee happeining after some reading is The Size of the Cmos or CCD and The size of 35 mm file, This could cause ALOT of the image to be cropped unless I was able to Modify the focal point of the SLR's Camera lense (Since moving the Sensor Beyond the Shutter or moving the shutter foward seems ludacris). By hacking the firmware And Allowing the Digital part of the camera to take commands from the SLR.

Why all this work?.... I dunno It was more of a theortical discussion ... But If it was/is feasable I might try it... I like takin stuff apart... its fun.


Quote:
TROLL BE GONE
mrkryz, yes In fact I do understand some things about digital photography and cameras but I most definatly do not claim to know everything.

Dont get pissed about what is said in other threads and seek out my posts in another thread to flame me.... and if you do flame me it might actually pack a bit more punch without the Dungeons and Dragons feel to it.

Since your post was replied to rather sufficently by the one after it I wont go into picking it apart of adding my two cents to the shameless and indistinct technical nature of your comments.

So your attempt at the "vanishing troll spell" didn't work ... not becuase I am still here mind you..... but becuase I am not a troll.
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:14 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Your absolutely right CaptainKaboom... Now run along .. and you wont have to read anymore of my responses isnt it time to finish your science fair entry or homework??
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:28 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Good Lord........ LET the Flames Begin. yeah your right I have homework to do but as for the science fair project that is a bit more complex.......

After starting attending College for 3 years and seeking a BFS in Photography, I left school becuase I was becoming increasingly disgusted with the modern art world (not with photography... but the program I was in was very involved with the current modern art scene).

Upon restarting school once again, I happened upon something I did not know about myself.... my favorite thing about photography was the way the camera worked and the dynamics of light more then the taking of pictures (which i really do like still mind you).

Currently I am finishing up my second year of a physics degree (one more to go after this). So yeah you are right tho I do need to get to my homework.......but a science fair enty is kinda close... but not quite

... and its KAPTIN KABOOM with a K, champ..... not with a C.

Now dont you have to go Buy a 5th or 6th digital camera to add to your long list below your name that you dont know how to use? And dont you have more therads that you need to jump onto and give a vauge response to?
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:34 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptinKABOOM
Yeah
What I wanted to do was Take the back off of a SLR camera and basically modify it into a digital back...The Biggest problem I forsee happeining after some reading is The Size of the Cmos or CCD and The size of 35 mm file, This could cause ALOT of the image to be cropped unless I was able to Modify the focal point of the SLR's Camera lense (Since moving the Sensor Beyond the Shutter or moving the shutter foward seems ludacris). By hacking the firmware And Allowing the Digital part of the camera to take commands from the SLR.
Simple facts:

Based on your comments questions so far you are incapable of even remotely suceeding at such a task. You lack the background in electrical engineering & physics to understand the effect that the relatively long exposure requirements would have on the signal to noise ratio when utilizing a low cost CCD imager. For even remotely good astrophotography you'll need multiple long duration exposures at which the imager generates/bleeds enough heat to degrade the image considerably. Which would involve implementing some solid state (peltier) cooling and conversely condensation isolation. Which then lends back to resampling the signal and designing the appropraite hardware to sample and amplify the stream correctly with fluctuations in ambient temperature/operating temperature which are not aexactly a clean inverse square function. Additionally it is no easy task to create a perpendicualr plane in relation to the optics of the device you plan on bolting it to. You lack the precision in equipment and methodology to successfully capture any image w/o significant vignetting and barrel distortion let alone plane skew. Provided a miracle occurs and you figure out the previous you still have to be able to write the interface to communicate with the CCD natively. Mostly because the majority of medium grade CCD's are closed systems w/o access to architecture or software subsystems. But even if you managed to do ALL THAT .. you still obviously lack the knowledge in image file architecture to successfully write out the stream into a jpeg let alone the RAW you dislike so much . If you want a more technical answer feel free to ask and iI'll PM it to you... with a BA in EE and Applied Physics on my wall I think I can manage to convince you with the actual conceptual faults in most of your ideas.

Your best bet ... grap a 25$ logitech quickcam and bolt it to your meade telescope and do a search online for the software to make it work.... there is no easy way to do it and if there were it would still cost you a minimum of 5000$ to do it with any degree of accuracy or success.
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:21 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
You lack the background in electrical engineering & physics to understand the effect that the relatively long exposure requirements would have on the signal to noise ratio when utilizing a low cost CCD imager.
Its not for a telescope... like I said you found the fact that I started this thread and you just Started Shootin off rounds.
You basically went from Making extreemly vauge comments to making one OVERLY complex one....

The topic is simply put how much effort would it take to make a home made digital SLR camera using parts form a Digital camera and a SLR camera.

Half of the things you have said I already covered or has been ocovered by others in previous posts (about mounting the sensor Perpendictular to the lense etc etc...).

The use of a Peltier cooling Is most DEFINATLY not an issue since once again NOT Trying to do astro photography.... and even if it were I still dont fully understand why solid state cooling would be Such a Necessity when many consumer based Digital Cameras can have shutter

I started this originally as a Dsicussion of IF anyone had sucessfully Made a DSLR camera out of spare parts....a "Ghetto homade" DSLR if you will.

So now you have gone from being OVERLY vauge.... to being OVERLY Technical.... Are we going to hit a balance anytime soon?

Also ONCE AGAIN I did not say I DISLIKE the raw format... I DISLIKE it when people like you suggest that it is a nesessity to others.

Your post is full of Buzz words and addresses ALOT of topics which have nothing to do (or very little to do with) the original question.

What are you just some Technology Junkie who buys every digital camera on the market?

If I am "incapable of even remotely suceeding at such a task" and lack the background in "electrical engineering & physics" to understand this task... might I ask What exactly it is that you do?

The only reason why I explained my educational background was becuase I first was annoyed by your lame TROLL comment, and secondly was annoyed at your science fair comment.

And how does someone get a Bachelor of ARTS in Electrical Engineering? applied physics I can see... But Electrical engineering to my knowledge has never been a subject in which you recieve a BA.

There are not a whole bunch Conceptual faults in my idea..... I was asking a question...nothing more....never said it could or could not be done I was seeking an answer.

In fact I guess the only piece of theroy in it would be when I said that I would have to move the lense foward to get the focal plain to fit on the smaller CCD or CMOS sensor... Which is correct since I cannot move the shutter foward.

An Easy search on the internet would reveal a HUGE amount of information about how to use FREELY avaible software to controll a Telescope with a computer...5000$ indeed.... For christs sakes they even had a Segment about it on tech TV (Saw it on their website www.techTV.com when trying to help my friend set up his telescope).

About that Nikon D70 you should definatly buy it.... In fact buy 5 of them.... then you can write "D70 x 5" on your little list and maby that coupled with some more long winded ignorent posts you might finally get some satisfaction.

I MOST DEFINATLY never need you to PM me about this.... Although the next time I need a long winded answer that covers topics which have little or nothing to do with my original question, and contains of lots of buzz words, I will MOST DEFINATLY keep you in mind.

now after wasting this much time I definatly need to get back to my sceince fair project...and my traper Keeper telescope....

Keep Fumin about that other therad buddy... keep fuming....
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:30 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Stay in school... you'll be safer there then among real people who might call you out on your absurd comments... can't take the heat.. get out of the kitchen.. and if you want to make a "ghetto dSLR" as you call it I have a feeling all you really need is an old coolpix, a shoe box, a magnifying glass and some duct tape.... go knock yourself out McGyver and stop hating on me becuase I actually own a dSLR, SLR's and other digicams.... unlike you I find different camera's are better geared for different situations... rather then building an all-encompassing shoebox dSLR

$50 says the only thing you successfully accomplish is dismantling an otherwise fine digicam and spending money you obviously dont have on a pipe dream you dont have the education or experience to complete... jerkyboy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaptainMyKameraWentKaboom
OR Actually using the CMOS sensor from a Digital Camera in a SLR camera
Exactly which camera do you plan on pulling a CMOS sensor out of? D30/D60/10D/300D/14n? LMAO hahahahah Better idea pull the imager from a 14n that way you wont have to worry about focal length multipliers/crop factors ... that is a good cost efficient way of eliminating one problem .... :roll:
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:54 PM.