Author Topic: Cooled CCD camera real performance?  (Read 3719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sam1275Topic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 401
  • Country: us
Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« on: December 30, 2014, 11:29:33 am »
Hello everyone, I want to know will older Cooled CCD cameras on ebay outperform newer high-end Sony uncooled ones (ex. Watec 902H2 Ultimate/910HX) in ultra low light conditions? I cannot find any comparable video on Youtube...
Thanks.
 

Offline TSL

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 243
  • Country: au
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2014, 11:13:22 pm »
What's the application ?

What performance are you looking for ?

cheers

Tim
VK2XAX :: QF56if :: BMARC :: WIA :: AMSATVK
 

Offline sam1275Topic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 401
  • Country: us
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2014, 07:43:12 am »
What's the application ?

What performance are you looking for ?

cheers

Tim
Night vision, sensitivity and quality in darkness.
 

Offline Conrad Hoffman

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2306
  • Country: us
    • The Messy Basement
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2014, 05:11:36 pm »
I doubt you can beat a cooled slow scan CCD camera, but they're not practical for many applications, moving objects for example, at least not fast moving objects. The cameras used for astronomy would be a good example. Incredible sensitivity and good resolution, but not super fast to capture and operate.
 

Offline LaserSteve

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1606
  • Country: us
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2015, 12:18:17 am »
Take a look at cameras that use Sony's   Hole Accumulation Diode technology.  Ie HAD, HyperHad, and HyprHAD II.  I've used them in labs for years. When the budget can't justify a cooled CCD, I'll reach for a HAD based camera.

Steve
"I calculated the stored energy, and it is enough to play the Dance / DJ Extended edition of "Baby Shark" in all 100 headsets for the production floor team simultaneously over 100,000 Times."

Well, I had to explain it to my boss, somehow.  He's an Accountant,  not a PHB.
 

Offline sam1275Topic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 401
  • Country: us
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2015, 01:57:06 am »
I doubt you can beat a cooled slow scan CCD camera, but they're not practical for many applications, moving objects for example, at least not fast moving objects. The cameras used for astronomy would be a good example. Incredible sensitivity and good resolution, but not super fast to capture and operate.
Thank you, I just read a PDF and realized they were designed for still picture shooting, but some have a analog video output port, is it able to use them as a video camera?
 

Offline sam1275Topic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 401
  • Country: us
Re: Cooled CCD camera real performance?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2015, 02:03:06 am »
Take a look at cameras that use Sony's   Hole Accumulation Diode technology.  Ie HAD, HyperHad, and HyprHAD II.  I've used them in labs for years. When the budget can't justify a cooled CCD, I'll reach for a HAD based camera.

Steve
Thank you, I already know Sony's HAD CCDs, and those are exactly what I mentioned (Watec 902/910), they already outperform Gen I image intensifier tubes, I just found there's some used cooled CCD cameras on ebay and not that expensive, so I want to know how they will do VS Sony's HAD, I even searched for ICCD or EMCCD, but they are too expensive even on ebay...
« Last Edit: January 01, 2015, 02:06:51 am by sam1275 »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf

 

- - -
-->