Planetary imaging comparison: Webcams vs DSLRs vs

Planetary Cams
astro.ecuadors.net /planetary-imaging-comparison-webcams-vs-dslrs-vs-planetary-cams/
The not so young amateur astronomers like myself who were aware of how difficult and demanding
planetary photography was in the old days (i.e. 20th century) are pretty amazed at what you can achieve
nowadays with equipment as simple as a webcam. Granted, most of the magic lies in the software
processing that stacks hundreds of mediocre frames in a video to produce a sharp, detailed image of a
planet, however the hardware is still important. So, after experimenting with their webcam, people want to
try something better. Specialized planetary/guiding cameras are the obvious choice, however people put in
good use less expensive solutions, like putting the LiveView-capable DSLR they already have in planetary
use, or re-purposing an Industrial/Machine Vision camera. I happen to have gone through all these
categories and thought about putting all my imagers to the test to see what you can expect from each.

From left to right: Canon 450D, Xbox Vision, QHY5L-IIm, Point Grey Firefly MV, Logitech Quickcam Pro 3000, Canon 550D. A Canon 600D was
obtained last minute, so it is missing from this photo.

The Test
I tested 7 cameras (2 webcams, 3 DSLRs, an Industrial/Machine Vision and a Planetary/Guiding cam)
over 3 nights with my best planetary OTA, a Celestron 9.25 XLT Schmidt-Cassegrain. Saturn was chosen
as the target as it was higher than Jupiter and Venus during the sessions, and is also less bright which
makes a better test for the sensitivities of the cameras (especially when shooting at f/25 with a High Point
2.5x 5-element barlow). Initially I thought one long night would be enough for the comparison, but that first
night was very windy, the next had very unsteady atmosphere and so the best images were gotten on the
third night. However the experience from the first couple of nights is useful as an indication of what each
camera can do on less ideal conditions where for example shorter exposures can make a difference.
A listing of the base specs for each camera:

Camera Model
Logitech Quickcam
Pro 3000

Sensor (Type)
Sony ICX098AK (1/4"
CCD)

QE
max
38%

Pixel
Size
5.6m

Resolution
640480

Video Mode
640480 @ 30fps

Camera Model

Sensor (Type)

QE
max

Pixel
Size

Resolution

Video Mode

Microsoft Xbox
Vision *

? (1/3.6"? CCD?)

3.2m?

1280960?

1280960 @ 7.5fps /
640480 @ 30fps

Canon EOS 450D

(modified)

Canon (APS-C
CMOS)

33%**

5.2m

42722848

848568 @ 15-20fps
(LiveView)

Canon EOS 550D

Canon (APS-C
CMOS)

40%

4.3m

51843456

640480 @ 60fps
(Video Crop Mode)

Canon EOS 600D

Canon (APS-C
CMOS)

40%

4.3m

51843456

19201080 @ 29.97fps
(3x digital zoom)

Point Grey Firefly

MV

Micron MT9V022
(1/3" CMOS)

50%

6.0m

752480

752480 @ 60fps

QHY5L-II mono

Aptina MT9M034
(1/3" CMOS)

75%

3.75m

1280960

1280960 @ 30fps /
640480 @ 106fps

*I can find no info on the Xbox webcam sensor, except that it is thought to be a CCD. In my tests it seems like its
1280960 resolution is not interpolated, but the actual sensor resolution, which, given the sensor size I measured
(between 1/3 and 1/4 sensors) seems to give about 3.2m pixel size (it would be twice that number if it was a 640480
sensor).
**The Quantum Efficiency value is for the unmodified Canon.

The software used to capture the video was SharpCap 2.5 and FireCapture 2.4 (more stable than
SharpCap and more features, but more complex interface), while the stacking and sharpening was done in
Registax 6 with a final pass on Photoshop.

Webcams
You can actually do some planetary imaging with any relatively modern webcam
you might have. In fact, on the left is an image produced by a small $6 Chinese
webcam and a relatively inexpensive Celestron 127mm Maksutov. Not too bad
for the budget eh? In any case you will get better results using a better camera,
preferably with a CCD sensor instead of the much more common CMOS. The
Philips SPC900nc and Toucam Pro (and a few early Logitech QuickCam 4000
Pros) with the Sony ICX098QB CCD sensor are considered the best webcams
for planetary photography. As my QuickCam 4000 turned out to have the much more noisy Sharp sensor,
and the Philips are sold at crazy prices, I did acquire a cheap QuickCam 3000 (similar to the Philips Vesta
Pro) which has the Sony ICX098AK sensor reportedly less sensitive than the QB version. I also got an
Xbox Vision camera which was sold for next to nothing and also is reported to have a CCD. I cant find any
information on the sensor, but by my own tests it seems that the 1280960 @ 7.5 fps mode is the actual
maximum resolution of the sensor (and not an interpolated/upscaled mode that is common in webcams).
Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000

With maximum gain and 1/30s exposure, the Sony sensor is sensitive enough for Saturn at f/25. Lowering
saturation sometimes improves results (you can increase it again in post-processing).

Microsoft Xbox Vision

The Xbox Vision does not seem better than the

Logitech in the 640480 mode, although it did
pick up more reddish rather than bluish color
which seems more natural for Saturn.
However, as noted above, there is a 1280960
mode (only through SharpCap) that offers a
smaller pixel size than the Logitechs Sony
sensor and could potentially show more detail.
The fact that it is only at 7.5 fps limits it quite a
bit though in the above example I was limited
to 2 minutes in an attempt to level the playing
field, which gives less than 1000 frames,
or 4 times less than a 30 fps camera.
For Saturn you could continue capturing,
but for a target like the quickly-rotating
Jupiter the slow frame rate is quite a
negative. Some tips for capturing with
the Xbox camera: SharpCap will give
you the 1280960 mode option
(FireCapture will not), it is sometimes a
good idea to lower saturation if you see
a lot of noise and prefer YUY2 over the
MJPG mode.
Bad (windy) conditions
comparison

Logitech QuickCam Pro 3000, 640480 @30 fps, 2.5x Barlow

Xbox Vision, 640480 @ 30 fps, 2.5x barlow

It is interesting to note that in very windy

conditions I could get more out of the
Xbox webcam compared to the
Logitech. While a 2.5x barlow gave
worse results so it could not be used, at
f/10 the Xbox Vision managed to clearly
show the Cassini division at both
640480 and 1280960 modes, by
ramping up the gain to reduce the
exposure length.

DSLRs
If you already have a relatively modern
Xbox Vision, 1280960 @ 7.5 fps, 2.5x barlow
DSLR, there is no need to try out
webcams. DSLRs have (comparatively)
huge sensors, of which a planet will only occupy a very small part, perhaps a few hundred pixels across
from the several thousand the sensor has in each dimension. In regular video mode, the sensor is severely

downscaled (usually to up to HD 19201080), so the planet ends up being just a few dozen pixels across
in that video image. What is needed, is a video that captures
the original pixels of the sensor at 1:1 with not down-scaling,
but also crops the image from the full resolution (because a
video at 50003000 resolution and high frame rate is not
really possible due to the bandwidth requirements). With a
Canon camera that has LiveView this is easily achieved by
connecting the camera to a PC, launching the appropriate
software (e.g. the free EOS Camera Movie Record) and
capturing the 5x LiveView mode. This gives a 1:1 pixel
QuickCam 3000, 640480 @ 30 fps, Windy cond.
capture, or something quite close and a frame rate of about
15-30fps (depending the camera). However, there are some
Canon cameras that have a built-in video crop mode that
will let you get proper planetary video without the need to be
tethered, and possibly at greater frame-rates. These are the
550D and 60D/60Da, whose video crop mode captures the
central 640480 area of the sensor at a quite nice 60fps.
There are also some Cameras like the 600D which have a
3x-10x digital zoom mode. If you use the lower setting (3x)
you get a pixel ratio of about 1.065:1, which seems pretty
close, right? Let it be our first test.
Canon Video Crop (550D) vs 3x Digital Zoom (600D)

Xbox Vision, 640480 @ 30 fps, Windy cond.

It is pretty clear that the Video Crop mode has a big

advantage. The 1:1 pixel ratio has an inherent sharpness
advantage for the 550D, which is further incremented by the
higher frame rate. The above were shot at default video
compression, using MagicLantern you can increase it,
which helps a bit, but again it helps more the 550D image
than the 600D image.
So, for anything other than the Canon 600D/60D/60Da you
should stick with the 5x LiveView method. Even with the
Xbox Vision, 1280960 @ 7.5 fps, Windy cond.
550D, if you use more than twice the video duration with the
5x LiveView method (harder to do for example with Jupiter
due to the quick rotation), in order to get about as many frames as you would get with Video Crop, then
you can get similar quality, or perhaps even a little better if you did not use MagicLantern to increase the
Video Crop mode compression quality. Case in point:
Canon 550D vs modded Canon 450D at bad (windy) conditions
A DSLR is usually modded to increase its deep-red sensitivity in order to capture the H line in nebulas.
However, a mod and especially the simpler full-spectrum mod are quite useful in planetary imaging as well.
For example, a UV-pass filter (e.g. Venus U) can allow a big reflector to capture the clouds of Venus, while
an IR-pass filter (usually IR72 or IR85) can avoid a lot of atmospheric turbulence to give a sharper image
(that could be used as a luminance channel in combination with a regular color image). A less obvious
advantage is that with a UV/IR filter (as you would use for nebula photos) you still get more light towards
the red of the spectrum than an un-modded camera, which is equivalent to an increase in overall quantum
efficiency.

For example, in normal conditions, the 450D sensor is at a disadvantage compared to the 550D/600D
sensor, with a lower quantum efficiency and a larger pixel size (giving a lower resolution image). However,
the modded 450D with a UV/IR filter actually requires a shorter exposure than the 550D/600D, an
advantage which is easier to show in really bad conditions (windy/shaky) where exposure matters the
most. So, during my worst session, I could actually get a bit more detail out of the modded 450D by using
a shorter exposure than with the much higher frame rate of the 550D. In such conditions results with the
barlow were worse, so the results without a barlow are shown:

Industrial / Machine Vision Cam

Industrial / Machine Vision cameras are popular among amateur astrophotographers because they use
similar sensors to the guiding/planetary cams, but you can sometimes find them at better prices due to
larger volume production. Hence, when I found a Point Grey camera for less than 100, I got it and even
though it is one of the lowest-end Point Grey cameras you can find (Firefly MV, just 752480) it did prove
to be a step up from webcams and perhaps even DSLRs. It is a mono camera, so if you want color you will
need to shoot at least 3 videos with RGB
filters. Because I was running out of
time, I did not try to get RGB videos, so
just for comparison purposes (it is harder
to compare mono to color images), I did
make a color image using the colors
from the Canon 550D.

We can see a cleaner Cassini division

and detail on planet, with less
sharpening noise. A full RGB or
LRGB/IR-RGB image with the Firefly MV
would be more work, but would yield
even better results.

Canon 550D, 640480 @ 60fps, 2.5x barlow

Guiding / Planetary Cam

We would expect a dedicated
guiding/planetary camera to provide us
with the best results. However, it is
interesting to see exactly what a good
200-300 (or $200-$300) planetary
camera can do compared to the either
less expensive (webcams) or not
optimized for the job (DSLRs) solutions.
I am using one of the most popular
models, the QHY5L-II. Although we
traditionally use CCDs for
guiding/planetary cams, this particular
Aptina CMOS sensor (also found in the
Canon 600D, 19201080 @ 29.97fps, 2.5x barlow
ZWO ASI120mm) with a QE of 75%
proved a great performer, hence the
popularity. In another post I show how using an IR filter to get the luminance channel can improve
sharpness, however to even the comparison (theoretically you could do the same with webcams/modded
DSLRs), shots with a regular UV/IR filter plus RGB for color follow:

If an improvement over the Point Grey

(and perhaps even the DSLR) is not
obvious, it is partly because of the little
worse seeing while using the QHY and
partly my fault as well. You see, this is
the only camera sensitive enough to not
require either long exposures or
maximum gain in order to image Saturn
at f/25, so if I had a good quality 4x-5x
barlow I could use it with the QHY to get
a much higher resolution image. But
Saturn season ended before I had time
to get one, hence I owe a small update
Canon 550D, 1024680@25fps (5x LV), 2 duration, 2.5x barlow
for some time in the future. You can,
however, see an improvement even at
f/25 if you use a 630nm IR filter on a night similar to the
above that did not have great seeing. You see, the DSLR is
not sensitive enough to manage f/25 with an IR-pass filter
(even the modded one), but it is quite comfortable for the
QHY providing a sharper image:

Conclusions
Some conclusions to draw from this comparison: Even a
cheap webcam can give you planetary images with some
Canon 450D mod, 848568 @ 18fps (5x LV), windy
cond.
satisfying detail, but if you already have a relatively modern
DSLR it has better potential, so no need to bother with
webcams (unless perhaps if you happen to have the elusive
SPC900nc, but even that is not worth as much as people
usually ask for it). Now, if you are looking for a second-hand
DSLR to do perhaps some astrophotography but are also
interested in planets, it makes sense to go for a Canon
550D/60D/60Da. It is the only one that can do decent
planetary imaging without a PC, for all other Canon
cameras (even the 600D with the digital zoom), you will
need to capture the 5x LiveView with a PC for best results.
And even if bringing along a PC is no trouble, the 550D will
Canon 550D, 640480 @ 60fps, windy cond.
still give you better results than similar cameras (i.e. other
18MP Canon Sensors or lower/older). Modding the DSLR
will also benefit planetary imaging, but go for a full-spectrum mod to have the UV (Venus) and IR (less
atmospheric turbulence) options. Planetary or industrial cameras can go a step further and can be
sensitive enough to let you image at greater focal lengths (i.e. bigger barlow). Note that while I did not test
specifically for this, mono cameras in general can give you sharper results than equivalent one-shot color
cameras, but there is much more work involved (shooting through RGB filters and compositing).

Firefly MV, 752480@60fps, 2.5x barlow

Firefly MV, 752480@60fps, 2.5x barlow, color from Canon 550D

QHY5L-IIm, 1280960 (ROI 480480)@75fps, 2.5x barlow

QHY5L-IIm L+RGB, 1280960 (ROI 480480)@75fps, 2.5x barlow

QHY5L-IIm IR+RGB, 1280960 (ROI 480480)@75fps, 2.5x barlow