ON Semi Discontinues Kodak CCD Manufacturing

Here's what the old KAI-2020CM CCD was capable of with my scope:









Fortunately I have a second one stored away in my closet if the first one finally kicks the bucket.

What is the benefit of CCD over CMOS?

Last Edited by CK722 on 10/08/2019 04:32 PM

Nothing. Charge coupled devices are for analog cameras.

Complimentary metal oxide semiconductor sensors are capable of 4k and up extreme high definition digital imaging that blows analog imaging away, and with H265 compression video standards, video transmission has zero latency transmission via serial data with only a +/- pair found in legacy coax without the huge bandwidth frequencies that analog signals require.

Thanks for the info.

I actually bought a scope several years ago but never used it much. It's a celestron 10" edge HD.

Astrophotography was my next on my to-do list but then all kinds of stuff got in the way.

Back when I was still looking at this stuff, there were a few different cameras I was looking at....


I was thinking ZWO ASI174MM for planetary, lunar....

And maybe Atik 16200 for deep space? What's your opinion on that?

I'm totally new at this still. I read about how I could possibly get a webcam and tie that into a star computer program so I could track a start with my computer. I'm not sure if that's how that works...

I also read about hyperstar but I kind of liked the idea of being able to find stuff and move the telescope using a computer....

There are some obvious benefits to the Kodak/Truesense/ON Semiconductor CCDs otherwise they’ wouldn’t be in high end cameras. Linearity, low pixel defects, etc...

Beautiful pics. And you have a backup too.

:mccoyknows:

PS -
5 stars to make up for the one star asshat.

You get what you pay for with CMOS... If they take the time to “do it right “ you’ll get a high end camera. There is often no way to get raw data out of the CMOS device.

CCD = Max 100TVL, BUT 1000TVL cameras are actually mislabeled 700TVL (976 x 582).

Raw digital data from CMOS is controlled at the DSS chip gate, and once that data is open, it contains thousands of times more pixels than analog. 8 megapixel is currently available in the opto-electronics market now.

8MP = 3264(V) x 2448(H)

You have no idea what you're talking about, sensor troll.

There's a reason why CCDs are going away and its called HFD (high fucking definition).

Don't worry, you can still use your optic lenses for CMOS , but you'll notice every flaw on the lens glass unless its over 3mp lens.

Eliminating CCD sensors is good news. Consumers have been totally confused on this subject since about 2010.

High Resolution is NOT High Definition.

What about low light and contrast ratios? Does either have an advantage? I would guess that's more important in this situation than resolution. I would guess.

I’m glad you agree with me but using TVL (Television Lines)?
“Once that data [raw DSS gate] is open...]
You get what you pay for CMOS troll...

43 MegaPixel CCD from ON Semiconductor:
[link to www.onsemi.com (secure)]

wow wow! so cool and inspiring, wow wow 5 stars wow!

The heart of every CMOS sensor is a CCD pixel... The quality of the pixel determines everything. CMOS sensors often process the analog data to make it look great in your TIVO or movie cinematic. Getting scientific data is another thing. Analog voltage vs Analog to Digitally Converted data output means nothing (period)

Didn't know Kodak was still in business. What do they make, now that the consumer camera market has disappeared.

Kodak film disappeared. Kodak still holds the patents. LOL

+5 for a great thread as always and to render impotent the 'one star' child.

Going to CMOS


how much u wanna bet its successor will be called cosmos

Great tech thread. I would love to buy a scope but live in Queens NY totallt useless unless haul it with me when I go Upstate

Beautiful photos of space!

I can't afford one but I'd like to have KAI-2020CM

My mind would wander with one of thos

Okay, pretty wild 8040(X) x 5360(V) pixels in digital format @ 4fps.

I had no idea space cameras could achieve 43mp with a CCD. Must be a huge piece of glass.

I know consumer electronics surveillance cameras, and CCD's are made by 3 major manufacturers; Sharp, Sony & LG in sizes 1/4" and 1/3", and none can achieve more than a true 700TVL, and only available in analog. Sony admits to 2 dead pixels on average for their CCDs is industry standard for consumer electronics. CCD analog cameras have a murky image, and are not suitable for face recognition, and might not even produce a prosecutable image.

Right now 8mp is the highest I can find at 12FPS, and its CMOS in either IPC, or 4:1 AHD/TVI/CVI/CVBS (1000TVL in CVBS analog mode @ 30FPS).

I know CMOS needs an optical IR cut filter for B/W, and the IRC can be problematic in low light (flashing on/off). CCD cameras can have IRC filters, but they are not necessary for even 0 lux except to clear the image .

CCD cameras can't read a license plate from more than about 10 feet with a 3.6mm 90 degree lens, and can't read a plate at all at night without slowing the shutter speed dramatically to achieve low light LPR capability and overcome IR shineback.

Space cameras moving to CMOS doesn't surprise me since all other cameras are too. I'm surprised a CCD camera can get to 43MP (at 4fps), so thanks for the link. I still don't see a shutter speed in the data sheet.. which is baffling.

Hey dr Astro what's the object third from the bottom in the series you posted?

Where do these douchebags come from??

The CMOS imagers have more logic around the pixels.

So there is less capture area, IE a CCD is natively more sensitive and less noisy.

The fact there is digital logic mixed with the sensor cells means the CMOS imagers have higher noise. Digital logic is incredibly noisy from an analog perspective.

CMOS is faster because the pixels are dumped in parallel.
This is normally an advantage except for applications like deep space long exposure pictures where you don't care about the transfer speed, just sensitivity, and low noise. Some CCDs use low noise multiplication to amplify signals near the noise floor.

CCDs are charge domain, CMOS is voltage domain.

For near infrared CCD is superior. The die has to be thicker and this reduces spacial resolution in CMOS.

Huge volumes mean that the CMOS technology will improve faster.

But if you were designing the Hubble imager a CCD would be the best choice.

in the video industry we have found the CMOS better the CCD's. That is what is used in the high end camera like the Arri Alexa 65 or the 100 Megapixel Hasselblad V System camera.

They all use CMOS.... I thought NASA uses the Hasselblad.....they're almost partners.

but really CMOS is leading to possible 200+ Megapixel sensors. Already 8k is the shooting standard for films...but the average is only 30 t0 40 megapixels
the Hasselblad is the high end standard for photography with their 100+ sensors.

CCD's top at 20 to 30 Megapixel.

Is there anything lost in the analog vs. digital in the color spectrum? I am guessing they have the digital so discrete so that you can't tell. Is there any benefit to the full spread of analog? I still like chemical film over digital even to this day.

this mind set is so last decade......look at what is used in all the high end cameras today....the ones that are 50 to 100+ thousand dollars....all CMOS and same tach is going into the projection chips.......faster, cleaner signals, less power....much higher resolution.

I will always feel their is...but CMOS is a good step...CCD's always give that video edge to everything. Shooting with say the Alexa 65 or mini just at 5K we are almost at film....it the amount of detail....i see it editting...the edges...of a face....or the lines of a car......8K even better...we can start to use faster shutter again.....to get that cinema feel in the digital world we used camera blur at the shutter.......12K may be the number were the human eye will not see the difference....actual film is just still better......but to costly and you just can not do CGI well....not without the "C"..computer.

Last Edited by psyoptics on 10/09/2019 12:51 AM

Thank you for that. Almost got into what you are excelling at with a BMCC 2.5k back in the day trying to shoot a doc...lol. I did it all wrong trying to buy everything instead of renting much better for much cheaper. Always wanted to shoot with an Alexa - that is a great platform. I mainly shot stills and developed way back in the day. So many good memories of how simple things were. Just about light and time, pushing and pulling. Thanks again for posting - It is way beyond what I can do now but I can see how good the coloring and detail is getting now. Do you have anything on Vimeo?

Here's an 80MP CCD sensor camera...
[link to www.bhphotovideo.com (secure)]

But I think it's only like 1fps.

Deep space astrophotography is not primarily concerned with the number of pixels and we definitely don't use compression algorithms. CMOS has certain limitations for astrophotography including the bit depth of the digital conversion, amp glow, and pixel binning.
[link to www.atik-cameras.com (secure)]