3 ms·

I really wish RPi would come out with a truly HQ camera. Their "HQ" camera is really a LOW quality camera with a shitty sensor that isn't even micro-four-third

by dheera 3y ago

I really wish RPi would come out with a truly HQ camera. Their "HQ" camera is really a LOW quality camera with a shitty sensor that isn't even micro-four-thirds. The lens choices are abysmal. I want to see at LEAST APS-C or better yet full frame. Considering a full-blown mirrorless full frame camera costs $2400 it shouldn't cost more than $1000 for sensor only, and I'm 1000% willing to pay for a hackable, programmable full frame sensor especially for night sky photography that can accept the vast variety of full frame lenses already available. There's the Sony QX1 which comes close to what I want but sadly they didn't continue that or produce them anymore.

Tepix 3y ago
The camera is good for its price. If you want a MFT sensor, why don't you use something like a Lumix G9 and connect it to the RPi via USB? It's a lot less than $1000 these days.
teamonkey 3y ago
I do think the HQ camera is due an upgrade, though I'd prefer a proper low-light camera, ideally Sony Starvis. Although you can buy cheap Starvis modules you don't have full control over the exposure time and/or can only shoot in a compressed format. The HQ camera is well-supported with good drivers, like all Raspberry Pi hardware, which is why people still use the HQ Camera for cheap astronomy projects despite having a small sensor and poor low-light performance.
- dheera 3y ago
  Full frame cameras typically perform better than "low light" cameras with small sensors. Everything else equal, bigger collection area trumps everything else, simply because more photons means better SNR under shot noise assumptions. SNR of a pixel scales with sqrt(average number of photons collected). When your full frame sensor has 25X the physical area as a small sensor, that's hard to beat. You can't easily get a 25X increase in number of photons collected on the smaller sensor. There are only so many photons that hit it. You can engineer the hell out of the silicon, but the fill factor multiplied by quantum efficiency of the sensors is already much higher than 1/25 so there is no theoretical room for a 25X improvement even under ideal assumptions. You can increase the number of photons that hit it with bigger, larger aperture lenses, but beyond f/2.0 or so you start hitting limits with our current optical technology in correcting chromatic aberration and other issues, and it will take miracles to get a 25X improvement on the latest state-of-the-art optics. Sony's full frame sensors also have the same back-illuminated design as their Starvis-branded sensors, by the way, so that part is not unique to Starvis.
  - teamonkey 3y ago
    In general, yes, but there are good reasons not to use a full frame sensor. They’re big, they run hot and they’re expensive. You’re looking at 10x the price range of the HQ cam. And one trouble with big pixels is that it means low pixel density. If you take an IMX585 astronomy camera it will produce a better quality image than any used or new DSLR in the same price range, despite having pixels a fraction of the size. The (considerable) negative side is the smaller frame.
justin66 3y ago
Have the Raspberry Pi people done anything even similar to the release of a $1000 part? It doesn't really seem up their alley.
ianburrell 3y ago
Full frame cameras are below $1000. The sensor is probably quarter of that. But your camera module for Raspberry Pi will cost more than $1000. You save some by getting rid of the camera display and buttons. But you still have to design the camera control board, the lens mount or lens, and the housing. You are doing it on small scale, while the camera makers on doing it at large scale and with lots of expertise. This is why everyone who wants better sensor buys a camera and attaches it to Raspberry Pi. I am surprised that there isn't a 1" camera module, that is natural place for better sensor but still fits on board and could use C-mount lenses.
dekhn 3y ago
The HQ has a C-mount so you can put any C-mount lens on it. And there are plenty of options in that space. In my case, I simply can't stand the raspberry pi's camera connector so I buy my own "industrial machine vision" cameras with C-mount. In my case I found the Mindvision line to be the best, I connect with either USB3 or GigE (both of which are much nicer cables than the Pi camera connector) and use the Mindvision SDK (it's not a uvc device, instead you write some python that interacts with the camera, giving you deep level of control).

by dheera 3y ago

Tepix 3y ago

The camera is good for its price. If you want a MFT sensor, why don't you use something like a Lumix G9 and connect it to the RPi via USB? It's a lot less than $1000 these days.

teamonkey 3y ago

I do think the HQ camera is due an upgrade, though I'd prefer a proper low-light camera, ideally Sony Starvis. Although you can buy cheap Starvis modules you don't have full control over the exposure time and/or can only shoot in a compressed format. The HQ camera is well-supported with good drivers, like all Raspberry Pi hardware, which is why people still use the HQ Camera for cheap astronomy projects despite having a small sensor and poor low-light performance.

dheera 3y ago
Full frame cameras typically perform better than "low light" cameras with small sensors. Everything else equal, bigger collection area trumps everything else, simply because more photons means better SNR under shot noise assumptions. SNR of a pixel scales with sqrt(average number of photons collected). When your full frame sensor has 25X the physical area as a small sensor, that's hard to beat. You can't easily get a 25X increase in number of photons collected on the smaller sensor. There are only so many photons that hit it. You can engineer the hell out of the silicon, but the fill factor multiplied by quantum efficiency of the sensors is already much higher than 1/25 so there is no theoretical room for a 25X improvement even under ideal assumptions. You can increase the number of photons that hit it with bigger, larger aperture lenses, but beyond f/2.0 or so you start hitting limits with our current optical technology in correcting chromatic aberration and other issues, and it will take miracles to get a 25X improvement on the latest state-of-the-art optics. Sony's full frame sensors also have the same back-illuminated design as their Starvis-branded sensors, by the way, so that part is not unique to Starvis.
- teamonkey 3y ago
  In general, yes, but there are good reasons not to use a full frame sensor. They’re big, they run hot and they’re expensive. You’re looking at 10x the price range of the HQ cam. And one trouble with big pixels is that it means low pixel density. If you take an IMX585 astronomy camera it will produce a better quality image than any used or new DSLR in the same price range, despite having pixels a fraction of the size. The (considerable) negative side is the smaller frame.

justin66 3y ago

Have the Raspberry Pi people done anything even similar to the release of a $1000 part? It doesn't really seem up their alley.

ianburrell 3y ago

Full frame cameras are below $1000. The sensor is probably quarter of that. But your camera module for Raspberry Pi will cost more than $1000. You save some by getting rid of the camera display and buttons. But you still have to design the camera control board, the lens mount or lens, and the housing. You are doing it on small scale, while the camera makers on doing it at large scale and with lots of expertise. This is why everyone who wants better sensor buys a camera and attaches it to Raspberry Pi. I am surprised that there isn't a 1" camera module, that is natural place for better sensor but still fits on board and could use C-mount lenses.

dekhn 3y ago

The HQ has a C-mount so you can put any C-mount lens on it. And there are plenty of options in that space. In my case, I simply can't stand the raspberry pi's camera connector so I buy my own "industrial machine vision" cameras with C-mount. In my case I found the Mindvision line to be the best, I connect with either USB3 or GigE (both of which are much nicer cables than the Pi camera connector) and use the Mindvision SDK (it's not a uvc device, instead you write some python that interacts with the camera, giving you deep level of control).