JMPIERCE%USMCP6.BITNET@vm.tcs.tulane.edu (JIM PIERCE) (08/29/90)
Well, there are _no_ ccd digitizing/ image-manipulation programs
for the Amiga readily available. Mount Palomar uses an A2000 and
Lick Observatory is setting up to use a large CCD mosaic at the
10 meter { diameter} telescope in Hawaii. All setups are 'roll your
own'. I had hoped that the programmers interested in
image-processing on the Amiga would have written a viable program
by now. Some commercial setups have output that only requires a
computer with software to access the data. That means that the
CCD camera doesn't output computer specific data ! I did get an
offer of help, but its all start from scratch for me to use that
info. I wont have time for 10-15 weeks to do more than look at
the info he will be sending me. This looks like a valuable
commercial venture for some enterprising programmer/hardware
person to promote the Amiga. After all, the _best_ micro for
image-processing is the Amiga. Actually I prefer to use the
machine best suited for a particular project. No need to
overreact to this posting, I wont be on here long enough to
read them. Heckle each other. Some of you are real good at that.
* <JMPIERCE@USMCP6.BITNET> Jim Pierce at Univ. of Southern Mississippi
* Disclaimer: 'Documentation? There's no documentation for Bitnet.'les@celia.UUCP (Les Dittert) (08/30/90)
In article <28827@nigel.ee.udel.edu> JMPIERCE%USMCP6.BITNET@vm.tcs.tulane.edu (JIM PIERCE) writes: > >commercial venture for some enterprising programmer/hardware >person to promote the Amiga. After all, the _best_ micro for >image-processing is the Amiga. Actually I prefer to use the >machine best suited for a particular project. No need to >overreact to this posting, I wont be on here long enough to >read them. Heckle each other. Some of you are real good at that. > > >* <JMPIERCE@USMCP6.BITNET> Jim Pierce at Univ. of Southern Mississippi >* Disclaimer: 'Documentation? There's no documentation for Bitnet.' I don't think the Amiga is a good platform for image processing since it only has 4 bits for each color , or 16 shades of grey total. A Mac 2 on the other hand has 256 shades of grey. And more serious off the shelf image processing software is available for the Mac. Les
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (08/31/90)
In-Reply-To: message from les@celia.UUCP Obviously, you've never seen either ASDG's The Art Department, or Active Circuits' ImageLink...although I think TAD is heavier on the actual image manipulation. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu (Jim Wright) (09/02/90)
JMPIERCE%USMCP6.BITNET@vm.tcs.tulane.edu (JIM PIERCE) writes: > Well, there are _no_ ccd digitizing/ image-manipulation programs >for the Amiga readily available. Mount Palomar uses an A2000 and >Lick Observatory is setting up to use a large CCD mosaic at the >10 meter { diameter} telescope in Hawaii. All setups are 'roll your >own'. I had hoped that the programmers interested in >image-processing on the Amiga would have written a viable program >by now. World class observatories don't just roll off a production line. Each one is unique. And as much as I like the Amiga, it just isn't up to this job. Depending on the configuration, we get single images that are 8 megabytes in size. And the goal is to get as many of these as possible within each astronomer's time allotment. We're talking serious bandwidth and cpu horsepower. And there are mumblings about 16MB or 32MB images coming up. A programmer's nightmare! :-) >Some commercial setups have output that only requires a >computer with software to access the data. That means that the >CCD camera doesn't output computer specific data! This is a far cry from Lick, Palomar, Keck, CFHT, et. al. I don't know, there just might be a market for an off-the-shelf computerized home observatory. Could be fun. A bit of competition for Distant Suns. :-) -- Jim Wright jwright@quonset.cfht.hawaii.edu Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corp.
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/03/90)
G'day, JW> In article <jwright.652282081@catfish>, jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu JW> (Jim Wright) writes: JP> JMPIERCE%USMCP6.BITNET@vm.tcs.tulane.edu (JIM PIERCE) writes: JP> Well, there are _no_ ccd digitizing/ image-manipulation programs JP> for the Amiga readily available. Mount Palomar uses an A2000 and + JP> [...deleted to save some bandwidth...] + JP> ... I had hoped that the programmers interested in image-processing JP> on the Amiga would have written a viable program by now. JW> World class observatories don't just roll off a production line. Each JW> one is unique. And as much as I like the Amiga, it just isn't up to JW> this job. Depending on the configuration, we get single images that JW> are 8 megabytes in size. And the goal is to get as many of these as JW> possible within each astronomer's time allotment. We're talking serious JW> bandwidth and cpu horsepower. And there are mumblings about 16MB or JW> 32MB images coming up. A programmer's nightmare! :-) Sorry, but I'm genuinely confused. Wasn't this thread basically trying to determine if Amigas are being/could be used for jobs currently performed by Macintoshes/IBM clones in this area? I can't (yet, perhaps if at all) see that those PCs are ``that much'' better equipped for the apparently CPU intensive tasks you outline. At any rate I've been reading this thread to find out more specifics as to why that _may_ be so. If it is then the problems could be addressed and it might even interest developers into trying to develop Amiga solutions for this area. If we're talking Cray size problems here then we've left the original thread IMHO. JP> Some commercial setups have output that only requires a JP> computer with software to access the data. That means that the JP> CCD camera doesn't output computer specific data! JW> This is a far cry from Lick, Palomar, Keck, CFHT, et. al. I don't know, JW> there just might be a market for an off-the-shelf computerized home JW> observatory. Could be fun. A bit of competition for Distant Suns. :-) This I would like to see. :-) yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (09/04/90)
In article <992@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >G'day, > >JW> In article <jwright.652282081@catfish>, jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu >JW> (Jim Wright) writes: >JP> Well, there are _no_ ccd digitizing/ image-manipulation programs >JP> for the Amiga readily available. Mount Palomar uses an A2000 and > + >JP> ... I had hoped that the programmers interested in image-processing >JP> on the Amiga would have written a viable program by now. > >Sorry, but I'm genuinely confused. Wasn't this thread basically trying to >determine if Amigas are being/could be used for jobs currently performed >by Macintoshes/IBM clones in this area? > >I can't (yet, perhaps if at all) see that those PCs are ``that much'' better >equipped for the apparently CPU intensive tasks you outline. > The problem is not one of time, it is one of capability. Technical Image processing hardware and software do exist for the Mac & the PC. It doesn't exist for the Amiga. I know. I need it very badly. One thing I am looking into is using the X11-based image processing package from Laurence Livermore which is freely-distributable from what I understand (not sure though). Anyway, I am trying to get enough money to run it on a Sun via X11 until I get a chance to try and port it to someone's 24bit 30FPS Framegrabber/framebuffer running native on the Amiga. This is the only option I have seen for technical image processing using the Amiga. Any comments? Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute (512) 522-2882 Internet : kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu UUCP : $ {cs.utexas.edu, gatech!petro, sun!texsun}!swrinde!kent
jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu (Jim Wright) (09/04/90)
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu (Jim Wright) writes: >Sorry, but I'm genuinely confused. Wasn't this thread basically trying to >determine if Amigas are being/could be used for jobs currently performed >by Macintoshes/IBM clones in this area? >I can't (yet, perhaps if at all) see that those PCs are ``that much'' better >equipped for the apparently CPU intensive tasks you outline. Microcomputers are not the driving force for image acquisition or image reduction at any of the big sites that I know of. When you start dropping names like Lick and Palomar, this is what I think of. Which is not to say that micros don't play a role. I'm trying to get a few Amigas in here. >> This is a far cry from Lick, Palomar, Keck, CFHT, et. al. I don't know, >> there just might be a market for an off-the-shelf computerized home >> observatory. Could be fun. A bit of competition for Distant Suns. :-) >This I would like to see. :-) There's at least one Amiga being used for telescope control and image acquisition, on a personal scale. (No, not mine... yet.) -- Jim Wright jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Corp.
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (09/04/90)
In article <28045@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.UUCP (Kent D. Polk) writes: > >This is the only option I have seen for technical image processing >using the Amiga. Any comments? Just as a try: There is a company here in Germany that does image processing for scientific and medical purposes. Now they also can handle 24bit cards. Main application is procesing of microscopic pictures like counting blood cells or evaluating ceramic textures. Address: Peter Reuschling Friedhofstr. 6 D-6304 Lollar / Ruh. West-Germany Phone: 0049 / 6406 / 1390 -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ rutgers!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/04/90)
G'day, KD> In article <28045@swrinde.nde.swri.edu>, kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu KD> (Kent D. Polk) writes: LC> In article <992@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au LC> (Lou Cavallo) writes: LC> G'day, Sorry, I munged the attributions below for "JP>". :-( JW> In article <jwright.652282081@catfish>, jwright@cfht.hawaii.edu JW> (Jim Wright) writes: JP> Well, there are _no_ ccd digitizing/ image-manipulation programs JP> for the Amiga readily available. Mount Palomar uses an A2000 and LC> + JP> ... I had hoped that the programmers interested in image-processing JP> on the Amiga would have written a viable program by now. LC> Sorry, but I'm genuinely confused. Wasn't this thread basically trying to LC> determine if Amigas are being/could be used for jobs currently performed LC> by Macintoshes/IBM clones in this area? LC> LC> I can't (yet, perhaps if at all) see that those PCs are ``that much'' LC> better equipped for the apparently CPU intensive tasks you outline. KD> The problem is not one of time, it is one of capability. Technical KD> Image processing hardware and software do exist for the Mac & the KD> PC. It doesn't exist for the Amiga. I know. I need it very badly. Kent, is this the NCSA s/w you're mentioning? If so yes you're spot on. That s/w hasn't been ported to the Amiga that I know of. If it is not then may I ask whether the NCSA s/w would form a model for the type of image processing s/w you and the tasks mentioned above need? I have at least looked at the description of the NCSA s/w (aprx 3 months ago). I have not used it as we do no image image processing at the Institute I work at {they're Economists, I'm a Physicist :-)}. KD> One thing I am looking into is using the X11-based image processing KD> package from Laurence Livermore which is freely-distributable from what KD> I understand (not sure though). Anyway, I am trying to get enough KD> money to run it on a Sun via X11 until I get a chance to try and port KD> it to someone's 24bit 30FPS Framegrabber/framebuffer running native on KD> the Amiga. KD> This is the only option I have seen for technical image processing KD> using the Amiga. Any comments? Under those circumstances Kent I would ask whether, for the interim, X11 on an Amiga would be cost effective (if processing time is not a consideration as you suggest earlier above)? Or will you need SparcServer speed? Is the 24 bit image analysis going to _require_ full use of the 24 bit palette for image display? Animation? Okay, I think I've learned enough to propose a small summary to this point: With current Amiga h/w technology (CBM and 3rd party) one could invest enough to set up a h/w capable image manipulation platform, except that: 1) there is (or maybe, perhaps someone has created some) no Scientific class technical image processing s/w, 2) existing (popular even, ala the NCSA s/w) has no native Amiga port extant for the Amiga. Okay, if this is the full situation, then it seems to me that this thread is really leading up to the point for a call to port some of the leading freely distributable s/w available for the Mac and IBM PC platforms. Kent, you may able to get help from others who may want to (or are already) trying to port such s/w if you want to port that X11 stuff. KD> Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute (512) 522-2882 KD> Internet : kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu KD> UUCP : $ {cs.utexas.edu, gatech!petro, sun!texsun}!swrinde!kent Exclaimer: With respect to this thread, I've merely been an interested observer. I hope that I have not pointed the finger at those practitioners out there trying to make a go of it with whatever tools are available. yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
terry@helios.ucsc.edu (Terry Ricketts) (09/05/90)
In article <992@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: .... stuff deleted.... >Sorry, but I'm genuinely confused. Wasn't this thread basically trying to >determine if Amigas are being/could be used for jobs currently performed >by Macintoshes/IBM clones in this area? > >I can't (yet, perhaps if at all) see that those PCs are ``that much'' better >equipped for the apparently CPU intensive tasks you outline. > >At any rate I've been reading this thread to find out more specifics as to >why that _may_ be so. If it is then the problems could be addressed and it >might even interest developers into trying to develop Amiga solutions for >this area. If we're talking Cray size problems here then we've left the >original thread IMHO. > >JW> This is a far cry from Lick, Palomar, Keck, CFHT, et. al. I don't know, >JW> there just might be a market for an off-the-shelf computerized home >JW> observatory. Could be fun. A bit of competition for Distant Suns. :-) > >This I would like to see. :-) In my original posting I tried to show several ways we are presently using Amigas in professional astronomy. I have to agree with Jim Wright though that trying to use Ami to process CCD images is using the wrong tool, unless you are working with small images (such as you might get from a camcorder). The CCD controller we are presently working on will be producing images that consume 32M of memory per picture. We are finding that the Ethernet is not fast enough and are having to go with FDDI and very fast Sparc stations. As much as I like Ami there are some things it is not suited for, and this is one of them. Once the data is processed and we have a standard video image we can use Ami for some other functions. But it is not capable (yet) of handling that much data in any reasonable time. | Terry Ricketts | Internet: terry@helios.ucsc.edu | Senior Electronics Engineer | loel@helios.ucsc.edu | Lick Observatory Electronics Lab | Phone: 408-459-2110 | University of Calif, Santa Cruz |
whinery@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Alan Whinery) (09/06/90)
In article <jwright.652428332@catfish> someone (probably jwright) writes: > >Microcomputers are not the driving force for image acquisition or image >reduction at any of the big sites that I know of. When you start dropping >names like Lick and Palomar, this is what I think of. Which is not to say >that micros don't play a role. I'm trying to get a few Amigas in here. Some stuff that seems at least indirectly relevant to this thread: Here at the Institute, we are currently developing several systems for _infrared_ image acquisition/processing which are 80386-PC based. The big difference between IR and visible-light instruments is that the IR CCD arrays are typically 256 X 256, whereas the visible-light arrays are more like 2048 X 2048. The raw image size of the visible light images still gives the engineers a tendency towards using the number-crunching engines the VAX/SUN/IBM ilk, whereas we infrared astro types are clearly PC-based. The systems that will be developed here will be used throughout the observatories on the mainland, as well as at our beloved next door neighbor, CFHT. (Think of it ... during installation, I might even meet jwright, IN PERSON!) :>). I am a hopeless Amiga-ite. One of our astronomers is using the Amiga in some very specialized and important image-processing work. But the sad fact is that the instruments we develop are heavily dependent on an AT type bus, a fact that is unlikely to change, since we have to consider the compatibility of the hardware with other observatories that will use it -- there are an awful lot of programmers and engineers who already know the PC architecture like the back of their hands, and they would be very hard to convert, unless you had some REALLY great perks to offer for using an Amiga. I think that if Amiga is going to get a foot in the door in the scientific community in a BIG way, it will depend much on the A3000/UNIX/Sun/X-window compatibility issue to come. I offer these notes to acknowledge what seems to be so. Now, given the climate, how do we proliferate the Amiga to every desktop? Macintosh? Bah. We use no Macs. Our publishing office, they use Macs. ============================================================================== D. A. Whinery, Electronics Div., UHIfA, IRTF, PDQ, RSVP. (whinery@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu) ==============================================================================
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (09/06/90)
In article <28045@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.UUCP (Kent D. Polk) writes: >The problem is not one of time, it is one of capability. Technical >Image processing hardware and software do exist for the Mac & the >PC. It doesn't exist for the Amiga. I know. I need it very badly. > >One thing I am looking into is using the X11-based image processing >package from Laurence Livermore which is freely-distributable from what >I understand (not sure though). Anyway, I am trying to get enough >money to run it on a Sun via X11 until I get a chance to try and port >it to someone's 24bit 30FPS Framegrabber/framebuffer running native on >the Amiga. If you insist on 24bit 30FPS framegrabber/framebuffer then you're right. There's no such hardware for the Amiga (yet ?). On the other side there's no such application (astronomical image processing) needing that. First of all, image processing is three steps, getting the image, calculating sth out of the image and then show the result. The first needs sth like a framegrabber. Scientific images (at least astronomic ones) are done with CCD cameras. These devices have problems with fast readout, we're using devices with 288x384 pixel resolution and can hardly get more than 8 frames/second without degrading image quality. We're awaiting another camera with 512x512 pixel that can be used for up to 4 frames/second. All data is taken with 8 bit/pixel (maybe 12 bit/pixel in the future). So far with the 30FPS 24bit framegrabber. On the output side you could use a display with 7 or 8 bitplanes and a colorpalette with 24bit (or 8bit grayscale palette). That's more than the Amiga can show but not that far away from a well done HAM display. I agree, it should be better but true color (24bit) isn't needed. Now, the calculating part. Many image calculations can be done with integer arithmetic and there the Amiga is comparable to either MACs or PCs. With other calculations you'll need floating point, and yes, a 486 machine will be faster but is a lot more expensive. (A 386 with a weitek is faster too). But I don't think that you want a personal computer (MAC,PC or Amiga) for these applications. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/06/90)
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: >This is the only option I have seen for technical image processing >using the Amiga. Any comments? Yeah. What do you mean by "technical" image processing? -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (09/09/90)
In article <2932@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes: > > >>This is the only option I have seen for technical image processing >>using the Amiga. Any comments? > > >Yeah. What do you mean by "technical" image processing? Good question. What I mean is image processing for technical analysis/extraction of image features which can't be easily seen. This is as opposed to all of the Amiga image processing programs I have seen which do what I call 'picture processing'. I need things like: A minimum of 8 bit grey-scale. 24 bit color preferred. Image enhancement, filtering, math functions, histograms (in scaled units), a-scan & b-scan style presentation capabilities. With all of these, I need to be able to specify a range of the picture to operate on - from part of a single line to any specified rectangular area. And no, PixMate doesn't cut it. I am still looking, though I do appreciate Dr. Kittel's recommendations a few days, ago. I am looking into it. (Thanks) For an introduction of what I need, go take a look at 'CT' (version 2) I think) on the Fish disks. It comes the closest to the type of image processing I am talking about. -------------------------- Now to those who take offense at my needing 8/24 bit color, don't worry, I can pay for it (I think :^) -------------------------- Kent Polk: Southwest Research Institute (512) 522-2882 Internet : kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu UUCP : $ {cs.utexas.edu, gatech!petro, sun!texsun}!swrinde!kent
guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com (W. John Guineau) (09/11/90)
In article <1160@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>, p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) writes: |> From: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) |> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga |> Subject: Re: summary re: amiga, ccd, astronomy image-processing |> Reply-To: p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) [stuff ommited] |> The first needs sth like a framegrabber. Scientific images (at least |> astronomic ones) are done with CCD cameras. These devices have problems |> with fast readout, we're using devices with 288x384 pixel resolution |> and can hardly get more than 8 frames/second without degrading |> image quality. We're awaiting another camera with 512x512 pixel that |> can be used for up to 4 frames/second. All data is taken with |> 8 bit/pixel (maybe 12 bit/pixel in the future). So far with the |> 30FPS 24bit framegrabber. |> I haven't been following this thread so this may have already been answered. I was under the impression that CCD's were not 'cumulative' light collectors and so are useless for dim things like deep sky. (what I'm getting at) can I take my Panasonic (ala digiview) camera and optically couple it to my C8 and get images? [more bandwidth conserved] |> Regards, |> -- |> Michael van Elst |> UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve |> Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de |> "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree." |> -- W. John Guineau guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Marlboro MA. 01752
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/14/90)
guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com (W. John Guineau) writes: >I haven't been following this thread so this may have already been answered. >I was under the impression that CCD's were not 'cumulative' light collectors >and so are useless for dim things like deep sky. A lot of observatories are using CCD's. >(what I'm getting at) can I take my Panasonic (ala digiview) camera and >optically couple it to my C8 and get images? You need to use a CCD or camera with a very low lux rating. The lower the lux rating the lower light the CCD will function in. Your panasonic B&W camera probably won't function at that low a light level, but it wouldn't hurt to try, would it? You need some sort of mount tho. But you could probably fake it by having a friend hold it up to the eyepiece and seeing what happens. Focusing might be a problem. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
terry@helios.ucsc.edu (Terry Ricketts) (09/21/90)
In article <15264@shlump.nac.dec.com> guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com writes: >I haven't been following this thread so this may have already been answered. >I was under the impression that CCD's were not 'cumulative' light collectors >and so are useless for dim things like deep sky. CCD's are very good at accumulating light, and don't destroy themselves if they become saturated (as the older TV tubes used to do). Simply letting the light collect for awhile & then clocking the image out lets you see much dimmer. Of course you will need to cool the CCD if you want to do this for any extended period of time, like several seconds. Otherwise the noise will swamp the signal. You also need a good input amplifier which is not present in most camcorders. We have built a number of CCD cameras for use on the large telescopes at Lick Observatory that 'integrage' the image for as long as several minutes to see very faint objects. In tests in our dark room we have been able to detect something written on the outside of the door when illuminated with a flashlight. The camera is literally looking through the door. | Terry Ricketts | Internet: terry@helios.ucsc.edu | Senior Electronics Engineer | loel@helios.ucsc.edu | Lick Observatory Electronics Lab | Phone: 408-459-2110 | University of Calif, Santa Cruz |