Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?

[Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>]

Monte,

Pixel-for-pixel, a CCD image typically captures four times the information 
content that film has. This is because of CCD's larger dynamic range. If 
you scan 6x7 film at 2000 DPI you get 4300x5500 pixels, assuming you can 
anti-vignette the entire frame. An equivalent CCD chip would only need to 
be roughly 2150x2750 pixels (which of course is costly today: about $15K). 
Images from both systems will enlarge to a given size (say, 16"x20") with 
similar image quality.

The 6x7 system above costs a lot less, and that's why I do 6x7 film for 
"wide field" images.

For publication-quality images of small objects (e.g. planetary nebulae), 
CCD wins today, even on a cost basis, given an equivalent level of 
resulting image quality.

Matt

At 07:00 PM 4/2/2002, Monte Wilson wrote:
>Actually Rob, I was waiting for you to weigh in on this one. You are right 
>about what can be done with the 300mm lens but I am patiently waiting for 
>a CCD the size of a 6x7 frame or one the size of a ST10 for a fraction of 
>the current cost. I know it will be some time yet maybe even ten years.
>
>I think there is a question of definition about what is wide field. I 
>regard it to be something like the size of the LMC or something like a 
>shot covering the distance between M8 and the tail of Scorpius.
>
>I have admired your work for some time and have a copy of your M33 on my 
>desktop - I hope you don't mind.
>
>Regards Monte
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:robgendler@worldnet.att.net>Robert Gendler
>To: <mailto:astro-photo@seds.org>astro-photo@seds.org
>Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?
>
>Monte
>I agree with most of what you say except "Wide field colour
>work is still going to be best done with film for some time yet".
>I must disagree. You can capture very widefields with CCD by
>using short FL instruments or mosaics and still get comparable or better
>resolution than film images. I have many widefield CCD images on my web site
>taken with a 300mm lens. These compare quite favorably with widefield
>film shots taken with larger instruments in regards to FOV,
>resolution and color. A few of them are at
><http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/HorseheadNikon.html>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/HorseheadNikon.html 
>
>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/1499LRGB.html
><http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/Auriga.html>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/Auriga.html 
>
>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/1805.html
><http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/1848Nikon.html>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/1848Nikon.html 
>
>Rob Gendler
>Email: <mailto:robgendler@att.net>robgendler@att.net
>Web site: 
><http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/>http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:montezinho@bigpond.com>Monte Wilson
>To: <mailto:astro-photo@seds.org>Astro Mail
>Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 6:09 PM
>Subject: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?
>
>Given that probably the best AP'er of the lot has just confirmed what we 
>have all suspected for some time (that film v CCD is a one sided battle) 
>it has made me wonder what I am doing struggling with film and all it's 
>challenges. The recent Tech Pan scare only added to my suspicions.
>
>I don't hold it against Tony for going to the dark side or perhaps it 
>should be known as the luminance side, I bought an STV a few months ago 
>for guiding and while it does that so well, I decided to try taking a few 
>images with it and I was hooked.  They are not much to look at yet but the 
>ease with which it happened and the fact that I could "work" on them 
>during the next day was a real bonus.
>
>This brings me to point of this introspective. There is still a place for 
>film in AP. Wide field colour work is still going to be best done with 
>film for some time yet. It may be ten or twenty years before we have a CCD 
>the size of a medium format frame and until then I will proudly use film.
>
>I also watch the SBIG users group and with some sadness I must admit the 
>images coming from CCD's for narrow field shots is leaving film behind.
>
>There is an undeniable romance in using film, particularly when you have 
>slide film and a light box but with all the other challenges we have to 
>overcome to get a decent shot, for anything other than wide field work, my 
>heart is with film but my head is with CCD's.
>
>Monte

--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@starmatt.com
http://starmatt.com


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>