|
Bobby,
A few other points I'd like to make. One is that
you guys here
on APML are for the most part pretty isolated. I
participate
on the CCD lists too so I know where the cutting
edge of CCD is.
People are now doing widefield milkyway shots that
are very comparable
to the film images I've seen here. Its only a
matter of time. Actually I plan on
doing some widefield Milkyway CCD mosaics this
summer.
My second point is that quality CCD work can
be accomplished from
areas with horrendous light pollution. This is
simply impossible with film.
My skies are mag 4.5 on the best nights. My last
point is how many nights
of imaging did it take to make your Rosette mosaic
or your M31 Bobby?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:28
PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Going to the
Luminance side?
I disagree. Film's not a dead dog yet
<g>. Film still has a competitive niche and even a
competitive advantage at the mid-focal length and widefield level. The
shorter FL instruments necessary to get the larger views with
the big CCD chips are just too small in aperture to match resolution with
the best astrographs used with tech pan film and other excellent
high resolution photographic techniques like mosaics and medium format
photography. I will grant that CCDs will get more bang-for-the-inch in terms
of aperture, but with good instruments film still competes even outdoes
a st-10 hooked up to a Tak FSQ 106 or a Nikon 300mm f/2.8
lens. And all of those CCD widefield tools are pretty pricey. Of
course the "best astrographs" ain't cheap either <g>. Compare my
mid-focal length film shots with the best equivalent CCD
images:
|