[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?



 
    A few important points: Bobby, Tony, Rob G, Philip Perkins, Jerry L, Matt B. and others are the best of the best that any of us have seen. Regardless of how the images are acquired! Everyone chooses their own medium. 
    I think that at this point in time it's generally agreed upon that from a image quality stand point smaller objects are best shot with CCD if you can afford it and larger objects with film. Which all of us can afford.  Be it Tech Pan or color. Right now for almost everyone the cost is way to high to shoot larger objects with CCD so It doesn't matter if technically the images are better because most of us can't afford what it takes to acquire those images with CCD anyway. We'll just have to follow Monte's leed and wait for more affordable large chips. In the mean time most of us will still have to shoot smaller objects with film whether we like it or not.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?

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: