Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?

[Alan Voetsch <critter12952@yahoo.com>]

Hey all,

Jim makes some good points. I suspect that many of us
WILL be going over to the dark side at some point in
the future. Some will abandon film completely, many
(like me) will do both to take maximum advantage of
each. I think Rob underestimates the number of us who
do monitor the CCD lists. I've been on the SBIG list
for at least a year. Why? It's potentially a different
way to do what I've always wanted to do; image the
universe. How we do it really doesn't matter that
much, at least to me.

Alan

>     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 ----- 
>   From: Robert Gendler 
>   To: astro-photo@seds.org 
>   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?
>   Rob Gendler
>   Email: robgendler@att.net
>   Web site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>     From: Bobby Middleton 
>     To: astro-photo@seds.org 
>     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:
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

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