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

Re: [APML] Going to the Luminance side?



Rob, I gotta weigh in here too...
 
First of all, I guess it depends on your interpretation on what "wide field" is. _Most_ of us "film guys" don't think of an ST-10/300mm lens shot as wide field. I'm not necessarily thinking that it has to be a constellation-sized shot, but certainly a larger field shot than a pic that just *barely* covers the extent of the California neb, for instance.
 
Now before statements are made that "CCD gives much better ...."
 
Let me say that I'm planning on CCD myself soon. Most likely an ST-10E using optics ranging from my 12" SCT on down to several telephoto lenses. I live in a light polluted area also (10 miles N of Boston), so CCD is *very* attractive for a number of reasons. And while I am currently lurking there, I do subscribe to the SBIG and FLI lists. Once I'm 'up and running', I plan to actively participate on one or more of those CCD lists.
 
But many people interested in this hobby start out in _film_ astrophotography. And that's what the APML is _supposed_ to be about. And generally, the films themselves keep getting better and better, but fewer people are exploring this end of astrophotography. That's a shame. Unless very large prints are planned in conjunction with the results from the better CCD cameras, there are several current films that _do_ give CCD a run for it's money, at least for some subjects in the kind of skies some people have good access too. Usually with 'wide', but in some instances even with what most of us would consider 'narrow' field shots. And with film, in most cases, for many people it only involves adapting already existing photo equipment to get good results. Much of our so-called "isolation" is due to how much $$ we are willing to commit to this hobby.
 
I've used MaxIm DL for some of my film work. So I can _easily_ say I welcome CCD processing insight into this list for a variety of reasons. There are many similarities in processing between the two mediums that are only just beginning to be explored with film. 
 
Although I enjoy and look forward to your image postings, I'd like to see more of your processing tips or questions on images than another "here's my latest..."
 
And as far a wide field mosaics, wasn't John Gleason's recent SBIG post a film based image?: http://www.celestialimage.com/page21.html
 
 
John Boudreau
jeboud@attbi.com
http://home.attbi.com/~jeboud/astro.htm
----- 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: