List members,
I think that what Tony mentioned below is going in one ear
and out the
other for most. If you don't want to know about any
new techniques and you
don't want to learn anything further
then exclude all digital imaging
The statement change we mentioned several
months was to allow such CCD discussion if it presented these "new techniques"
and other CCD discussion in a film perspective. In my post that started all
this, I again said that CCD discussion is fine with me if there is any
relevance to film work and/or its digital processing. I believe no one has
said to totally forget CCD discussion, and everyone on this list is
certainly interested in "Learning anything
further"
The point I attempt to make along with
several others is that this is a film astro-imaging list; the only one there
is. And I believe most, if not all posts should point in the end to that
theme. My feelings are that if the post has no relevance whatsoever to a
film theme then one of the CCD groups would be a more appropriate forum.
But I'll be here no matter what discission is made. I've been deleting lots of
CCD posts and I've been reading lots too. I can continue to do the same. But
in my mind, the course we were on will turn this list into more a CCD
list than a film list. That's my concern since there are no other film
lists.
Bobby Middleton
(ccd discussions).
As an example, has anyone learned anything from Rob
Ghendler
since he's been here?
I'm neutral on a second list, but an
interesting thought is that the guys
with FLI and SLX cameras don't
show up on the SBIG list but
might have some interest in a second apml
hybrid list.
This might make the film only crew cringe.
I'm here to
learn new things and the new ideas are coming from the ccd
guys or the
people going to ccd. I have as well noticed that there are only
a scant
few really accomplished ccd photographers who don't use the
film methods
as a basis of their image processing techniques.
I personally would rather
see a list with every type of astrophotography
known. If this was possible
with little noise and no "mines better
than yours" it would be quite a
list to belong to.
Colt Bednorz
Tony Hallas wrote:
No.... it's not like that,
is it? The reality of this situation is that most of you are clamoring to
know more and more about digital processing, and that is a good thing. The
only difference between a typical "film" person today and a CCD person is
the origin of the data... BFD. I learned "CCD" in one lousy week... the reason I
could do this is that I already was 80% there... in fact I prefer, and
believe, that the digital techniques that I learned processing film are
BETTER than any "canned" programs that you can buy for this purpose. Once
you learn operation of the camera and the reduction process, it's all the
same DIGITAL PROCESSING... sooooo.... unless you still only do your work
with an enlarger, no computer... please, any protest over the origin of the
DIGITAL DATA is pure hypocrisy, isn't it?
Tony