|
Hi Loke -
How do you think the 300D would stack up against color
films like 400F or E200 when used in the Schmidt?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From:
Loke Tan <tan@cox.net>
To:
Discussion of Film Astrophotography <astro-photo@seds.org>
Date:
Wednesday, December 24, 2003 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: [APML] OT:
digital vs film - fast comets
Chris,
IMHO, I do not think that the Canon 300D nor the 10D single shot
RGB CCDs can equal a Schmidt with TP today. The Schmidt is very well paired
with hypered TP in either B&W or tricolor. The combination is very
optimal, you have the hypered TP film with extremely good resolution and
reciprocity characteristics, and you also have the very fast Schmidt which is
extremely well corrected optically. The issue with the Canon digital cameras
is that the lenses are not as well corrected to match the resolution of the
CCD. To make better lenses, I am afraid the costs will be much
higher.
Loke
Loke -
One thing I thought of concerning shooting fast
bright comets(i.e. Hyakutake etc...) is that the SBIG cameras will be unable
to shoot a color image that does not have the stars broken up into Red,
Green and Blue trails. Not that this kind of image is bad, I just
personally do not like them as well. The Canon
300D and 10D being single shot RGB chips can most likely equal the kind
of comet shots done with film. As for wide field digital, the
Canon shooters will have to find a excellent 300mm f/2.8 lens
capable of being shot wide open with no aberrations of any kind ....any
ideas? Hopefully we'll find out this coming
May...
Chris
Another interesting thing which might happen is when the
next large/bright comet comes our way. I am curious to see if the best
widefield images will be shot on CCD or on a Schmidt Camera with TP. The
interesting matter here is that a large comet changes quite rapidly and the
f/1.5 speed of the Schmidt really helps to shorten exposures for TP.
Unfortunately CCDs will not be able to be used in a Schmidt unless you
can curve the chip. But the CCD is more sensitive than hypered
TP, so this will make a very interesting comparison. Anyway, these are my
current thoughts on the subject.
Loke
Oh boy,
Let's not start THIS
again ... those of us who know better know that the boundaries between
film and digital are starting to blur more and more with each passing
day ... you may shoot film, but I bet you use some form of digital post
processing ... where do you draw the line? You can use film to start
with and use digital to process, or you can shoot digital and use
dedicated film-type processing like Photoshop as the post processing ...
the lines merge, black and white is turning gray
...
The best thing
that can be said for Rob's images is that he aspires to make them as
photorealistic as possible ... that's why he should stay on this list...
I have seen CCD originated images that look more "film like" than some
convoluted attempts starting with film and trying to make them look
digital ...
Those of us who
come from a solid film background and who have been on this list for
awhile have an edge on our "CCD only" compatriots ... ultimately the
techniques that come to bear in making a great photo must be used even
if the image had its beginnings as a CCD receptor ... speaking from my
own experience, about 20% of a CCD image that I make borrows from pure
CCD technology ... the rest is all film.
Tony
|