Re: [APML] A rough comparison

[stephen pitt <lthuedk@pe.net>]

Thanks Scott....processing time-now, thats a different story.

Stephen

Scott Hammonds wrote:
> Nice comparison Stephen. The RG200 is a very nice film, unfortunately gone,
> except the 60+ rolls I have in the freezer. Other than the slightly smaller
> FOV, the 10D is outstanding.
> How about a comparison of time spent on processing each image?
> Scott Hammonds
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "stephen pitt" <lthuedk@pe.net>
> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:50 PM
> Subject: [APML] A rough comparison
> 
> 
> 
>>Hi:
>>
>>And I mean rough:  Both images were made with 120 min of exposure.  The
>>first at f5, the second at f5.6.
>>
>>
>>http://www.light-to-dark.com/witch_10d_sv105.html
>>
>>http://www.light-to-dark.com/whead.html
>>
>>
>>They weren't taken at the same time.  But, since I stretched about the
>>same in each, the starting signal was about the same, except for the
>>near lack of H-emission response in the 10D.
>>
>>Unscientifically yours,
>>
>>Stephen Pitt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Astro-Photo mailing list
>>Astro-Photo@seds.org
>>http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo