Re: [APML] Film vs Digital HA!

["Bobby Middleton" <bobm@koyote.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Vaughn <aa6g@aa6g.org>

> For many applications it is but CCDs have taken over planetary work.

No doubt about that. It's realy nice to sit and wait for that 1 clear image
out of 10 (or 100) of Mars that comes up on your screen while the CCD camera
is capturing them. And at .05-.2 second exposure times you're going to
freeze out some seeing effects you won't with film exposure times being 10
times longer. Those are the two main factors that make CCD's the obvious
choice for planetary work. If you want to see comparisons of some film vs
CCD planet images go here:
http://www.koyote.com/users/bobm/planet.htm

Here's some 2-3 day old CCD images of Mars to compare with my Mars film
images too.
http://www.koyote.com/users/bobm/mars2001.htm

> This shows the power of oversampling combined with deconvolution.
> To a somewhat lesser extent CCDs have taken over for small object
> imaging but because of a myriad of problems I've been finding out
> about amateurs have not been able to take full advantage of that
> combination.

I also agree. I've seen lots of very good galaxy shots on CCD. But I believe
that for many objects (Flame nebula, M45, M42) CCD's will always have
trouble due to the nasty blooming one has to deal with on the bright stars.
And I personally like the color of film vs CCD on most objects (not
including galaxies). And of course film still owns the widefield arena. But
some are pionerring  widefield methods that may eventually catch CCD up to
film and perhaps even push it past film.
Bobby Middleton



--  APML Archives at <http://www.system.missouri.edu/apml/>  ---
                Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>