CCD vs Film? Lots of time vs no patience? Alright, this is your place to discuss all the astrophotography what's and what's not. You can discuss about techniques, accessories, cameras, whatever....just make sure you also post some nice photos here too!
Meng Lee wrote:Let me supply an example. Suppose there is a tiny galaxy in the FOV and the individual subs is too short such that there is not even have 1 electron in the pixel well where the galaxy is, then no amount of stacking will bring that galaxy into the pic. I hope this is a suitable example to illustrate why long sub exposures get you deeper.
In light polluted places the subs are mostly controlled by skyglow saturating the sensor.
in this case, we wun even be taking that!
Let's put it this way. AP is something that depends on how far you willing to go. For us, we will just stick with short exposures. Just didn't have that $$$ or patience to squeeze out that last 20% of details when the existing 80% is already pretty good! Think they are just hoping to get perfection in that 80% than to go all out for that last 20%.
Ooops, ok Let me more relevant. My example works also for capturing the fine, dim details of galaxy arms, dust lanes and nebulae. Oh, nowadays it can get quite cheap to achieve these. Cheaper than getting APO. Example, Meade DSI pro as the camera, LXD75 mount autoguided by another DSI, and all controlled by the autostar suite will cost around 2K USD i guess.
Meng Lee wrote:Ooops, ok Let me more relevant. My example works also for capturing the fine, dim details of galaxy arms, dust lanes and nebulae. Oh, nowadays it can get quite cheap to achieve these. Cheaper than getting APO. Example, Meade DSI pro as the camera, LXD75 mount autoguided by another DSI, and all controlled by the autostar suite will cost around 2K USD i guess.
With blinding HID light from cars going pass every few minutes
Welcome to Dempsey!
[80% Steve, 20% Alfred] ------- Probability of Clear Skies = (Age of newest equipment in days) / [(Number of observers) * (Total Aperture of all telescopes present in mm)]
Capturing or getting good data has nothing to do with whether one has enough dough to support a entire plethora of equipment. Yes, lots of patience is needed, but probably I could make a rough guess that the capturing of Omega Centauri in this thread earlier might not have been the intended primary goal of the session, but an attempt to test and with curiosity see how the cluster looks like in the camera. I am sure with the current system that you have, you can already do wonders with it. Guess, what is needed is a little more peserverence, longer exposures, that's all. My intention of the post was certainly not to put anyone off, but to take the oppotunity to share what I have found out in the past. Everyone has a different pace in learning (and sometimes we have to accept that), and nobody is asking anyone to rush into the gist of things and start forking $$$$ and get a system setup ready for digital imaging wizardry right away. BTW, the shot is really good, whoever have done the post processing on it, has taken care to equalize the background, the made sure the core is not exposed. But like all other things, there will always be room for improvement, and i think it is good to take it as a learning experience. If it is an eventuality with no need for improvement, then i think the engine in us with stop and the quest to better ourselves (and our skills) will be lessened.
PS: Can always settle for a second-hand laptop from online purchases or sim lim. don't need a good one for image capture. bought mine for $400.
