Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- From: RS <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:19:33 GMT
Regarding DSO imaging (as opposed to planetary), you don't need a
steady, rock-solid, non-periodic-error mount *IF* you image as I do. I
take very short exposures (less than 10 seconds each) and then combine
them for a virtual total exposer time of anywhere between 5 and 20
minutes. This way, I avoid image rotation and the need for guiding as
well. I dont even polar align! I do all my imaging int alt-az mode. As
far as planetary imaging, the total exposures are short enough that
the mout requirements are even LESS demanding.
I am not a "great" imager, but I have managed to avoid the usuall
imaging pitfalls by using this method. If anyine is interested in
seeing examples, my non-guided alt-az images are located here:
http://epcinternet.com/astron/
Again, they're not great, but I dont have any guiding or mount isuues
either.
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:55:47 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
<res07oeg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi everyone !
>
>In my opinion, it boils down to three things. The first thing is that at the
>current time one still needs a steady, rock-solid mount with minimum periodic
>error that's visible in the telescope/camera setup you're using, learning to
>accurately align everything, and a lot of patience. Learning image processing
>is a must also, but since this can be done in the "safety" of one's heated
>office in a comfortable chair, I don't count this part of the business (haha!)
>but it is necessary.
>
>The second thing it boils down to is that you need to learn, through this
>newsgroup, web sits, and books, how to do imaging. It's more than just the
>equipment, although that's important, because as far as planets are concerned
>you still need reasonably good tracking coupled with high magnifications, and as
>far as deep sky is concerned you need rock-steady tracking and lots of
>sensitivity on your pixels, among other things. But learning how to process
>images is just as important, so you learn what you need to do when you take the
>original images, and learn what you can and can't get away with. among other
>things.
>
>The third thing it boils down to is that right now there seems (to me) to be
>three things developing; (1) webcams for planets, and high resolution images of
>the Moon and Sun, (2) dedicated cooled CCD cameras for deep sky, and (3) DSLRs
>that act as good introduction to imaging, takes great wide field images, and
>prove good on the brighter DSOs.
>
>Part of the DSI technology might make things easier in the future, especially
>that feature that gets rid of tracking errors. I'm certainly keeping my fingers
>crossed ! I think the DSI is certainly worth checking into; it should generate
>great webcam type images, and good images of most DSOs amateurs think about.
>I'm not sure about the Pro; those expose filters make me cringe. Didn't Meade
>do their research, or were they simply "going their own way for its own sake?"
>
> Sincerely,
> --- Dave
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- From: David Nakamoto
- Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- From: Doink
- Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- References:
- Serious camera question
- From: Doink
- Re: Serious camera question
- From: David Nakamoto
- Re: Serious camera question
- From: Doink
- Re: Serious camera question
- From: Stephen Paul
- Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- From: David Nakamoto
- Serious camera question
- Prev by Date: Re: Dissambling the EQ6 Dec Axis
- Next by Date: Re: Christian Astronomers NG?
- Previous by thread: Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- Next by thread: Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|