Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?

This is another example of why a single, long exposure is better than a bunch of
short exposures stacked together, the issue of signal to noise ratio. Unless
the object is bright, you're going to run into this problem. I've experimented
with both techniques, stacking verses long-exposures, and the long-exposures
wins but only with accurate equatorial tracking.

Granted, depending on what you're seeking with results, and what your equipment
is, stacking may be the only way to get images, but if just to make life easier
and to image fainter objects clearly, you need to invest in equipment. But for
beginners just testing the waters, I don't recommend going the expensive
equipment route right away, which is one reason the DSI camera is a good by, sad
to say, since it came from Meade. ^_^

Sincerely,
--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone

david.nakamoto@xxxxxxxxxxx


"RS" <russ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2gtkk11qr9r5albsektso1beff9bor8v40@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
    ... > bunch of short exposures stacked together, the issue of signal to noise ... > equipment is, stacking may be the only way to get images, but if just to ... I do all my imaging int alt-az mode. ... >>>sensitivity on your pixels, among other things. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
    ... Your images are excellent---especially considering the technique you are ... I do all my imaging int alt-az mode. ... webcams for planets, ... >>prove good on the brighter DSOs. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Serious camera question - what it boils down to?
    ... planets just to reduce the exposure times, so Seeing is better "frozen" out. ... > If I'm happy with B/W images, isn't the DSI pro a superior camera? ... >> of short exposures stacked together, the issue of signal to noise ratio. ... >> The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Sharpest Image Ever Obtained of a Circumstellar Disk Reveals Signs of Young Planets
    ... SHARPEST IMAGE EVER OBTAINED OF A CIRCUMSTELLAR DISK REVEALS SIGNS ... are signs of unseen planets. ... has acquired high resolution images of the nearby star AU ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: HDR programs
    ... A lot of the HDR's I do involve some long exposures ... ... I probably should have cut it and included lens + camera info: ... images from that POS glass? ... offset each image from two sides before applying it, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)