|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Beginning Astrophotography
What would be considered the "minimum" equipment requirements to do
astrophotography? Is it essential to have a tracking mount, or can short exposures be taken and then stacked? Any advise for a newbie? T.I.A. Lurch |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Beginning Astrophotography
wrote in message oups.com... What would be considered the "minimum" equipment requirements to do astrophotography? Is it essential to have a tracking mount, or can short exposures be taken and then stacked? Any advise for a newbie? T.I.A. Lurch I'd appreciate comments too. I'm not a newbie, but a returnee. From my reading, I expect stacking a CCD is fine for planetary and lunar, and not bad for the brghter nebulae. For brighter galaxies the problem is the angular size. A 1/4 inch CCD will be looking at maybe 15 to 30 arc min. Eyepiece projection means you lose intensity, and that means you hit the noise limit earlier, which has more impact on stacking images. If you don't use stacking, you need (a) a realy good mount, and (b) guiding. What are the options for that. Disclosu I'm using a smaller celestron in alt/az, not equatorial. I could wedge it, but the slack in the drive means I would not trust tracking. So stacking is best. If I spend more money on a good mount 8 inch+, and SBIG, I can track AND look deeper into the sky. T. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Beginning Astrophotography
Tomasso wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... What would be considered the "minimum" equipment requirements to do astrophotography? Is it essential to have a tracking mount, or can short exposures be taken and then stacked? Any advise for a newbie? T.I.A. Lurch I'd appreciate comments too. I'm not a newbie, but a returnee. From my reading, I expect stacking a CCD is fine for planetary and lunar, and not bad for the brghter nebulae. It depends on your equipment. The less the magnification, or if you wish the wider the field of view, the better your chances when taking short exposures and stacking. It's a question of trailing, and no amount of stacking will get rid of trailing. But planets need magnification, lots of it, so unless you want to see dots instead of disks, you'll need to track, even with web camera technology. It doesn't have to be tack-sharp precise tracking, but you'll need to track steadily and consistently, or else the stacking software isn't going to produce sharp images. This counts for the moon also. For brighter galaxies the problem is the angular size. A 1/4 inch CCD will be looking at maybe 15 to 30 arc min. Eyepiece projection means you lose intensity, and that means you hit the noise limit earlier, which has more impact on stacking images. Usually for deep sky objects, prime focus imaging is used, where there is no camera lens, no eyepiece, just the telescope and the eyepiece. This gets rid of any unwanted magnification due to the eyepiece, and more importantly reduces the reduction of light at the CCD by getting rid of any glass that you don't need. Of course, you could use eyepiece projection if you don't have a choice, or if you want added magnification, but I'd avoid it if possible. If you don't use stacking, you need (a) a realy good mount, and (b) guiding. What are the options for that. Three words --- money, money, and money. Good tracking mounts tend to be expensive. The larger the telescope, the more the mount had to be large and rock steady, with minimal periodic tracking errors. This means forget that new car, forge that holiday cottage in the hills, forget sending that kid to college. Open up your wallet and abandon hope all who enter this. Disclosu I'm using a smaller celestron in alt/az, not equatorial. I could wedge it, but the slack in the drive means I would not trust tracking. So stacking is best. If I spend more money on a good mount 8 inch+, and SBIG, I can track AND look deeper into the sky. Your field of view rotates as the mount tracks. You probably can't see it, but it's there, especially on long exposures. Same is true if you try and piggy-back a camera. Hence you'll need a derotator if you're shooting through the scope. I'd try web camera imaging the moon and planets first. Won't teach you everything you need to know about deep sky imaging, but it'll give you good experience on some of the problems. You can also get one of the planet imagers from Meade or Orion Telescopes. I don't know if you'll still need the derotator or if the software will take care of it. For Deep sky you'll probably need a derotator, and you'll need to keep the exposures very short. --- Dave N. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Problem of a beginning | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | October 30th 05 01:06 PM |
For Sale: Nikon CoolPix 5000 Astrophotography Setup | Mike Schriber | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 20th 04 01:02 AM |
Digital vs. Film in Astrophotography | Jason Donahue | Amateur Astronomy | 216 | January 5th 04 04:34 PM |
Digital vs. Film in Astrophotography | Jason Donahue | CCD Imaging | 35 | January 5th 04 03:11 PM |
Astrophotography telescope for amateur photographer | brulu | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | August 7th 03 03:54 AM |