|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
I know this question is almost meaningless ... but perhaps not completely.
When it comes to "seeing" detail, what improvement can you get by photography over the human eye? The human eye is presumably better at optical separation, but CCDs for minimum magnitude. For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:49:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote: I know this question is almost meaningless ... but perhaps not completely. When it comes to "seeing" detail, what improvement can you get by photography over the human eye? The human eye is presumably better at optical separation, but CCDs for minimum magnitude. For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? When it comes to deep sky astronomical objects, the eye is vastly inferior to modern electronic imagers, both in terms of resolution and sensitivity. The main factor is sensitivity. While electronic detectors have better QE than the eye (that is, they record a higher percentage of photons), the main improvement comes from their ability to integrate over long periods. The eye only "sees" a photon for about 100ms, so outside that period there's no additive effect. A CCD or similar sensor can accumulate photons for any length of time. This makes them, in effect, many orders of magnitude more sensitive that the eye. Also, the resolution of the eye is poor for dim objects. In fact, it is very poor- even bad telescope optics are unlikely to impact the quality of DSO viewing. In contrast, an electronic detector can be set up with an objective of the proper focal length in order to achieve resolution limited by the optics or the seeing, whichever is finer. This is only possible visually with very bright objects (the Sun, Moon, and bright planets), where high magnification can be used without losing too much light. Electronic detectors also achieve higher resolution than the eye or film because of their independent pixels. This results in a nearly flat MTF. While the eye and film have a resolution that varies with contrast, electronic detectors do not, until the Nyquist sampling limit is approached. Electronic detectors have much greater dynamic range than either film or the scotopic eye. Of course, electronic detectors are capable of recording color in DSOs, which is largely impossible visually. One place where there can be an advantage to visual observation is with the Moon and planets. That's because the short sampling time of the eye/brain - a disadvantage for DSOs- works in our favor to help freeze seeing effects. However, this advantage is increasingly overcome by the use of lucky imaging techniques- stacking fast video frames based on individual frame quality. This can produce equally good resolution to the eye, with a substantial improvement in color and dynamic range. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:49:22 +1000, "Peter Webb" wrote: I know this question is almost meaningless ... but perhaps not completely. When it comes to "seeing" detail, what improvement can you get by photography over the human eye? The human eye is presumably better at optical separation, but CCDs for minimum magnitude. For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? When it comes to deep sky astronomical objects, the eye is vastly inferior to modern electronic imagers, both in terms of resolution and sensitivity. The main factor is sensitivity. While electronic detectors have better QE than the eye (that is, they record a higher percentage of photons), the main improvement comes from their ability to integrate over long periods. The eye only "sees" a photon for about 100ms, so outside that period there's no additive effect. A CCD or similar sensor can accumulate photons for any length of time. This makes them, in effect, many orders of magnitude more sensitive that the eye. Also, the resolution of the eye is poor for dim objects. In fact, it is very poor- even bad telescope optics are unlikely to impact the quality of DSO viewing. In contrast, an electronic detector can be set up with an objective of the proper focal length in order to achieve resolution limited by the optics or the seeing, whichever is finer. This is only possible visually with very bright objects (the Sun, Moon, and bright planets), where high magnification can be used without losing too much light. Electronic detectors also achieve higher resolution than the eye or film because of their independent pixels. This results in a nearly flat MTF. While the eye and film have a resolution that varies with contrast, electronic detectors do not, until the Nyquist sampling limit is approached. Electronic detectors have much greater dynamic range than either film or the scotopic eye. Of course, electronic detectors are capable of recording color in DSOs, which is largely impossible visually. One place where there can be an advantage to visual observation is with the Moon and planets. That's because the short sampling time of the eye/brain - a disadvantage for DSOs- works in our favor to help freeze seeing effects. However, this advantage is increasingly overcome by the use of lucky imaging techniques- stacking fast video frames based on individual frame quality. This can produce equally good resolution to the eye, with a substantial improvement in color and dynamic range. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com On this last point, about planets and the Moon, I'll concede that with the Moon you'll see more with the unaided eye through most telescopes than with imaging, but my own experience is that you see more with stacking images from a video taken with good optics and good seeing than with the eye through the same telescope, perhaps twice the resolution, although I admit I've not measured it objectively yet. Basically, the web or video camera with medium to high resolution and selectively stacking images seem to push the resolution of what you can see closer to the theoretical limits of the optics. It at least pushes them a bit further than what the seeing might allow through the telescope with the unaided eye. Just my humble opinion. --- Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:20:19 GMT, David Nakamoto
wrote: On this last point, about planets and the Moon, I'll concede that with the Moon you'll see more with the unaided eye through most telescopes than with imaging, but my own experience is that you see more with stacking images from a video taken with good optics and good seeing than with the eye through the same telescope, perhaps twice the resolution, although I admit I've not measured it objectively yet. I agree. There might be some advantage to visual planetary astronomy with poor seeing, or certain kinds of seeing. But even that is giving way to video imaging, I think. My point, really, was that planetary and lunar viewing is probably the only case where visual observation and imaging are at least in the same ballpark so far as comparisons go. With everything else, imaging is unarguably far beyond visual, even where the imaging aperture is much smaller than the visual. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:20:19 GMT, David Nakamoto wrote: On this last point, about planets and the Moon, I'll concede that with the Moon you'll see more with the unaided eye through most telescopes than with imaging, but my own experience is that you see more with stacking images from a video taken with good optics and good seeing than with the eye through the same telescope, perhaps twice the resolution, although I admit I've not measured it objectively yet. I agree. There might be some advantage to visual planetary astronomy with poor seeing, or certain kinds of seeing. But even that is giving way to video imaging, I think. My point, really, was that planetary and lunar viewing is probably the only case where visual observation and imaging are at least in the same ballpark so far as comparisons go. With everything else, imaging is unarguably far beyond visual, even where the imaging aperture is much smaller than the visual. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com Total agreement. Through a 5 inch SCT, Omega Centauri was a glow with some stars visible. 30 seconds later with a monochromatic imager, it "resolved" into hundreds of stars. First light for that camera too. --- Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:49:22 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote: For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? You can photograph this with a telephoto lens. Bud |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:17:01 -0500, William Hamblen
wrote: On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:49:22 +1000, "Peter Webb" wrote: For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? You can photograph this with a telephoto lens. I imaged M51 once using a pinhole! Not beautiful, but somewhat more structure, and far more contrast, than I've ever seen visually through a telescope. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
In article ,
Peter Webb wrote: I know this question is almost meaningless ... but perhaps not completely. When it comes to "seeing" detail, what improvement can you get by photography over the human eye? The human eye is presumably better at optical separation, but CCDs for minimum magnitude. The major advantage with photography is reproducibility. In a few seconds (or a few hours, depending on what exposure time you use) you get an image which later can be closely examined any number of times by anyone. Visual observations o.t.o.h. can only be performed "here-and-now" by the observer himself, one cannot later re-create the same visual observation. True, you can draw, or describe, what you see - but that's always a matter of interpretation which never can be repeated later by someone else on the same visual observation. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that visual observations are "volatile". The major advantage of visual observations is pleasu it's always more pleasant to see something live than to see a photograph or video of it. And that's why visual observations are so popular among amateur astronomers (who observe for the joy of it) while at the same time it's virtually never used by professionals (who are demanded to produce reproducible scientific results). For example, I have heard that you can start seeing the spiral structure of galaxies at about a 8 - 10" telescope aperture; if you are doing astrophotography can this be seen with a lower aperture scope? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Viewing by eye versus astrophotography
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:42:46 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote: The major advantage with photography is reproducibility. I would call that _a_ major advantage, not _the_ major advantage. Advantages depend on intent, and reproducibility may not necessarily be a goal. The major advantage of visual observations is pleasu it's always more pleasant to see something live than to see a photograph or video of it. Again, this depends on intent and personal taste. I've never seen any object directly through a telescope (with the possible exception of Saturn) that gave me anywhere near the satisfaction of seeing an image appear on my screen, as the result of my own imaging effort. Without imaging, I might not bother to own a telescope at all. I agree that, for planets, galaxies and nebulae, imaging is unbeatable. I've not seen images that capture the contrasty nature of a star cluster seen through a large scope, basically because no screen technology that I know of can do the transition between space-black and star-white in the space of no more than the eye can see. Some planetarium shows come close. I have seen Omega Centauri through a 36" Dobsonian (yes, I know this is something of a best case for visual observation), and that is much more spectacular than any picture of a globular that I've encountered, even from Hubble or VLT-adaptive-optics. There's something of the same for the Moon, the blackness of the shadows of the mountains versus the light bright enough to make you screw up your eyes a bit (even in my pathetic 4") reflected from their peaks. On the other hand, I've also felt a reasonable sense of achievement from taking some technically awful wide-field photos with a 70/2.8 lens and a DSLR and using them to rediscover Ceres. Not sure it's a delight I can convey it words, but it did feel good to see that moving dot ... Tom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASTRO: Maximum operating temperature versus exposure time versus read noise | Richard Crisp[_1_] | Astro Pictures | 0 | April 19th 08 03:46 PM |
James Harris versus |-|erc versus OM | James Harris | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 1st 03 09:01 AM |