DSI of Eagle Nebula (M16) taken this morning

And what a clear night it was :-))

Image detail can be found on the image:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.taylor9/Temp/M16.jpg

Finally got the home-mod Peltier Cooler working like a charm on the DSI and
can now regulate to within a couple of degrees

Regards


Chris

I'm not sure the dear old film can't produce better results than
this...

Andrea T.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm not sure the dear old film can't produce better results than
this...

Not being an expert in either area (are you?), I'm not sure either.

Upside of CCD is the ability to easily stack and aggregate photons over a
number of exposures. The beauty of this approach offers potential for ALT-AZ
imaging over film's long exposure requirement for Polar Alignment. The
ability to discard shots with intruders such as Satellites, Planes and
Shooting Stars also helps. It's pretty much a dead-cert that for every two
images I take that there's at least one intrusive element. Stacking (the
ease of, being key) of exposures is also more forgiving against tracking
error and atmoshperic turbulence. I'm not sure what effect light polution
has on film based work but digital working offers the ability to largely
remove light polution in post processing. Living where I do this has huge
appeal.

Additionally I suppose the relative simplicity and immediacy of digital
processing over dark room processing has obvious attraction.

In all, none of what I've stated attempts to dispute whether film may
produce better results, or suggests that anyone should turn away from film.
If that's what floats your boat, keep it up.

Chris

"Chris Taylor" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm not sure the dear old film can't produce better results than
this...

Not being an expert in either area (are you?), I'm not sure either.

Upside of CCD is the ability to easily stack and aggregate photons over a
number of exposures. The beauty of this approach offers potential for
ALT-AZ imaging over film's long exposure requirement for Polar Alignment.
The ability to discard shots with intruders such as Satellites, Planes and
Shooting Stars also helps. It's pretty much a dead-cert that for every two
images I take that there's at least one intrusive element. Stacking (the
ease of, being key) of exposures is also more forgiving against tracking
error and atmoshperic turbulence. I'm not sure what effect light polution
has on film based work but digital working offers the ability to largely
remove light polution in post processing. Living where I do this has huge
appeal.

Additionally I suppose the relative simplicity and immediacy of digital
processing over dark room processing has obvious attraction.

In all, none of what I've stated attempts to dispute whether film may
produce better results, or suggests that anyone should turn away from
film. If that's what floats your boat, keep it up.
Chris

I thought the earlier post was just 'sour grapes'... Especially since they
wouldn't know for 1-5 days (depending who did processing), whether their own
picture (they didn't offer) had turned out or if the lens cover was left on
by mistake.
I preferred your's, and thought the quality was spectacular, but I don't
post here.. :- ... /G.

wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm not sure the dear old film can't produce better results than
this...

Andrea T.

Hi Andrea,

Probably not using the same kit since according to the legend this was using
an unguided alt az mounted LX90. Field rotation and tracking errors would
have taken their toll before film had registered much I suspect, which is
why electronic imagers have become so popular. Astrophotography used to be
an elete sport for masochists - not any more :-)

Robin

Not sure that with hypered tech-pan and a red filter you couldn't have
done better even with the limitation of the Alt-Az mount used, given
the results I've seen. Stacking works for film too. At any rate using
an Alt-Az to do more than bright stuff is definitely a masochist sport
to me.

Andrea T.

wrote:

Not sure that with hypered tech-pan and a red filter you couldn't have
done better even with the limitation of the Alt-Az mount used, given
the results I've seen.

I've used hypered tech-pan. Using hypered film is tedious, expensive,
slow and messy. Unless you're using large or medium format (futile
with an LX90), film is a waste of time.

I've yet to see your superior images taken with similar equipment
Andrea. Nor can I recall you ever saying anything complimentary about
anybody else's images.


Tim
--
Don't tell me I'm still on that feckin' island!

Tim Auton wrote:
wrote:

Not sure that with hypered tech-pan and a red filter you couldn't have
done better even with the limitation of the Alt-Az mount used, given
the results I've seen.

I've used hypered tech-pan. Using hypered film is tedious, expensive,
slow and messy. Unless you're using large or medium format (futile
with an LX90), film is a waste of time.

Maybe. I was only commenting on the quality of those results compared
to what could be obtained with traditional film techniques.


I've yet to see your superior images taken with similar equipment
Andrea. Nor can I recall you ever saying anything complimentary about
anybody else's images.

I can't show you anything simply because I haven't got similar
equipment (it wouldn't be fair to compare my results with those) but if
you shop around in the net you'll find plenty of examples. As for me
not being too complimentary I wouldn't put too much blame on me...

Andrea T.