A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Astro Imaging newbie -- Film or CCD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 05, 11:01 PM
MonroeAstro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Astro Imaging newbie -- Film or CCD

Ok, first off, I'm not trying to start a religious discussion, nor am I
looking for a pretty new flame job. Im just a beginner in
astrophotography looking for some advice.

After being in amateur astronomy for the better part of a decade, I
have decided to dip my toe into astrophotography. It seems to me that
after alot of web surfing and research that film is still a viable
solution, and perhaps the biggest "bang for the buck" when it comes to
astrophotography. If I wanted to get a decent film setup, here is what
I think I would need:

Manual camera (Nikon FE, Oly OM1) - $100-$300 used
Cable Release - $20
Piggy back mount - $50
Lenses (if not prime focus) - $100 - $300+

The other things necessary (mount, scope, guidepieces, off-axis
guiders, etc) would be necessary with CCD as well, so I count them as a
"wash" for comparison.

Now when I look at the results of images taken by numerous amateurs
with the above setup, the seem comparible to those taken with 10K+ ccd
setups. Don't get me wrong, the modded webcams take some nice shots,
but they are not the stunning, rich, widefield or deep sky shots that
many of dream about taking someday. So it would seem to the untrained
newb that one could spend around $700 on a film setup, vs several
thousands on a CCD setup to get comparible results....what am I
missing, if anything?

Matt

  #2  
Old July 5th 05, 11:36 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Jul 2005 15:01:47 -0700, "MonroeAstro"
wrote:

Now when I look at the results of images taken by numerous amateurs
with the above setup, the seem comparible to those taken with 10K+ ccd
setups. Don't get me wrong, the modded webcams take some nice shots,
but they are not the stunning, rich, widefield or deep sky shots that
many of dream about taking someday. So it would seem to the untrained
newb that one could spend around $700 on a film setup, vs several
thousands on a CCD setup to get comparible results....what am I
missing, if anything?


What you are overlooking is how much more painful imaging with film is.
Because the film has low sensitivity, you need very long exposures- and
unlike CCDs, those exposures can't be stacked from shorter ones. So
don't forget a good autoguider CCD- unless you are a true masochist and
will be guiding manually. And with film, you have no feedback until it
is too late. Focusing is difficult, framing is difficult, and it is easy
to waste a whole evening and end up with nothing (especially if you
don't have lots of experience). Most films are lower resolution than
CCDs, so you may not be able to take full advantage of your optics. Film
is non-linear and is difficult to process digitally. It is dimensionally
unstable. Color film emulsions are always changing, and don't generally
provide great results (virtually all serious astroimagers have stopped
using film, but before they did, the best were imaging onto B&W film
through color filters to get rid of the limitations of color film).

If you are on a budget, consider a DSLR if you are interested in wide
field imaging (you can get Canon 300Ds for around $500). While not as
good as a cooled CCD, you will get results that are as good as film with
far less effort. If you are interested in smaller DSOs, consider a
smaller, cooled camera. Used ST7s are very nice, and not very expensive.

Film technology is obsolete for most purposes. I wouldn't recommend
anybody just starting go that route.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #3  
Old July 5th 05, 11:40 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


MonroeAstro wrote:


Wheather you wanted to or not you did start WWIII. You forgot one
important cost i.e. the cost of film and processing. I have my own
darkroom so I could process my own films. Hypered film is expensive If
you don't use hypered film then plan on 2 to 3x the exposure times.
Then you have to get it processed immediately, if you dont then the
advantages of hyperring dissapear. Then ther's the cost of prints. I
went to a Polaroid scanner so I could do some manipulation. My
Polaroid scanner cost $600. If I didn't use that then I would have
darkroom costs. I did this for 7 or 8 years. I was constantly
nickeled to death. On the average, I used about 20 hypered rolls
36-exp rolls /year., 2 gal of C-41 Chemistry, Ektaprint chemistry etc.
etc. etc. Then I live in the Philadelphia area with day-time night
skies so the no. of objects are limited to the brighter Messier ones.
After about 5 years I managed to get 15 Messier objects from my back
yard.
A year and half ago I bought the Starlight Express color camera.
Expensive yes but no more being nickeled to death. No more storing
the film in the freezer and annoying my wife. After 18 mos. I got 108
Messier objects from my back yard. Their not great but their mine and
a few are pretty good.
The big difference between the two methods is the so called dynamic
range. For CCD its about 10 times that of film. This means that the
ugly background can be subtracted from the image. Normally I take 40
1-min exposures. If a plane flies through, or even a firefly, I throw
the 1-min image away. There's another advantage 1-min exposures don't
require guiding, I haven't used my ST-4 for 18 months and that cost
$600, about the price of some b&w CCDs. Yes I've done manual guiding
but after 40 mins of guiding I need a serious neck-back rub.
If you have pristine skys, like some of those in this group do -go
with film. If you live near a big city CCD is the answer.
Incidentally I can always see one star (mag 2) in the little dipper,
most of the time 2 stars ( mag 2 and 3) in the deep-cold winter I might
see 3 (mag 2, 3, and 4) if I'm lucky and never see 4 stars (mag 2,3,4
and 5).
I went to Texas Star party a few years ago (about a 4000 mile round
trip) and shot up 3 rolls of 36 exp hypered color film and when I got
home there were no images. That never happeed befor that trip and
never since. Six mos. later I bought the CCD camera. After a 1 min
exposure I see the image.
Good luck with your choice and I hope my comments are helpfull



Ok, first off, I'm not trying to start a religious discussion, nor am
I
looking for a pretty new flame job. Im just a beginner in
astrophotography looking for some advice.

After being in amateur astronomy for the better part of a decade, I
have decided to dip my toe into astrophotography. It seems to me that
after alot of web surfing and research that film is still a viable
solution, and perhaps the biggest "bang for the buck" when it comes to
astrophotography. If I wanted to get a decent film setup, here is what
I think I would need:

Manual camera (Nikon FE, Oly OM1) - $100-$300 used
Cable Release - $20
Piggy back mount - $50
Lenses (if not prime focus) - $100 - $300+

The other things necessary (mount, scope, guidepieces, off-axis
guiders, etc) would be necessary with CCD as well, so I count them as a
"wash" for comparison.

Now when I look at the results of images taken by numerous amateurs
with the above setup, the seem comparible to those taken with 10K+ ccd
setups. Don't get me wrong, the modded webcams take some nice shots,
but they are not the stunning, rich, widefield or deep sky shots that
many of dream about taking someday. So it would seem to the untrained
newb that one could spend around $700 on a film setup, vs several
thousands on a CCD setup to get comparible results....what am I
missing, if anything?

Matt


  #4  
Old July 5th 05, 11:49 PM
T.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"MonroeAstro" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ok, first off, I'm not trying to start a religious discussion, nor am I
looking for a pretty new flame job. Im just a beginner in
astrophotography looking for some advice.

After being in amateur astronomy for the better part of a decade, I
have decided to dip my toe into astrophotography.


snip

Do you have, or have access to, "Astrophotography for the Amateur" by
Covington?
Good stuff.


  #6  
Old July 6th 05, 08:47 AM
justbeats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ignoring the need for and cost of the PC (by assuming you already have
one) I can't imagine ANY reason why someone starting out would choose
anything but digital imaging.

It's so convenient. Mistakes are seen and rectified in near real time.
Sensitivity is far better. Images are ready for processing immediately
(no scanning). The list of benefits over film goes on and on...

Just to throw petrol on the flames - I reckon a newbie strapping a
cheap CoolPix digicam to the eyepiece can produce results every bit as
good as those of any veteran film-based astrophotographer!

Ah technology - the great equaliser :-)

Cheers
Beats

  #7  
Old July 6th 05, 09:02 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What you are missing is that the results are not comparable at all,
unless we talk strictly of (very) wide angle shots. In this latter case
then a DSLR or film would get you pretty decent results (if your sky is
pretty dark though).

Andrea T.

  #8  
Old July 6th 05, 03:11 PM
Pfudrucker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, read twice already. Obviously, his book is geared more toward
film, although there is a section on digital in the latest rev.

  #9  
Old July 6th 05, 04:21 PM
Stephen Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"MonroeAstro" wrote in message
ps.com...
Being that I am just starting out, my focus is on wide field shots. I
don't think my mount would hold up well enough for prime focus. It just
seems to me, that all of the truly great photos that are displayed in
mags and books are either taken with film, or $10K+ CCD cameras.

Don't underestimate the satisfaction of making your own pictures, no matter
how they compare to the results of the advanced imager with deep pockets.

If I had $30,000, I'd pay down my mortgage and buy a decent second hand car
to replace the family junker. I just couldn't bring myself to spend that on
astro-gear. No way, no how.

$600 for a 6MP DSLR, $400 an 8" Newtonian, $1600 for a mount, $700 for a
3GHz P4 PC with 1GB of memory and another $400 or so in accessories is only
1/10th the cost of what the advanced imager has invested, and therefore a
lot less demanding on your precious spare time.

The results I get with the $3000+ I have tied up now is motivation enough to
get me out once a month. I am becoming more and more skilled in the art of
drift alignment, focus, data aquisition, and image processing. These are all
skills that precede creating good images, and they take time and patience to
develop. You may get lucky from time to time and get away with not being
meticulous about these processes, but it's just that, luck. To get
consistent results, requires that you master these skills.

Another positive thing about not having a lot invested, is that I don't
bitch when the skies are not cooperating. In fact, I might even pass up an
opportunity to image and skip a month. No big deal. I can catch up with that
object next year, or possible at a less optimal location in the sky the
following month.

Start simple. You don't even need to spend $1600 on a mount to get results
that exceed what was being done with film several years ago. You'd be
surprised what you can accomplish with a DSLR set to ISO 800 when used with
a 200mm F5 reflector on a well aligned mount that can track without error
for 30 seconds. Something like the Celestron Advanced Series 8" F5 Newtonian
with dual axis drive is an acceptable start if you aren't expecting the
results one can get with $30,000 worth of CCD, mount, and scope.


  #10  
Old July 7th 05, 02:51 AM
MonroeAstro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I currently have a Genesis SDF on an LXD75. A friend of mine gave me a
Nikon FE to get started with. I took it to a local camera shop and
spent $100 having it cleaned, lubed and refoamed. Works just like it
did 26 years ago when it came out of the box. If worse comes to worst,
I will have a very nice daylight SLR. The rest of the stuff I am
getting are things that I would likely need for any astrophotography
setup, so thats a wash if I decide to switch to digital later.

I guess I am just suprised by the seemingly unanimous battle cry of
"film is dead" when I see alot of great images done with film. Of
course y'all have infinitely more imaging experience than I do, so I
may be spittin in the wind!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Popping The Big Bang Jim Greenfield Astronomy Misc 701 July 8th 07 05:40 PM
Newbie digital astro questions... jtaylor Amateur Astronomy 0 March 25th 05 05:09 PM
Digital vs. Film in Astrophotography Jason Donahue CCD Imaging 35 January 5th 04 04:11 PM
The Noose Tightens Chuck Stewart Space Shuttle 14 September 11th 03 11:51 AM
Black and White Astrophotography Question Art Amateur Astronomy 5 August 4th 03 07:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.