easy and free way to determine Milky Way's best position for widefield imaging of it?

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:21:02 -0500, Bill Baxter
wrote:

Darker skies by traveling as mentioned above, but cooled CCD seems
impractical and I don't see anyone renting them. I've actually had my
eye on a Sony A7R or S rental as I understand it's noise is about the
best there is in DSLR at present, but still thought I would pose the
question here.

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images.
Such images, even in dark sites, are limited in subexposure time to
just a couple of minutes, and are unlikely to require more than a few
minutes of total exposure. With good modern consumer cameras, noise is
low and you'll not have a significant S/N penalty compared with a
cooled CCD.

The situation is very different for longer focal length astroimaging,
where a cooled camera will offer significantly better results than
even the best consumer DSLR.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images.

https://www.sbscientific.com/product...as/allsky-237/

Looks "very wide angle" to me.

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 10:21:21 AM UTC-5, Bill Baxter wrote:

Darker skies by traveling as mentioned above, but cooled CCD seems
impractical and I don't see anyone renting them. I've actually had my
eye on a Sony A7R or S rental as I understand it's noise is about the
best there is in DSLR at present, but still thought I would pose the
question here.

If you haven't read this already:

http://digital-photography-school.co...sive-tutorial/

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:08:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images.

https://www.sbscientific.com/product...as/allsky-237/

Looks "very wide angle" to me.

It's not a very good allsky camera, and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:59:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:08:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images.

https://www.sbscientific.com/product...as/allsky-237/

Looks "very wide angle" to me.

It's not a very good allsky camera,

Irrelevant.

and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

Irrelevant.

Cooling appears to be beneficial to DSLRs and to wide field photography, which can be done with cooled CCDs. The OP should try to work out his DLSR's "noise" problem, if that's really what the problem is, before going on to something more complicated. However, to get the results HE wants, maybe he will have to do that.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 04:27:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:59:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:08:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images.

https://www.sbscientific.com/product...as/allsky-237/

Looks "very wide angle" to me.

It's not a very good allsky camera,

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant. This camera is not useful for making aesthetic
Milky Way images, which is what the OP is interested in doing.

and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

Irrelevant.

Not at all, since the OP is utilizing a modern camera with a low noise
sensor.

Cooling appears to be beneficial to DSLRs and to wide field photography, which can be done with cooled CCDs. The OP should try to work out his DLSR's "noise" problem, if that's really what the problem is, before going on to something more complicated. However, to get the results HE wants, maybe he will have to do that.

He already has, by looking at a newer DSLR. Such cameras do not need
cooling for wide angle, sky-noise limited exposures.

If that's the extent of his astronomical imaging interest, a cooled
CCD camera would be a gross waste of money.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 9:18:21 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 04:27:10 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 9:59:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:08:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:03:04 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is no value in a cooled CCD for taking very wide angle images..

https://www.sbscientific.com/product...as/allsky-237/

Looks "very wide angle" to me.

It's not a very good allsky camera,

Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant. This camera is not useful for making aesthetic
Milky Way images, which is what the OP is interested in doing.

Incorrect. "Aesthetic" is a subjective judgement.

and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

Irrelevant.

Not at all, since the OP is utilizing a modern camera with a low noise
sensor.

Irrelevant. He is still reporting an unacceptable amount of noise. There is most certainly noise in modern DSLRs. Some have sought and implemented ways to reduce that noise.


Cooling appears to be beneficial to DSLRs and to wide field photography, which can be done with cooled CCDs. The OP should try to work out his DLSR's "noise" problem, if that's really what the problem is, before going on to something more complicated. However, to get the results HE wants, maybe he will have to do that.

He already has, by looking at a newer DSLR. Such cameras do not need
cooling for wide angle, sky-noise limited exposures.

Incorrect. The noise is still there.

If that's the extent of his astronomical imaging interest, a cooled
CCD camera would be a gross waste of money.

Irrelevant comment, since we have not seen any of his images, nor know exactly what he wants to do.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:37:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

It is highly relevant. This camera is not useful for making aesthetic
Milky Way images, which is what the OP is interested in doing.

Incorrect. "Aesthetic" is a subjective judgement.

The OP made it very clear what sort of image he was after. And it
wouldn't be possible with a low pixel count, monochrome allsky camera.

and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

Irrelevant.

Not at all, since the OP is utilizing a modern camera with a low noise
sensor.

Irrelevant. He is still reporting an unacceptable amount of noise. There is most certainly noise in modern DSLRs. Some have sought and implemented ways to reduce that noise.

In fact, noise is not a significant issue anymore for the exposure
times involved in capturing astronomical landscape images.

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:11:32 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:37:30 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

It is highly relevant. This camera is not useful for making aesthetic
Milky Way images, which is what the OP is interested in doing.

Incorrect. "Aesthetic" is a subjective judgement.

The OP made it very clear what sort of image he was after.

No, he did not, actually. Have somebody read and explain his posts to you.

And it
wouldn't be possible with a low pixel count, monochrome allsky camera.

No one suggested that he should use that camera. It was presented as an example of how cooling might be useful with almost any sensor, used with almost any lens.

and the only value the cooling has
in this case is because the ancient sensor is extremely high noise by
modern standards.

Irrelevant.

Not at all, since the OP is utilizing a modern camera with a low noise
sensor.

Irrelevant. He is still reporting an unacceptable amount of noise. There is most certainly noise in modern DSLRs. Some have sought and implemented ways to reduce that noise.

In fact, noise is not a significant issue anymore for the exposure
times involved in capturing astronomical landscape images.

Based on the rather vague info that he has provided, it still seems to be a significant issue for the OP WRT the results he has obtained thus far.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:18:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The OP made it very clear what sort of image he was after.

No, he did not, actually. Have somebody read and explain his posts to you.

Suit yourself. If you want to provide poor advice, go ahead. That's
pretty much your specialty. I think the OP is smart enough to figure
out where the useful information is coming from.