A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 16th 04, 03:08 PM
Richard Crisp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S

Here's another comparison image. This compares Thor's Helmet Halpha taken
with an Astro-Physics AP155EDF and ST10XME camera (binned 1x1) with one
taken with a C14 and IMG1024S camera. In this comparision, the plate scales
were close: AP155/ST10XME: 1.29 arc-sec/pixel, C14/IMG1024S: 1.12
arc-sec/pixel.

In this comparison, all sub exposures were 20 minutes. There were four such
subs with the AP/ST10, while there were three subs with the C14/IMG1024S.

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/..._thor_page.htm

Even though the AP155 has a focal ratio of f/7 and the C14 is at f/12.46,
the C14 goes deeper with the same sub exposures.


  #2  
Old February 16th 04, 06:58 PM
Richard Crisp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S


"Bill Meyers" wrote in message
...
Hello, Richard,
Two wonderful sets of comparison photos. It seems to me that the AP

images
show less but are more contrasty, the dark areas look darker and the

bright
areas look brighter. But there is definitely more information in the C14
images, it seems to me..
What inferences do you yourself draw from the comparisons?
Ciao and thanks for the images,
Bill Meyers


I should probably reprocess both sets of images. The contrast is a function
of the processing pretty much.

I was surprised that the C14 exposed faster with the same plate scale.
Someone had told me that exposure time is set by focal ratio solely for
extended objects, that aperture did not factor in. There is a difference in
the cameras but not a 4x difference.

The f./7 of the '155/st10 system is a lot faster than the f/12.46 of the
c14/DM system and going by the standard ratio of the squares, it is roughly
a 3.16x or so faster. There has to be more to it though.




Richard Crisp wrote:

Here's another comparison image. This compares Thor's Helmet Halpha

taken
with an Astro-Physics AP155EDF and ST10XME camera (binned 1x1) with one
taken with a C14 and IMG1024S camera. In this comparision, the plate

scales
were close: AP155/ST10XME: 1.29 arc-sec/pixel, C14/IMG1024S: 1.12
arc-sec/pixel.

In this comparison, all sub exposures were 20 minutes. There were four

such
subs with the AP/ST10, while there were three subs with the

C14/IMG1024S.

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/..._thor_page.htm

Even though the AP155 has a focal ratio of f/7 and the C14 is at

f/12.46,
the C14 goes deeper with the same sub exposures.




  #3  
Old February 16th 04, 07:03 PM
Bill Meyers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S

Hello, Richard,
Two wonderful sets of comparison photos. It seems to me that the AP images
show less but are more contrasty, the dark areas look darker and the bright
areas look brighter. But there is definitely more information in the C14
images, it seems to me..
What inferences do you yourself draw from the comparisons?
Ciao and thanks for the images,
Bill Meyers

Richard Crisp wrote:

Here's another comparison image. This compares Thor's Helmet Halpha taken
with an Astro-Physics AP155EDF and ST10XME camera (binned 1x1) with one
taken with a C14 and IMG1024S camera. In this comparision, the plate scales
were close: AP155/ST10XME: 1.29 arc-sec/pixel, C14/IMG1024S: 1.12
arc-sec/pixel.

In this comparison, all sub exposures were 20 minutes. There were four such
subs with the AP/ST10, while there were three subs with the C14/IMG1024S.

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/..._thor_page.htm

Even though the AP155 has a focal ratio of f/7 and the C14 is at f/12.46,
the C14 goes deeper with the same sub exposures.


  #4  
Old February 16th 04, 09:09 PM
Stefan Lilge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S

Richard,

interesting comparison. The C14 is a clear winner here. Probably the old
saying that larger optics have better contrast (everything else being equal
of course) is not so wrong :-)

Stefan

"Richard Crisp" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. com...
Here's another comparison image. This compares Thor's Helmet Halpha taken
with an Astro-Physics AP155EDF and ST10XME camera (binned 1x1) with one
taken with a C14 and IMG1024S camera. In this comparision, the plate

scales
were close: AP155/ST10XME: 1.29 arc-sec/pixel, C14/IMG1024S: 1.12
arc-sec/pixel.

In this comparison, all sub exposures were 20 minutes. There were four

such
subs with the AP/ST10, while there were three subs with the C14/IMG1024S.

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/..._thor_page.htm

Even though the AP155 has a focal ratio of f/7 and the C14 is at f/12.46,
the C14 goes deeper with the same sub exposures.



  #5  
Old February 17th 04, 08:07 AM
jerry warner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S

both stunning hi-qaulity images each with its own information bank. Superb
craftsmanship as ususal. Congrats!
jerry




Richard Crisp wrote:

Here's another comparison image. This compares Thor's Helmet Halpha taken
with an Astro-Physics AP155EDF and ST10XME camera (binned 1x1) with one
taken with a C14 and IMG1024S camera. In this comparision, the plate scales
were close: AP155/ST10XME: 1.29 arc-sec/pixel, C14/IMG1024S: 1.12
arc-sec/pixel.

In this comparison, all sub exposures were 20 minutes. There were four such
subs with the AP/ST10, while there were three subs with the C14/IMG1024S.

http://www.rdcrisp.darkhorizons.org/..._thor_page.htm

Even though the AP155 has a focal ratio of f/7 and the C14 is at f/12.46,
the C14 goes deeper with the same sub exposures.


  #6  
Old February 20th 04, 04:03 AM
David Whysong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ASTRO: another comparision of AP155/ST10XME with C14/IMG1024S

In sci.astro.amateur, Richard Crisp wrote:

I was surprised that the C14 exposed faster with the same plate scale.
Someone had told me that exposure time is set by focal ratio solely for
extended objects, that aperture did not factor in. There is a difference in
the cameras but not a 4x difference.


Focal ratio is not the whole story -- you really want to compare the
pixel size divided by the focal ratio, squared. And (24/12.42)^2 is
much greater than (6.8/7)^2. That's ignoring QE, throughput, etc. but
it's a good first approximation.

The f./7 of the '155/st10 system is a lot faster than the f/12.46 of the
c14/DM system and going by the standard ratio of the squares, it is roughly
a 3.16x or so faster. There has to be more to it though.


Yes, QE and pixel size are important. The QE of the SITE back-illuminated
chip is a little higher than the Kodak, though XME chips are pretty decent.

But the C14/SITE setup has a big advantage because the pixels are huge -
24 microns, as opposed to 6.8 micron pixels on the ST-10XME. That's a
factor of 12.5 more area! The C14 gathers a lot more photons (a factor
of 5 if you just consider the ratio of apertures squared, but the actual
advantage in light gathering is probably more like a factor of ~ 3 due to
losses from the central obstruction, reflection, etc.) but the longer focal
length means the scale of the focal plane is larger. Sure, the refractor is
faster and that works to it's benefit (by a factor of ~ 3), but the larger
pixels of the SITE chip, combined with the large aperture of the C14, more
than compensate.

You haven't perfectly matched the pixel scale. If you did (or if you
re-sample the image to the same scale) then for this kind of comparison
the focal lengths and pixel sizes are no longer important; you just care
about QE, aperture, and light throughput. In that case, the C14 aperture
gives it a clear advantage. Roughly guessing at the light throughput for
a C14, I'd guess that it's about 3x more sensitive than the AP155/ST-10
combination.

Of course, the AP155 has other advantages over a C14, notably the ability
to do extremely wide-field imaging.

Dave

David Whysong
DWhysong (at) physics (dot) ucsb (dot) edu
 




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
ASTRO: Comparision of C14/IMG1024S with AP155/ST10XME Richard Crisp Amateur Astronomy 22 February 19th 04 12:07 AM
ASTRO: Comparision of C14/IMG1024S with AP155/ST10XME Richard Crisp CCD Imaging 6 February 17th 04 01:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 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.