Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: CCD vs 35mm

  1. #1
    Brian Hill's Avatar
    Brian Hill Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm



    Hi all. I'm quite green to astro photography and I'm using a Minolta SRT101
    body and doing all right but my question is this. What are the benefits of a
    CCD setup that takes a lot smaller picture and cost a ton of money. I
    realize a lot of people don't want to develop there own film but I like
    working in the dark room. I want to do CCD imaging but isn't it a lot of
    work splicing 20 or more images to equal one 35mm exposure, even with a
    computer? Thanks for your input and any other info that might help a new guy
    would be much apriciated.

    Brian



  2. #2
    Alson Wong's Avatar
    Alson Wong Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    "Brian Hill" <releif@last.net> wrote in message
    news:i4yQd.2986$bV6.2022@fe07.lga...

    CCD's are available now in 35mm format. That being said, there is a fairly
    limited number of objects that truly require a field several degrees wide.
    Adapters are also available to attach camera lenses to CCD cameras for wide
    fields. Thermoelectrically cooled CCD's have inherently lower noise than
    film and are much more sensitive, and the 16-bit data they produce can be
    processed more heavily. The instant feedback you get from CCD's is also a
    big plus, compared to film, where you won't be able to see your results
    until after the film has been processed. You can see some examples of
    wide-field CCD work at my Web site:
    http://webpages.charter.net/alsonwongweb/images.htm



  3. #3
    Wally Anglesea™'s Avatar
    Wally Anglesea™ Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:12:15 -0600, "Brian Hill" <releif@last.net>
    wrote:


    Horses for courses.

    One of the advantages of ccd is that you don't blow money on images
    that don't turn out :-)

    It depends on what you want to get. My LPI works fine for the stuff I
    want to image quickly (I like "instant gratification"), or manipulate
    on the PC. My wife's Minoltas however, take wider angle shots, and We
    are working on some nice panoramas.

    The advantage, IMHO of CCD is that with smart manipulation of either a
    video feed or an autostack, you can account for poor atmospherics in
    the middle of a shot.

    I've done sunspot images when passing cloud has interrupted a captured
    video stream. It was easy enough to exclude the frames that spoiled
    the shot.

    My wife uses 35mm Film exclusively, and I use digital (she's the
    photographer, I just like to point 'n click).

    We'll continue to use both technologies until I can convince her that
    we can get a Minolta SLR Digital camera that will match what she gets
    on film and slide (and we can afford it).


    http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese...Astronomy.html

    has some of my setup, and there are a couple of 35mm images, but
    mostly my digital stuff.



    --

    Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
    http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

    "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

  4. #4
    Chris L Peterson's Avatar
    Chris L Peterson Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:12:15 -0600, "Brian Hill" <releif@last.net>
    wrote:


    Film has one- and only one- possible advantage over CCD. Area for area,
    it's usually cheaper (although if you burn enough film, it can get
    expensive over time). Otherwise, CCD is a far superior medium:

    -Higher spatial resolution than most emulsions (especially now that Tech
    Pan is going away)
    -Much higher sensitivity
    -Much greater dynamic range
    -Linear response
    -The ability to add subimages (a trivial operation with CCD, not so
    trivial with film because of the non-linear response)
    -The ability to work directly with digital data without the additional
    losses associated with scanning
    -The ability to detect and correct problems during an imaging session
    -Absolute repeatability over time (no changes in emulsion chemistry to
    worry about)
    -Ability to do high quality photometry and astrometry.

    Of course, you can get CCD cameras now with the same area as 35mm film,
    but you need to decide if you even need that. The vast majority of DSOs
    don't require (and can't take advantage of) large sensors. Film is good
    for wide field imagers, and now there are CCDs that provide all of the
    above mentioned benefits.

    _________________________________________________

    Chris L Peterson
    Cloudbait Observatory
    http://www.cloudbait.com

  5. #5
    Mark S. Holden's Avatar
    Mark S. Holden Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    Brian Hill wrote:
    Hi Brian

    For me, the two main advantages to ccd's are:

    You can check your results on the spot.

    CCD's don't suffer from reciprocity failure like film. If you have a
    film camera with iso 400 film, and a digital SLR set for iso 400 and
    take a 2 minute exposure of M42 with both, you'll see more of the nebula
    on the digital image.

    The photographer who taught me about reciprocity said with a time
    exposure, photographic paper can be "faster" than 400 speed film. The
    reason is paper is designed for long exposures.

    Techniques like "Hypering" the film can help compensate for reciprocity
    failure, but they complicate the process.




  6. #6
    andrea tasselli's Avatar
    andrea tasselli Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<e6i511lq1c3pnq5jbbc2rig8upt3g3ojrh@4ax.com>. ..

    <snip>


    That, I'm afraid, depends solely on the focal length of the scope. For
    long enough focal lengths the number of DSOs you can fit in
    substantialy less than the 35mm format is going to drop to a vast
    minority.

    Reg's

    Andrea T.

  7. #7
    WPF's Avatar
    WPF Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm


    "Brian Hill" <releif@last.net> wrote in message
    news:i4yQd.2986$bV6.2022@fe07.lga...
    SRT101
    a
    guy

    This site may help>
    http://home.earthlink.net/~kitathome...eciprocity.htm



  8. #8
    Chris L Peterson's Avatar
    Chris L Peterson Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    On 16 Feb 2005 06:08:15 -0800, atasselli@hotmail.com (andrea tasselli)
    wrote:


    Of course. But I make the basic assumption here that an imager will at
    least approximately match his sensor to his scope. Lots of small pixels
    with a long focal length telescope doesn't buy any increase in
    resolution. There aren't many objects you can't fit on a modern, large
    format, megapixel CCD at maximal resolution (that is, at 0.5-1 arcsec
    per pixel) using a typical amateur-class telescope, at its native focal
    length or somewhat reduced.

    _________________________________________________

    Chris L Peterson
    Cloudbait Observatory
    http://www.cloudbait.com

  9. #9
    Tim Killian's Avatar
    Tim Killian Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    CCDs still have a way to go before they have the resolution of film.
    Color cameras will require a CCD or CMOS sensor with about 75 million
    pixels to equal 35 mm film.

    Alson Wong wrote:



  10. #10
    David Nakamoto's Avatar
    David Nakamoto Guest

    Default CCD vs 35mm

    I have to disagree in part. Depending on the size of the print, images can get
    close to photographic quality. 3x5 or 4x6 prints at 3.3 Mpixels don't look
    different from photographic prints. The newest digital cameras can create
    prints of 8x10 that will look fine to most people. The bottom line is whether,
    for most people, CCDs have enough pixels to look like photographs when displayed
    on the screen or on a print. Granted CCDs for general purpose digital cameras
    are way ahead of dedicated CCD cameras for telescopes, but the latter will catch
    up, one would assume soon.
    --
    Sincerely,
    --- Dave
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    It don't mean a thing
    unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
    Duke Ellington
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Tim Killian" <TJK@notmyrealemail.com> wrote in message
    newsoydnQP5kLkaMo7fRVn-tQ@bresnan.com...



 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Seibert 35mm eyepiece
    By WWPierre in forum Telescope Eyepieces Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 03:03 PM
  2. PC23C with a 35mm Lens
    By W. Watson in forum CCD Imaging Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2004, 02:02 AM
  3. What 35mm film?
    By James in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-07-2004, 04:46 PM
  4. Canon 35mm Adaptor
    By Paul F. Aubin in forum Meade Telescope Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2003, 12:28 PM
  5. 35mm film?
    By Glenn Mulno in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-15-2003, 04:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.