Detailed CCD help please!

[badgerchap]

Hi chaps and chapettes,

I'm going to save up for a dedicated CCD. Whilst I love my 1100D I'm not loving missing out on all the H-alpha data out there. Now I know I could get the DSLR modded, but that's fairly expensive if I get the Baader replacement glass and the Astronomik clip filter so I can maintain an interest in terrestrial photography. Considering I'd probably still end up going for a CCD in the future, then to me there's no point spending money on an incremental improvement now and then also buying a CCD later. Much better to make the jump sooner and save a few hundred quid in the long run. To this end I am looking at the Atik Titan or the 314L+ (both mono).

What I really want to know is:

A) What specific benefits will I gain over a modded DSLR?

What differences (other than price) exist between above models? Is it worth the large price difference for the 314?

C) How difficult is a CCD to use, in comparison to the relative simplicity of a DSLR? Provided the same basic methodology during imaging sessions, will any improvements be instantly apparent, or will such only be liberated during process?

D) Are there any disadvantages to dedicated CCDs? Obviously using mono can (apparently) make time tighter, but other than this are there any reasons to resist the temptation to move upward to a CCD?

Many thanks in advance to any repliers, and please feel to be as simple or as complex as necessary. I'm eternally grateful, particularly seeing as this hobby is starting to get pricey, and as few as possible purchasing mishaps is increasingly important!

Badgerchap

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!

[sloz1664]

Go for the best CCD camera you can afford, second hand if needs be. Forget about filters, filter wheels

for the time being you purchase these when you have the cash later. I would look for a second hand Attik 314L or HR16,

or SXVF H9 mono cameras. These are now going for around £600 - £700. A good start into dedicated ccd imaging.

cheers

Steve

[swag72]

I would wholeheartedly recommend a CCD having moved from a DSLR.

1) The 314L+ is a cracking little camera and certainly one that gets much press and rightly so. It has got a tiny chip though compared to your DSLR. Be prepared for that and make sure that you can live with the difference. There are people who moved from a DSLR to a 314L+ who just couldn't get on with the small chip size.

2) With a 314L+ be prepared for mosaics for the bigger stuff. For example, AndyUK has posted a fantastic image of IC1396 using his 314L+. It took him 12 panes in total. With my bigger chip 460EX for example, I could do it in 4 and with a DSLR you could probably do it in one go! If your interest is in the bigger stuff, the 314L+ isn't for the faint hearted!!!

3) Personally I find the CCD easier to use than the DSLR. It is far more sensitive, framing is easier as you can often see the target straight away, and of course there's NB to think about with a mono CCD. In my book, it's worth it for that alone!! The processing side, if I'm honest, I think is much easier. Your data will be better coming from a cooled CCD and so there's less to do!

Having used a DSLR for a while, then modding it, then getting a CCD, I wish I'd gone straight to a CCD.

[badgerchap]

Darn, I was afraid people would be this encouraging! I see £££ departing from a bank account in the near future.....

So the 314+ is worth the extra cash then? I understand that whilst this still has a smaller sensor than a DSLR, it's bigger than on the Titan. Is that correct?

Cheers for the help guys!

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!

[swag72]

Much bigger than the Titan.

Lifted from the FLO site

Titan

Resolution: 659 x 494

Pixel Size: 7.4um

314L+

Horizontal Resolution: 1392 pixels

Vertical Resolution: 1040 pixels

Pixel Size: 6.45 µM x 6.45 µM

In my opinion, worth the cash!! But now I'd be looking at the 450 or 428, especially is you are going to buy new that is.

[r3i]

Download CCDCalc and you can then see how much of a FOV you will get with your scope and the Atik (or any other combination of scope & camera that you fancy).

[ollypenrice]

CCD is easier than DSLR. A lot easier. Atik's Artemis capture is a peach to operate and gives you all the controls you do want and, even more importantly, none of the features you don't want and have to disable or work around with a DSLR.

CCDs produce a vastly better signal to noise ratio. They are cooled and can do very long exposures to capture faint stuff, notably in narrowband. They have a greater well depth and capture star colour superbly.

There has been a lot on this recently butin absolute terms I will always argue that mono is faster than colour. It is faster. However, it can be frustrating if you don't finish a sequence.

The chip on the Titan is just too small. I think it would drive you nuts.

CCD is great...

Olly

[badgerchap]

Much bigger than the Titan.

Lifted from the FLO site

Titan

Resolution: 659 x 494

Pixel Size: 7.4um

314L+

Horizontal Resolution: 1392 pixels

Vertical Resolution: 1040 pixels

Pixel Size: 6.45 µM x 6.45 µM

In my opinion, worth the cash!! But now I'd be looking at the 450 or 428, especially is you are going to buy new that is.

Excellent - so not only is the sensor larger, the pixels are smaller too. Good news.

Unfortunately I may be forced to go second hand, as I may not be patient enough to save up for new! But I will take a look at the 450 and 428.

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!

[badgerchap]

Download CCDCalc and you can then see how much of a FOV you will get with your scope and the Atik (or any other combination of scope & camera that you fancy).

Brilliant, thanks. I will do this as soon as I get home

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!

[badgerchap]

CCD is easier than DSLR. A lot easier. Atik's Artemis capture is a peach to operate and gives you all the controls you do want and, even more importantly, none of the features you don't want and have to disable or work around with a DSLR.

CCDs produce a vastly better signal to noise ratio. They are cooled and can do very long exposures to capture faint stuff, notably in narrowband. They have a greater well depth and capture star colour superbly.

There has been a lot on this recently butin absolute terms I will always argue that mono is faster than colour. It is faster. However, it can be frustrating if you don't finish a sequence.

The chip on the Titan is just too small. I think it would drive you nuts.

CCD is great...

Olly

Thanks Olly, sound advice as always! Your own images are certainly a testament to what can be done, although I suspect it may take more than a new camera to get me up to your level.

Yes the 'workarounds' are certainly a contribution to my desire for an upgrade, most notable shutter vibrations, and as I discovered recently, DSS really doesn't like auto rotated images from my 1100D.

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!

[sloz1664]

Forgot to add. The sony chip ccd's I have stated previously are very clean & don't necessarily require dark frames.

That's a massive saving on imaging time as I always took my darks straight after my lights when imaging with my canon 350D. CCD cooling is a must...

cheers

Steve

[Gina]

Amen to all that To think how much time and money I spent trying to get the last ounce of performance out of an 1100D... the mind boggles! It was fun but really I wasted a lot of valuable imaging time as well as something like twice what I spent on the Atik 314L+. I still find it hard to believe just how good the mono 314L+ is - I've run out of superlatives

I've got over the smaller sensor size by using prime camera lenses as telescopes - particularly the old excellent quality SLR lenses. The 314L+ has sufficient resolution for PC monitors as long as you take care to frame your object well and avoid too much cropping

[ollypenrice]

Forgot to add. The sony chip ccd's I have stated previously are very clean & don't necessarily require dark frames.

That's a massive saving on imaging time as I always took my darks straight after my lights when imaging with my canon 350D. CCD cooling is a must...

cheers

Steve

Even if using a noisy Kodak chip you can make a darks library. Sure, I covet the low noise of the Sony chips but I want the Kodak real estate so I have a darks library. If going for a smaller chip go Sony without a doubt.

Olly

[perfrej]

And I never do darks

I have two cameras with Kodak chips and one with Sony chip. The Sony one is OSC and doesn't get used much... I think that the important thing is to get rid of the camera BIAS, so that's what I do.

Both my Kodak-based cameras have the same chip, KAF-8300. One camera is SBIG and one is QSI, the latter of a later date. BIAS level of the SBIG is about three times as high compared to the QSI. Noise or not, the problem is more in the electronics than in the chip itself, and I, for one, have never had any noise issues with the Kodaks.

Workflow with a mono CCD is a lot easier than people think. The filter wheel is not a problem and, as Olly correctly states, the total time for an image is A LOT less than both OSC and DSLR. Processing is a breeze compared to combined colour approaches.

Go mono, and concentrate on image scale. You want to end up above 1"/px and below, say, 2 or 3.

/per

[badgerchap]

CCDCalc was a good eye opener, thanks r3i - although I think I now want a CCD more than ever. It has also shown me that I'll want to keep using the DSLR though, particularly for big targets like M32 - I'd hate to think how many panels would be needed to make up a mosaic of that beast with a 314L+!

[Gina]

I thought I'd continue to use the 1100D DSLR for colour but the 314L+ mono CCD is SO very much esier to use and processing the data so much easier that I've never use a DSLR for imaging since I first tried the Atik CCD. I can collect far superior data in a fraction of the time. Absolutely NO CONTEST! Sorry to keep repeating myself... but no-one can possibly understand the difference until they try!

[kirkster501]

How robust and reliable are CCD cameras? You are looking at £2200 odd for a Atik 490 (the one I am interested in). That's a lot of money tied up in a piece of delicate electronics.

What's the after sales service / repair bills like for these things?

Steve

[Chris]

I thought I'd continue to use the 1100D DSLR for colour but the 314L+ mono CCD is SO very much esier to use and processing the data so much easier that I've never use a DSLR for imaging since I first tried the Atik CCD. I can collect far superior data in a fraction of the time. Absolutely NO CONTEST! Sorry to keep repeating myself... but no-one can possibly understand the difference until they try!

I can back this up, I've only got a small chipped Brightstar Mammut mono CCD (very similar to the Titan) but I've not wanted to touch my modded Canon 500D since! Weirdly I've not been put off by the massive reduction in chip size, on the contrary I've enjoyed imaging smaller objects up close and the lightning fast processing as a result of the much smaller file size is great also. I also thought it would be tricky finding targets with such a small chip but with a 3 star alligment and setting continued looping of 1-2 seconds exposures objects are quite straight forward to centre.

[badgerchap]

How do you guys cope with larger targets with these smaller chips? Do you avoid them altogether or go in for mosaics?

[Gina]

I've been using shorter focal length optics viz. camera lenses of 55mm, 105, and 200mm but I plan to try mosaics later. At present the smaller chip size is working fine with my MN190 for galaxies

[badgerchap]

I've been using shorter focal length optics viz. camera lenses of 55mm, 105, and 200mm but I plan to try mosaics later. At present the smaller chip size is working fine with my MN190 for galaxies

I'm afraid I rather covet your MN190, looks like a lovely scope.

I wonder if that should be one of the SGL rules, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's tubes"?

[AndyUK]

How do you guys cope with larger targets with these smaller chips? Do you avoid them altogether or go in for mosaics?

As I can't afford another CCD camera, for larger DSO's I personally go for a mosaic... but as Sara said, it's certainly not for the faint-hearted and you need a bit of commitment and patience - here's a link to a couple of 12 pane images I'm working on at the moment:

IC1805- 12 panes MN190 & 314L+

NOTE: Now I have a widefield refractor, I'll be taking the OIII and SII in 4 panes each...

IC1396 - 12 panes APM80/f4.5 & 314L+

I have to admit though, I find mosaics of this size a bit of a challenge and I wouldn't do them by choice - I said after the first one that I'd never go above 4 panes again (please don't ask why I didn't listen to myself - I have no idea!), but the resolution you achieve is very satisfying...

I love my 314L+ as it's excellent at getting in close with my MN190, but in a perfect world, I'd really prefer to also have a 460 to put on the APM80/f4.5 for wide field large nebula imaging...

[sloz1664]

Even if using a noisy Kodak chip you can make a darks library. Sure, I covet the low noise of the Sony chips but I want the Kodak real estate so I have a darks library. If going for a smaller chip go Sony without a doubt.

Olly

I agree you can create dark libraries with a dedicated ccd due to set point or other cooling facilities, but I was commenting on using a standard digital camera which has no cooling facilities.

Creating dark libraries would on a standard digital camera really needs to be compiled after taking the lights due to the temperature issues.

cheers

Steve

[kirkster501]

Do you need to have BIAS frames with a CCD as well ?

[badgerchap]

How would a darks library work? Presumably you'd need a massive number, i.e. a selection of different exposure times at a large range of temperatures? Also, how might you ensure you're using darks from the correct temperature? Would it be a case of finding the mean (or maybe even mode) EXIF temperature of the lights and merely selecting appropriate ones from the library, or would you require a matching EXIF temp dark for each light frame, as presumably you never get all lights at the same temp?

Posted via Tapatalk on an ageing iPhone so please excuse any erroneous spellings or accidental profanities!