Jump to content

 

1825338873_SNRPN2021banner.jpg.68bf12c7791f26559c66cf7bce79fe3d.jpg

 

Moon comparison


toxic
 Share

Recommended Posts

just a comparison between the EOS 1100D and the ATIK 383L for size and detail in case any one is considering going from dslr to ccd.

as you can see there is not much difference in size for the full frame no crop but there is a fair bit of difference in detail.

 first the eos 1100d 76 x 1/640 th second @ iso 100 stacked in registax and wavelets from last month.

post-12098-0-67541900-1410964368_thumb.j
second the atik 383L  14 subs @ 0.001 sec with Olll filter to cut down the glare (seems to work like or better than a moon filter) from 4 days ago.
post-12098-0-31995100-1410964600_thumb.j
i know you should not compare a dslr to a dedicated  ccd but i could not help it lol just thought it may help to see the difference in size and quality.
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second picture is very nice. Not sure it's an entirely fair comparison though, how much of the difference is due to the camera and how much is down to the filter and processing? Were the two pictures taken on the same night? In the CCD image some of the craters at top right seem to be closer to the limb.

This is my best effort so far on the Moon with a Canon 1100D and an old 450mm lens.

14232405383_42f7458ce9_c.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi tingting the banding is due to it being a jpeg compression for posting 

The second picture is very nice. Not sure it's an entirely fair comparison though, how much of the difference is due to the camera and how much is down to the filter and processing? Were the two pictures taken on the same night? In the CCD image some of the craters at top right seem to be closer to the limb.

This is my best effort so far on the Moon with a Canon 1100D and an old 450mm lens.

14232405383_42f7458ce9_c.jpg

the comparison wasnt done to to show the better quality but more to do with field of view and allso i forgot to mention that the eos had a 2" baader uhc+l filter and i dont have 1 of them to fit my 383l+filter wheel sorry for any misunderstanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting question. CCDs are unquestionably better for imaging DSOs due to much higher signal-to-noise ratios, but are they significantly better for Lunar imaging? The Moon is very bright so there is plenty of signal - get enough subs and noise shouldn't be an issue.

One scenario where a CCD camera might have an advantage is when using very high magnifications and slow optics. The more sensitive CCD should be able to grab the same data with a shorter exposure, making it less susceptible to atmospheric blurring. Also, the DSLR shutter might introduce a bit of shake which could become apparent at high mag.

For full disc imaging I'd be surprised if there is much in it, I'd be more concerned about focus, seeing, optics and processing. Of course, I could be overlooking something - if anyone wants to donate me the kit to carry out a scientific test I'd be happy to accept. ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting comparison, specially as I am contemplating a modded DSLR ( I know, that is another comparison we dont need cos the moon has no Ha !) the finance Q also came to mind :)

 and processing?

Same thought here, I thought I saw more (jpg? sharpening?) artefacts in the second pic. so I've been fiddling with stretch, sharp, contrast, curves etc in Artweaver and actually the differences are then not so marked,

but of course that is just me without the original files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh deer i should not have mentioned quality and just stuck to field of view that was the reason for the post.

looks like i have started something that was'nt meant, that will teach me to be more careful what i post and how i post it.

It's a great pic and you should be well pleased with the quality of the camera.

To be fair though you did say size and quality in the op :D

i no my bad, and i forgot to mention my bad processing skills  :embarassed:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i no my bad, and i forgot to mention my bad processing skills  :embarassed:

Oh, I didnt mean to crit your processing !

I thought the two pics were as they came from the Registax and Atik softwares :) !

I was struck by your  "size and detail" comment in your first post so

I first resized them to same size, then I tried my best to match their contrst and sharpness

and was quite surprised to find the detail not vastly different

(like many of the wee craterlets were similar in both)

but I'm not practiced in the arts of post processing, it was just a curiosity exersize for me :)

As KofCS says, all very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Edited by Ptarmigan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I didnt mean to crit your processing !

im not bothered about being criticized without it i would not learn anything  :smiley:

they are both strait from registax with wavelets no other software was used except to convert to jpg with paintshop pro for posting i know that the eos picture qual is not up to scratch and from different nights but it was all i had to show full moon from the camera to give an example of field of view for both camera's and it was just a thought to see what they would be like.and i wanted to try the atik on the moon as it was so bright .

i have 1 question if some one will answer it. when shooting raw from the 1100d when converted to tiff the file size is around 32mb for 12.2 mpxl and the atik 383l mono saved as tiff is 16mb for 8.1 mgpxl should'nt the atik file size be around 20mb for 8.1 mgpxl or am i missing something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have 1 question if some one will answer it. when shooting raw from the 1100d when converted to tiff the file size is around 32mb for 12.2 mpxl and the atik 383l mono saved as tiff is 16mb for 8.1 mgpxl should'nt the atik file size be around 20mb for 8.1 mgpxl or am i missing something.

Good morning :) I saw your question last night but as I know very little about it and I dont have any real images of my own yet (just a humble little bridge camera that I play with) I thought I'd wait till an expert came along.

And it's all above my pay grade anyway ! :)

So, for what its worth I'll kick the ball :

I took a guess and put " TIFF Compression " into google and Lo! lots of stuff came up !

eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format#Compression

It seems that there are lots of different compression methods/stamdards including a jpeg variation,

eh! what's that all about I thought TIFF was a lossless format ??

So the next thought is, what formats were used to convert your RAWs

and what file size do you get if you use DCRAW to do the conversion ?

( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ , there are windows versions available )

What options does the 1100 and the Atik give you ?

When I was messing with your pics I did think of asking for the un-jpeg-ed files to play with, , , but at those file sizes I think not ! LOL ! Well not yet !

Edited by Ptarmigan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the next thought is, what formats were used to convert your RAWs

and what file size do you get if you use DCRAW to do the conversion ?

( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ , there are windows versions available )

What options does the 1100 and the Atik give you ?

When I was messing with your pics I did think of asking for the un-jpeg-ed files to play with, , , but at those file sizes I think not ! LOL ! Well not yet !

the Atik tiffs come strait from the camera they are saved that way and the 1100D they are converted from raw to tiff with canons own dpp Digital Photo Professional if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.