DSLR HA Rosette Nebula

[barkis]

Well, I think we can dismount from this Merry Go Round. The various points have been hammered home
and satisfaction should now reign all round.
I don't think Max's Image submission has been harmed in any way.
 Information that has  arisen from the thread will hopefully be of use to others.
So, as well as a nice Image, some knowledge too.


 

 

[Adam J]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I like the image and think it very creditable on all counts. I do, though, spend lots of time on here and have not come across CCD imagers claiming that you can't do NB with a DSLR. I join Scott in saying, in effect, that the sentence, 'There is a common misconception among CCD owners that you cant do narrow band with a DSLR...its a load of rubbish you can do it and it delivers a large relative performance increase' creates a straw man. I can't think of a single CCD imager I know, and given my job I know quite a few, who would say that. What we would, and often do, say is that in Ha you are running on only a quarter of your pixels with the loss of signal and resolution commensurate with that. The resolution may matter little given the small pixel size of modern DSLRs. We might also say that Ha will probably work best of the NB filters. How does SII work through a Bayer Matrix? I don't know.

So good image but incorrect assertion that CCD imagers commonly talk rubbish about Ha in DSLRs. I don't believe they do.

Olly

 

At no point have I gone out to deliberately antagonize anyone with any of my statements. I simply wanted to congratulate the OP on his image and encourage others to also try using narrow band with their DSLR.

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I think there is a large degree of 'missing the point' here. The point was nothing to do with CCD vs DSLR or any such thing, it was simply that DSLR imagers should not discount NB imaging and the benefits it can bring under LP conditions if they are not yet ready to move up to CCD. It was a very simple point which was misinterpreted.

Happy Christmas all.

Thanks, although it did not come out clearly in my original statement, that was the message i was shooting for.

[ollypenrice]

I think we're all happy with this. Let's leave it with a 'Happy Christmas' and be done, eh?

Still lots of time to enjoy the Rosette and capture plenty of data on it. It's a fabulous object and bright enough not to discriminate against those with poorer skies. It's also a classic photographer's object since, while it is a huge buzz to see it at all visually, you do need a camera to find out what's really there.

Olly

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think we're all happy with this. Let's leave it with a 'Happy Christmas' and be done, eh?

Still lots of time to enjoy the Rosette and capture plenty of data on it. It's a fabulous object and bright enough not to discriminate against those with poorer skies. It's also a classic photographer's object since, while it is a huge buzz to see it at all visually, you do need a camera to find out what's really there.

Olly

Thank you Olly

Happy Christmas to you!

[Maximidius]

2 hours ago, toxic said:

great image Max

 

Thank you, toxic.  

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm responding only to AdamJ's incorrect assertion, 

'There is a common misconception among CCD owners that you cant do narrow band with a DSLR.'

This misconception does not exist. We CCD imagers know perfectly well that you can do NB, and particularly Ha, with a DSLR and we frequently say so on here. AdamJ chose to add that this opinion, which is not held by CCD imagers, is 'a load of rubbish.' What is really a load of rubbish is the claim that we hold this opinion when we don't - but, hey, let's not make a big deal of this.

Very nice Rosette from the OP.

Olly

Thanks for the kind comment, Olly.  ...for a moment i thought you were responding to me, I was like "what did i do?" I'm glad you cleared that up.  

I have to be honest, I've not been in the AP hobby for long, so i'm not too familiar with all of the historical debates relating to CCD vs DSLR with NB filters and what's possible or not. Of course i have done research relating to the modifications that i have completed with my DSLRs and so have read some of the 'opinions' regarding NB DSLR imaging. There is obviously some snobbery and elitism in this hobby, as well as jealousy; especially when it comes to equipment and associated image production. Clearly CCD imagers are at the forefront of this game, They are after all working with devices designed specifically for purpose. I would also expect that many CCD imagers have walked a path that has transitioned from DSLR to CCD. As such, i find it hard to believe that anyone with any technical knowhow would know it was not only possible to do NB with a DSLR but, would also understand the restrictions imposed by a bayered DSLR sensor when imaging NB. Furthermore, comparisons made like for modified like, hold some validity when establishing the efficiency of said modifications. Making comparisons against equipment that has been designed specifically for purpose, might be great for benchmarking, but is ultimately a false economy as a DSLR has and never was designed specifically for astrophotography...I feel like i am stating the obvious here though and thus, as you have pointed out, this 'misconception debate' does seem rather illogical. 

Anyway - Thanks again  

 

PS ..AdamJ keep up the good work, your modifications look professional and well finished. When i dig out the photos i'll pop some up.

PSS...While i was 'Typing very slowly'  it would seem that there have been further posts lol. Thanks you guys for getting this sorted.  

PSSS...I need to type faster lol

Happy Christmas to one and all from an expat in Japan missing home

[Scott]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

I think there is a large degree of 'missing the point' here. The point was nothing to do with CCD vs DSLR or any such thing, it was simply that DSLR imagers should not discount NB imaging and the benefits it can bring under LP conditions if they are not yet ready to move up to CCD. It was a very simple point which was misinterpreted.

Happy Christmas all.

 

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm responding only to AdamJ's incorrect assertion, 

'There is a common misconception among CCD owners that you cant do narrow band with a DSLR.'

This misconception does not exist. We CCD imagers know perfectly well that you can do NB, and particularly Ha, with a DSLR and we frequently say so on here. AdamJ chose to add that this opinion, which is not held by CCD imagers, is 'a load of rubbish.' What is really a load of rubbish is the claim that we hold this opinion when we don't - but, hey, let's not make a big deal of this.

Very nice Rosette from the OP.

Olly

As was I Olly. It was after all Adamj who made it about ccd v dslr

 

[Stu]

47 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

As was I Olly. It was after all Adamj who made it about ccd v dslr

 

Scott, I think the discussion has moved on somewhat.

What might be interesting is to pick up on the point raised earlier about the possibility of imaging with CCD under £1k which I think you talked about?

[ollypenrice]

I don't think there is much snobbery or élitism in this passion - and certainly not here on SGL where it would be unacceptable not just to the moderators but to the community. We are all, after all, trying to do the impossible in full knowledge that we can only get so far with it!

In debates about equipment I'm generally concerned not to pepetuate myths or widely held assumptions when they are incorrect. Mono, for instance, is not slower than OSC according to any theory or experiment which I've ever encountered. Focal reducers don't necessarily follow the F ratio rule. Noisy chips don't necessarily produce noisy images - etc etc.

As for CCD versus DSLR, I think this may become an issue of the past since the CCD is threatened by extinction. Sony have declared that they won't be making them after a couple of years. It's not certain that monochrome CMOS chips will appear to replace them but let's hope they do because there is no doubt that some kinds of deep sky image simply do require monochrome chips and specialist filters. We're in a strange position with this situation in that better cameras might be around the corner, should be around the corner, but might not be!

Olly

 

 

[Adam J]

1 minute ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't think there is much snobbery or élitism in this passion - and certainly not here on SGL where it would be unacceptable not just to the moderators but to the community. We are all, after all, trying to do the impossible in full knowledge that we can only get so far with it!

In debates about equipment I'm generally concerned not to pepetuate myths or widely held assumptions when they are incorrect. Mono, for instance, is not slower than OSC according to any theory or experiment which I've ever encountered. Focal reducers don't necessarily follow the F ratio rule. Noisy chips don't necessarily produce noisy images - etc etc.

As for CCD versus DSLR, I think this may become an issue of the past since the CCD is threatened by extinction. Sony have declared that won't be making them after a couple of years. It's not certain that monochrome CMOS chips will appear to replace them but let's hope they do because there is no doubt that some kinds of deep sky image simply do require monochrome chips and specialist filters. We're in a strange position with this situation in that better cameras might be around the corner, should be around the corner, but might not be!

Olly

 

 

As far as I am aware the future is in multi layer CMOS or "Organic-o-Silicon Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor" color sensors. To cut a long story short depending on the design you can get either Three level or two level designs that allow a single pixel area to become sensitive to all wavelengths, think of it as RGB pixels stacked on top of each other,you either double to triple the effective light gathering area dependent on the design. I am personally quite excited by the possibilities of this technology as you are in effect collecting Luminance and RGB at the same time.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/samsung-presents-organic-on-si-cmos.html

There is defiantly a three level design too but I cant for the life of me find the page i saw it on.

 

[Stu]

41 minutes ago, Adam J said:

As far as I am aware the future is in multi layer CMOS or "Organic-o-Silicon Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor" color sensors. To cut a long story short depending on the design you can get either Three level or two level designs that allow a single pixel area to become sensitive to all wavelengths, think of it as RGB pixels stacked on top of each other,you either double to triple the effective light gathering area dependent on the design. I am personally quite excited by the possibilities of this technology as you are in effect collecting Luminance and RGB at the same time.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/samsung-presents-organic-on-si-cmos.html

There is defiantly a three level design too but I cant for the life of me find the page i saw it on.

 

Sensor technology is progressing at an amazing rate, that's for sure. All interesting stuff.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Scott, I think the discussion has moved on somewhat.

What might be interesting is to pick up on the point raised earlier about the possibility of imaging with CCD under £1k which I think you talked about?

I was quite happy to move on Stu until accusations of missing the point were thrown about. 

No worries. no doubt you will sort him out

 

 

[Maximidius]

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Scott, I think the discussion has moved on somewhat.

What might be interesting is to pick up on the point raised earlier about the possibility of imaging with CCD under £1k which I think you talked about?

Agreed  

8 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't think there is much snobbery or élitism in this passion - and certainly not here on SGL where it would be unacceptable not just to the moderators but to the community. We are all, after all, trying to do the impossible in full knowledge that we can only get so far with it!

In debates about equipment I'm generally concerned not to pepetuate myths or widely held assumptions when they are incorrect. Mono, for instance, is not slower than OSC according to any theory or experiment which I've ever encountered. Focal reducers don't necessarily follow the F ratio rule. Noisy chips don't necessarily produce noisy images - etc etc.

As for CCD versus DSLR, I think this may become an issue of the past since the CCD is threatened by extinction. Sony have declared that they won't be making them after a couple of years. It's not certain that monochrome CMOS chips will appear to replace them but let's hope they do because there is no doubt that some kinds of deep sky image simply do require monochrome chips and specialist filters. We're in a strange position with this situation in that better cameras might be around the corner, should be around the corner, but might not be!

Olly

 

 

I disagree on the point about snobbery, elitism and jealousy. I have a lot of hobbies and it is evident in all of them to some degree or another.  

With regard to SGL, my intention wasn't to imply that it pervades here, it was just a generalisation. But, your point is well heard.

As for the rest,,,,I completely agree  

8 hours ago, Adam J said:

As far as I am aware the future is in multi layer CMOS or "Organic-o-Silicon Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor" color sensors. To cut a long story short depending on the design you can get either Three level or two level designs that allow a single pixel area to become sensitive to all wavelengths, think of it as RGB pixels stacked on top of each other,you either double to triple the effective light gathering area dependent on the design. I am personally quite excited by the possibilities of this technology as you are in effect collecting Luminance and RGB at the same time.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/samsung-presents-organic-on-si-cmos.html

There is defiantly a three level design too but I cant for the life of me find the page i saw it on.

 

Now this looks very interesting. I like the idea of a technology that you can scroll through the image shifting focus as you do, effectively moving through the depth of field from the foreground to the background. I can't find the link at the mo, but I think it has promis too. 

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Sensor technology is progressing at an amazing rate, that's for sure. All interesting stuff.

Agreed, Technology is moving at an amazing rate. All the better for us imagers....if they could only keep the prices down!