Movie up to Atik 460

[steviemac500]

I currently have a 414 which I'm really happy with but I miss the large field of view that would let me do more larger nebula, I'm not really ready for mosaics yet. I'm contemplating swapping out for a 460 (can't afford both) but I'm worried about targets like M51 that would be tiny in the FOV. Would I see much difference in a cropped image of this compared to the 414?

[Scott]

14 minutes ago, steviemac500 said:

I currently have a 414 which I'm really happy with but I miss the large field of view that would let me do more larger nebula, I'm not really ready for mosaics yet. I'm contemplating swapping out for a 460 (can't afford both) but I'm worried about targets like M51 that would be tiny in the FOV. Would I see much difference in a cropped image of this compared to the 414?

absolutely no difference at all (I think the pixel size is the same?) If they are, then the image will be exactly the same, only variation will be more pixels thus a bigger fov 

[ecuador]

58 minutes ago, steviemac500 said:

I currently have a 414 which I'm really happy with but I miss the large field of view that would let me do more larger nebula, I'm not really ready for mosaics yet. I'm contemplating swapping out for a 460 (can't afford both) but I'm worried about targets like M51 that would be tiny in the FOV. Would I see much difference in a cropped image of this compared to the 414?

I see that the 414EX has 6.45μm pixels, while the 460EX has 4.54μm pixels. That means that small objects will actually be LARGER by 42% in pixel size. If that spec I got off FLO is incorrect, you can adjust accordingly, but in any case you are just looking at pixel size.

[red dwalf]

I swapped my 414 for a 460, I use it with a William optics gt 81 and a 0.8 reducer, and most objects are nicely framed with it, smaller objects like m51 can be cropped, I do it with deep sky stacker by dragging a box around the area if interest, seems to work well.

[ollypenrice]

The size of the frame around an object has nothing whatever  to do with the object's real size as an image when presented at full size on your screen or printed. If you look through a loo roll tube at a horse in a field, the horse might fill your field of view. Take away the loo roll tube and you will have a wider field of view, but the horse will have been exactly the same size in both views.

What you need to think about is this: your scope projects an image of a certain size (so many mm wide) on your chip. Now, how many pixels are there under that projected image? The more there are (because they are smaller) the more screen pixels they will be given on your PC screen. An image at 'Full size' or '100%' is an image in which one camera pixel is given one screen pixel. If you halve the size of your camera pixels you will double the size of your screen image.

Olly

[RayD]

21 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

The size of the frame around an object has nothing whatever  to do with the object's real size as an image when presented at full size on your screen or printed. If you look through a loo roll tube at a horse in a field, the horse might fill your field of view. Take away the loo roll tube and you will have a wider field of view, but the horse will have been exactly the same size in both views.

What you need to think about is this: your scope projects an image of a certain size (so many mm wide) on your chip. Now, how many pixels are there under that projected image? The more there are (because they are smaller) the more screen pixels they will be given on your PC screen. An image at 'Full size' or '100%' is an image in which one camera pixel is given one screen pixel. If you halve the size of your camera pixels you will double the size of your screen image.

Olly

That's a really great explanation, thanks Olly.

One thing that's worrying me though, is how you come about looking at a horse in a field through a loo roll.............No actually don't answer that 

[steviemac500]

Thanks guys, just need to persuade my wife now. 

[Guest]

 

8 hours ago, RayD said:

That's a really great explanation, thanks Olly.

One thing that's worrying me though, is how you come about looking at a horse in a field through a loo roll.............No actually don't answer that 

1 hour ago, steviemac500 said:

Thanks guys, just need to persuade my wife now. 

....hmmm tricky...I once tried to persuade my wife to look at a horse through a loo roll ....she did it...but she said I needed a new hobby.....