[AZ-Observing] Re: Camera Defects
- From: "Matt" <mluttinen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 09:18:03 -0700
Stan,
I have done extensive research on the merits of class 2 vs class one ccd
cameras and came to the conclusion that class2 chips do a fine job; you just
have to process the defects out.
That said, I agree that Kodak fails to report in their literature the true
visual appearance of unprocessed images, particularly darks. Luckily SBIG
is honest enough to post dark frames on their Website so the uninitiated
imager can see what a single frame looks like. It can be pretty horrific.
If I hadn't seen SBIG's images and also elsewhere(Rod Wodaski's book, for
one) I would have thought my new-to-me ST2000XM class 2 was broken when I
exposed a cooled dark for the first time. The chip has multiple vertical
lines, a top-down gradient, etc . . . Even being prepared, I was
momentarily dismayed.
Until I processed the image. Hopefully I am not being too obvious, but
modern image processing involves a series of minor technical miracles, and
the end result of a well-exposed and processed stack of subs is truly
inspirational to me.
Almost all of my imaging heroes use class 2 chips. I just don't think the
high $ premium for class 1 is worth it. Also, I think you lose the
difference in price upon resale. I have seen class 1 cameras languish on
A-Mart because people will pay only so much for a used STL11000, for
example, and don't really care about class.
Now this reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke . . .
From the cinema classic Back to School
Rodney to college professor:
"Let's get together later, when you've got no class."
Ba-bump
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stan Gorodenski
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:15 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: Camera Defects
Hello Jeff,
Jeff Hopkins wrote:
>Hello Stan,
>
>The CCD chips produced in the last few years are usually of excellent
>quality.
>
That may be, but I am trying to understand the basis for the claims made
by manufacturers of ccd cameras. When it is said there are no column
defects and if one sees bright lines in dark frames, they are column
defects to me even if they don't meet the formal definition of a column
defect. I feel that this amounts to deceptive advertising, irrespective
of whether or not these bright lines will seriously affect the
performance of the camera. I would like to know how others feel about
this and whether there might be a basic difference between Meade's DSI,
SBIG's camera, and Apogee cameras with respect to this issue. Note I am
listing the first three manufacturers in order of increasing cost.
Stan
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/889 - Release Date: 7/6/2007
8:00 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/889 - Release Date: 7/6/2007
8:00 PM
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
