David,

Thank you for the very detailed response. I have considered the other costs,
which is how I arrived at my rough number. As you suspected, I do have a reticle
eyepiece and OAG, as well as AIP4WIN (which will let me do some image
processing). I'll probably not get a flip mirror for three reasons - 1) as you
say, the image train would be too long, and 2) the pointing accuracy of my scope
is terrific even without HP, and with HP, I can consistently get objects
directly in the center of the FOV, and 3) I can't see many of the things I'd
photograph with my light polluted skies, so looking for them would be a rather
quixotic process.

I'm really up in the air about what imager to get still, and will let the list
know what I go with when I take the plunge.

Mike

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:28:33 -0500
Subject: [M]: Re: Question on CCD

Mike,

If you aim is to keep this under $1,000, you should carefully consider all
elements of your budget (which I am sure you have). But by this, I mean,
recognize all the things you will need to really enjoy and succeed at CCD
imaging. Like astrophotography, there are also the accessories to consider,
some of which aren't immediately necessary (such as the color wheel and
focal reducer), and others which could be vital. These essentials would
included either a framing or reticle eyepiece, a flip mirror, an off axis
guider (unless you are guiding through a guidescope), image processing
software , and possibly a zero shift focuser.

You may have some of these items from your astrophotography experience, such
as the reticle eyepiece and the OAG (off axis guider). You may also already
have some image processing software (such as Maxim DL and/or Photoshop)
Since you already have an f/6.3 scope, a focal reducer isn't a pressing
concern either. I would highly recommend that you get a flip mirror and
consider a framing eyepiece, even if you have a reticle EP. The flip mirror
can be one of the most useful utilities, especially for the beginning
CCD'er. It will ensure centered images and can be a real assist to focusing
when properly set up. Obviously, if you want to use one for long exposures,
you will also need a separate guidescope (a flip mirror with OAG would be an
interesting site!), but the long exposures will come later in any case.

If you don't have any image processing software, you will need it. There
are several different ways to go about it. A lot of the more polished and
experienced CCD'ers out there (I am not in that group, need much more
experience and better equipment plus talent) use dedicated products such as
MaxIm DL for image processing and camera control and then Photoshop for post
production photofinishing. At the beginning, though, if you use the control
software that comes with your camera, it usually includes some basic image
processing capabilities. You will still want some post production control,
especially if you want to stack images and finesse the sharpness. Either
MaxIm DL or Photoshop are good for the beginner in this respect. MaxIm DL
can be purchased either for camera control/image processing or just image
processing, while Photoshop is a more generic photofinishing product. They
are both widely used and supported in the amateur astronomy community (which
means you can probably easily get advice for both products when it comes to
fixing up images). There are other products which are less expensive (as
well as some freeware) that will probably perfectly adequate for beginning
to intermediate uses.

Currently, I use a Pictor 216XT. I have a Meade 10" f/10 SCT (LX-50) with
an 80mm f/5 scope mounted on top. I image through both telescopes. I use a
flip mirror, OAG, 12mm reticle EP, a 3.3 focal reducer (which, despite its
name, can be set up for anywhere from f/2.9 to f/5) and Photoshop software,
though I am probably going to get MaxIm DL soon (I have tried it and I
really like it, personally). I haven't started on the color imaging yet,
but my camera will accept the 616 color wheel. Though, in reality, I will
probably get a larger chip CCD imager soon and a color wheel. Then I will
use the 216XT as an autoguider, for which it does a really good job (I also
do some astrophotography and have used the 216XT in this regard).

The reasons I bought a 216XT were as follows: 1) I was looking for an entry
level imager. I was just beginning in this hobby and didn't feel the need
for anything more expensive, especially if I decided to later dump it (which
I haven't). I had looked at all of the various chip format sizes and their
relative prices and figured that this would be adequate for my immediate
needs. I had also taken a lot of opportunities at various star parties to
look at other people's imagers and how they used them. 2) The ST-5c had the
same chip as the 216XT, but it was $200 more. From my perspective, I didn't
see $200 worth of difference in the products, although the ST-5c is a fine
product and I think their telephone product support is better than Meade's
(Meade's Amy Li is their only real CCD support person. While she has a good
technical knowledge of the imagers and their software, she is not an avid
user in the field). Assuming the camera would work, most of the initial
help I would need would be for focusing and acquiring simple images, which I
got mostly on my own through trial and error (LOTS of error!), reading and
research, plus a lot of Socratic buttonholing of folks I knew with CCD's. 3)
I also considered either the STV or the ST-237A, which are both a big jump
in price ($2,250 and $1,195, respectively). I decided, though, that if I
really enjoyed this, I would go ahead and step up to the plate for a really
good, larger format camera after this first one.

I don't regret my decision at all, in retrospect. I have been extremely
happy with the 216XT. It is a fine basic performer and I have been able to
get some terrific images with reasonably little effort, once I mastered
focusing and some other image acquisition techniques.

All totaled, my cost for the CCD imager and equipment was around $1,324
($695 for the 216XT, $150 - flip mirror, $120 - reticle EP, $150 - focal
reducer, $189 - Photoshop Upgrade, I had a previous version, $19.95 -
aluminum carrying case for the CCD imager and accessories). I could have
probably gotten a little better deal on the flip mirror, reticle EP, and
focal reducer had I bought used on Astromart or such the like, but for me
personally, it wasn't worth the hassle at the time (I would have saved a
total of probably $60-90, assuming the specific products I was looking for
were available and in the condition I would have desired). Now, in reality,
I already had the reticle eyepiece. I went ahead and did the upgrade to
Photoshop since I needed something for post production (Photoshop 6.0 in a
new, full version is about $600-700, depending upon where you buy it).

A side note, I would also recommend you download a piece of freeware from
the Astronomical Society of Southern New England called, simply - CCD. It
is a great utility to use in the field for calculating the field of view and
resolution of images on the CCD for a wide library of objects and a
customizable database of scopes and CCD imagers. It has really helped me in
the field when I pick out objects in determining which scope would work best
(80mm or 10") and what effect a barlow or focal reduction would have on the
image. It uses a simple graphical representation of the object as well as
numeric displays of the dimensions. It is a very simple and easy to
understand program. Their web address is: www.ultranet.com/~assne . I
would also read Rod Wodaski's web pages on CCD'ing (he also has a CCD
calculator that is web based, won't work in the field, though) at
www.wodaski.com .

I hope that this helps you for starters. I know you have gotten some other
recommendations also and they all contain some excellent ideas. Good luck
and let us know what you end up doing.

Clear Skies,
David

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Re: Full Moon Cocoon! --12" LX200, Frank #3
Next message: [M]: Question on CCD, Email address hidden
Next message in thread: [M]: Question on CCD, Email address hidden
Previous message in thread: [M]: Re: Question on CCD, David Moody