Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikolas
You missed my point I think
I personally use an osc camera because of my limited time for image acquisition and the crap weather Melbourne serves up. No time to acquire 4 times the time to acquire an image with different filters, what takes me hours would take me weeks with a mono camera.
|
Same exposure time OSC versus Mono and the mono will be less noisy, especially in the dim areas.
Its not less time for OSC and its not 4X time for mono. You simply spend less time on each of the LRGB components.
For these CMOS sensors that are so very sensitive, 30 minutes each for RGB is enough and say 30-60 minutes of Luminance is plenty for many objects so 2:30 total exposure time. That is within the time you are doing for OSC.
The OSC image would be nice on a bright object and where they usually fall short is in the dim, dusty areas. At least that was true with the older OSC CCDs. Probably not as true with the latest CMOS with 80-90% QE.
As you say you can produce great images with OSC and the gap has narrowed between OSC and mono over the years. But 4X more time for mono is not true. It could even be less time because its more efficient.
Having said that I wouldn't mind a OSC CMOS to complement my mono's. Thomas Davis used to use an SBIG OSC and a mono camera and combine them to great effect. Best of both worlds. He was hampered by a narrow imaging window and made the best use of available time. The OSC was on an FSQ106 and the mono on an AP RHA. So long as the OSC was a wider field scope that would work well.
Greg.