Hopefully correct forum... looking to eventually get into astrophotography, and have a few questions: I see people selling their "color" CCDs all the time after "upgrading" to a mono CCD, but wouldn't the color be a better camera? Are the filter wheels for mono? Probably silly questions, but curious to know the answer. Thanks!
Mono vs Color
Started by Merlot1998, 04/13/2011 04:58AM
Posted 04/13/2011 04:58AM
Opening Post
Posted 04/13/2011 09:05AM
#1
Hi David
This question comes up a lot with new people getting into astrophotography.
I say OSC is a good place to start but, you could start with a mono ccd and get the hang of that and then add filter wheel and filters for more learning and higher quality pics.
This question comes up a lot with new people getting into astrophotography.
I say OSC is a good place to start but, you could start with a mono ccd and get the hang of that and then add filter wheel and filters for more learning and higher quality pics.
Regards
Louie 8)
www.atalas.net
Posted 04/13/2011 01:35PM
#2
Choosing one over the other depends on what you want to do with imaging, your targets, and a few other things. Not to put too fine a point on it, the mono cameras generally have a higher "top end." That is, they can do more. Whether it is worth the extra work is a judgement call.
Some things to think about:
With mono, you need filters to make a color picture. This adds to the expense for the cost of filters, as well as a filter wheel to hold them.
With mono, those filters can also be narrowband filters, opening up a new fields of imaging, including deep space imaging from light polluted areas.
With mono, the pixels operate at their native quantum efficiency, each pixel contributing to the overall picture. With color, the pixels are covered with a Bayer Matrix that, with some fancy mathematics, shares a set of four pixels to produce the color value. The result is a less efficient (read that as not as deep) conversion of incoming light to image.
With color, in one shot you get the image (of course, you will want to stack multiple the shots in either color or mono to average out random noise). So, it is more convenient in acquisition, processing, etc.
For "pretty pictures" of some objects (like comets), one shot color is easier to use. (You get the color of the comet in one shot where if you tried to combine multiple filtered shots from a mono, the stars would have shifted. There are ways around this problem with mono cameras.....but it is more work.)
Mono cameras are better to use for scientific pursuits, generally. THey offer higher native resolution (unaffected by the Bayer Matrix) and are more linear in their response.
While it would seem that one needs a whole lot more time for multiple exposures through different filters for the mono, compared to the color camera needing only one exposure to get the whole spectrum, this is somewhat offset by the mono camera being able to go deeper more quickly (since the pixels are not split into four colors as they are under a Bayer matrix).
If you are only going to get one, and want the highest top end and flexibility, go mono with a filter wheel. But if you want great pictures fairly simply, color is great.
As far as imagers "upgrading" to mono ccd's after doing OSC, I know more than a few mono imagers who buy a OSC to supplement their monos. SO, it goes both ways.
Alex
Some things to think about:
With mono, you need filters to make a color picture. This adds to the expense for the cost of filters, as well as a filter wheel to hold them.
With mono, those filters can also be narrowband filters, opening up a new fields of imaging, including deep space imaging from light polluted areas.
With mono, the pixels operate at their native quantum efficiency, each pixel contributing to the overall picture. With color, the pixels are covered with a Bayer Matrix that, with some fancy mathematics, shares a set of four pixels to produce the color value. The result is a less efficient (read that as not as deep) conversion of incoming light to image.
With color, in one shot you get the image (of course, you will want to stack multiple the shots in either color or mono to average out random noise). So, it is more convenient in acquisition, processing, etc.
For "pretty pictures" of some objects (like comets), one shot color is easier to use. (You get the color of the comet in one shot where if you tried to combine multiple filtered shots from a mono, the stars would have shifted. There are ways around this problem with mono cameras.....but it is more work.)
Mono cameras are better to use for scientific pursuits, generally. THey offer higher native resolution (unaffected by the Bayer Matrix) and are more linear in their response.
While it would seem that one needs a whole lot more time for multiple exposures through different filters for the mono, compared to the color camera needing only one exposure to get the whole spectrum, this is somewhat offset by the mono camera being able to go deeper more quickly (since the pixels are not split into four colors as they are under a Bayer matrix).
If you are only going to get one, and want the highest top end and flexibility, go mono with a filter wheel. But if you want great pictures fairly simply, color is great.
As far as imagers "upgrading" to mono ccd's after doing OSC, I know more than a few mono imagers who buy a OSC to supplement their monos. SO, it goes both ways.
Alex
Funding Member
