nytecam
Postmaster
Reged: 08/20/05
Loc: London UK
|
f/ratio myth
#5356185 - 08/07/12 09:50 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Came across this facinating article by long time astroimager Stan Moore which debunks the f/ratio myth [check last image down page] that I [and most Mallincam users] adhere to. According to Stan, our fast optical systems effectively minimise noise. This in turn we use to rack-up the contrast to see faint detail but apparently all the info is there with slow optical systems but swamped by noise
Well I still get a larger fov, minimal noise or tracking errors so I'll stick to my f/3.7 SCT and brief exposures - what's your view Is it just theory v practise
|
A. Viegas
sage
   
Reged: 03/05/12
Loc: New York City/ CT
|
Re: f/ratio myth
[Re: nytecam]
#5356310 - 08/07/12 11:21 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I am still very much a newbie at all this stuff, but that image scale does not look right. At F/3.9 the magnification should have been significantly less than at F/12.4 and the resulting image scale should have reflected this. I don't understand how he kept the image size the same unless he expanded/shrank one of the images to 'equalize' the size with the other.
Al
|
mpgxsvcd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/21/11
Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: nytecam]
#5356481 - 08/07/12 01:23 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
“Forget about the camera, sampling and pixels for now and consider the virtual image.”
“The number of photons that are collected from any object is entirely determined by the intrinsic brightness of the object (usually measured in magnitudes), the collecting area and efficiency of the optical objective (lens or mirror), and the length of time used to create the virtual image. Note that focal length (FL) and thus f-ratio are irrelevant because they have no effect on the any of those determinants.”
What the above statements say to me in terms of a proof are as follows.
A + B + C = D However, we are going to forget about A right now and just look at B, C, and D.
B + C = D Therefore, A must = 0 and therefore Focal Ratio has nothing to do with exposure at all.
I actually laughed when I read that article. If he wants to rewrite physics then I say go right ahead. It might actually be a best seller in the Fiction section.
Here is a better proof to explain this in words.
If you keep the front aperture the same and add a barlow you will increase the focal length and decrease the exposure(assume a non-point source object). If you increase the front aperture and keep the focal length the same you will increase the exposure. Focal Ratio is the Focal Length divided by the Front Aperture.
Both Focal Length and Front Aperture affect exposure as seen in the barlow example. Focal Ratio is just the ratio of those two values therefore exposure varies with Focal Ratio.
A / B = C, 2A / B = 2C, A / 2B = 1/2C, and Exposure = 1/C, Therefore an increase in A(Focal Length) will decrease exposure while an increase in B(Front Aperture) will increase exposure.
When you vary the aperture in a camera lens you are keeping the focal length the same but you are essentially varying the front aperture by closing the aperture blades. He got that part right. However, his theory negates the fact that you can vary the focal length, keep the front aperture the same, and still affect the exposure.
This error is demonstrated in his pictures which seem to negate the fact that for the aperture to remain the same and the focal ratio to decrease the focal length must change as well. The focal length did not appear to change at all in his pictures.
In addition he shows a faint object and a bunch of stars. For a point source like those stars he is correct. The focal length will not affect the brightness of those point sources. The front aperture is the only significant factor for those.
Edited by mpgxsvcd (08/07/12 01:45 PM)
|
Larry F
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 05/24/04
Loc: Westchester, NY
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: mpgxsvcd]
#5356555 - 08/07/12 02:12 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I wonder if the discussion is really applicable to video cameras like Mallincam that utilize amplification circuity. And even less applicable to MCHP users like me who have to get everything onto the chip within 56 seconds at most (and preferably 28 seconds when using an alt-az mount).
|
mpgxsvcd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/21/11
Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: Larry F]
#5356589 - 08/07/12 02:32 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if the discussion is really applicable to video cameras like Mallincam that utilize amplification circuity. And even less applicable to MCHP users like me who have to get everything onto the chip within 56 seconds at most (and preferably 28 seconds when using an alt-az mount).
Your camera has nothing to do with how much light falls on each pixel of the sensor.
What the camera/filters can do is eliminate noise, reduce light pollution, and enhance detail/sharpness.
In the end it is very difficult to predict and create information that is not there. If you can start out with the maximum signal why wouldn't you?
The lower the f-ratio the brighter a non-point source object will be. That holds true for a camera lens or a telescope.
Most cameras employ some sort of amplification. Interchangeable lens cameras have ISO and some others use the term sensitivity. It is all gain. Electronic, digital, or analog it is still just gain.
Edited by mpgxsvcd (08/07/12 02:35 PM)
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
   
Reged: 04/30/03
Loc: NE Ohio
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: mpgxsvcd]
#5356683 - 08/07/12 03:37 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
The lower the f-ratio the brighter a non-point source object will be. That holds true for a camera lens or a telescope.
That works only if focal length is fixed. The trouble then becomes that with a fixed focal length you are really stating "the larger the aperture the brighter the image", which is true - but it's about aperture, not F ratio. If the focal length is permitted to change (different F ratios at the same aperture) then the brightness of the object on a given pixel or group of pixels will vary with focal length (and pixel size). There's no purpose to invoking the ratio of two variables unless both are free - and then you can't make blanket statements about image brightness. That's what is wrong with the cited article.
|
mpgxsvcd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/21/11
Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: jrcrilly]
#5356699 - 08/07/12 03:48 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
You can fix the aperture and vary the focal length and your image brightness will change. Really, it works both ways.
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
   
Reged: 04/30/03
Loc: NE Ohio
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: mpgxsvcd]
#5356709 - 08/07/12 03:56 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
You can fix the aperture and vary the focal length and your image brightness will change.
If you change the focal length you get a different image, not the same image with a different brightness.
|
mpgxsvcd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/21/11
Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
|
Re: f/ratio is not a myth
[Re: jrcrilly]
#5356730 - 08/07/12 04:13 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You can fix the aperture and vary the focal length and your image brightness will change.
If you change the focal length you get a different image, not the same image with a different brightness.
So crop the images to the same scale. One will have more resolution than the other but they will both have the same exposure.
|
nytecam
Postmaster
Reged: 08/20/05
Loc: London UK
|
Re: f/ratio is a myth
[Re: mpgxsvcd]
#5356904 - 08/07/12 06:42 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
This has certainly got some feathers ruffled but I can't get my head around the arguments - it's much like mysterious dark energy or dark matters to me - so I'll just proceed as before
|
ccs_hello
Postmaster
   
Reged: 07/03/04
|
Re: f/ratio is a myth
[Re: nytecam]
#5357241 - 08/07/12 10:03 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
... - so I'll just proceed as before
Yeah, let's keep on collecting more faster lenses.
(Don't believe it, just put an aperture mask in front of your beautiful fast lens/OTA (don't touch anything else) to reduce the light intake then see how sorry the resulted image is )
This f-number (f-ratio) stuff has been on the forums over and over.
The common problem was some people just want to talk about one parameter, not two, on the triads of:
- f-number
- focal length, and
- aperture
where focal length = f-number x aperture size
Knowing two, the third one can always be derived.
Knowing just one, you still have one additional value to "tweak" with.
Say, for a camera lens owner, the one he most familiar with is to change the f-stop value which is to change the aperture size by adjusting the aperture blade opening. For such optical device, the focal length never changes. So it's obvious the aperture is reduced (per the formula stated above.)
I'll state again:
the focal length never changes *thus the image scale does not change).
For a telescope OTA owner, he usually will not do the same by putting a aperture mask in front of the OTA, like the camera lens is doing. Instead, he either will use a Barlow to lengthen the focal length (thus larger f-number, slower lens) or use a focal reducer to reduce the focal length (thus smaller f-number, faster lens).
I'll also point out with a Barlow (or a focal reducer) inserted, the optical configuration changes, i.e., it's a new optical system!!!
Can you tell the differences amongst the two?
Yes, in both cases, f-number is changed.
But the former (camera lens) does not change the image scale while the latter does.
From this point on, people started to interpret the results and so were the lengthy debates...
Clear Skies!
ccs_hello
|
bhuvfe
member
Reged: 01/14/11
|
Re: f/ratio is a myth
[Re: ccs_hello]
#5357545 - 08/08/12 03:40 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
This f-number (f-ratio) stuff has been on the forums over and over.
Indeed.... http://tinyurl.com/bqvjqma (see Myth # 2)
|
freestar8n
Carpal Tunnel
   
Reged: 10/12/07
|
Re: f/ratio myth
[Re: nytecam]
#5357566 - 08/08/12 04:53 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Well I still get a larger fov, minimal noise or tracking errors so I'll stick to my f/3.7 SCT and brief exposures - what's your view Is it just theory v practise
It is a strange web page with no citations and it has somehow latched into the minds of many people and caused more confusion than any single web page I can think of.
I won't go into it because it is hopeless - but since this is a video forum and people are asking about practical matters - note that in the occultation realm, where people want to reach faint stars using video with portable equipment, f/ratio is *extremely* important. This is surprising even for people like me who regard f/ratio as important now as it ever was - because the normal discussions are specific to extended objects and *not* point sources. Theoretically, if star size is limited by seeing, as long as the star is about a pixel in size on the detector, all that should matter is aperture - but this is not the case at all. A 10" f/4 Newtonian may go less deep than a small f/1.2 lens when it comes to video. This is easy to demonstrate - just aim at the Pleiades or something and focus well - and see how many faint stars you can detect with video.
The reason it is not just based on aperture is that the star spot is much larger than one pixel and depends on many aspects of the imaging system. It is even more surprising because, with sky glow, theoretically you *lose* snr at small f/ratio because the sky will get brighter (because the sky is an extended object affected by r/ratio while a star is supposed to be a point) - so you should use large aperture and long f/ratio - but this isn't the case.
For faintest stars with video you want small f/ratio *and* large aperture - as long as the star spots don't get too big due to focal length. Hyperstar is good here - but collimation and focus have to be very good to benefit.
For general imaging - if aperture matters and not f/ratio, try the Orion nebula with a 135mm f/2 lens vs. a C11 with 5x barlow at f/50 with a 30s exposure - and *don't* resize the images so they have the same scale. Just print them and put them on the wall. Which do you prefer? Is that a fair comparison? Of course - that's how people image.
Frank
Edited by freestar8n (08/08/12 04:56 AM)
|
nytecam
Postmaster
Reged: 08/20/05
Loc: London UK
|
Re: f/ratio myth
[Re: freestar8n]
#5359192 - 08/09/12 03:56 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Last night I swapped out my f/3.3 FR [running @ f/3.7] for my f/6.3 FR to increase the image scale and boy was there noticeable reduction in image brightness in results via same exposures of typically 60s So for me theory goes in the bin and I'll stick as usual to practical results I can see My f/6.3 pics
|
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
   
Reged: 06/18/08
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: f/ratio myth
[Re: nytecam]
#5359577 - 08/09/12 10:35 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Maurice,
Your experience of the image brightness decreasing when increasing the f/ratio (and hence image scale) is exactly as 'predicted by theory.' Other things being equal (camera and settings, exposure duration and filters used), image surface brightness scales with the f/ratio. If you had a battery of scopes, from small to large, all operating at the same f/ratio and aimed at the same target, swapping your camera among all of them would result in identical image brightness for given exposure time. The only differences will be image scale and faintness of stars recorded (fainter at larger aperture.)
|
mpgxsvcd
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/21/11
Loc: Raleigh, North Carolina
|
Re: f/ratio myth
[Re: GlennLeDrew]
#5359622 - 08/09/12 10:53 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Maurice, Your experience of the image brightness decreasing when increasing the f/ratio (and hence image scale) is exactly as 'predicted by theory.' other things being equal (camera and settings, exposure duration and filters used), image surface brightness scales with the f/ratio. If you had a battery of scopes, from small to large, all operating at the same f/ratio and aimed at the same target, swapping your camera among all of them would result in identical image brightness for given exposure time. The only differences will be image scale and faintness of stars recorded (fainter at larger aperture.)
+1
Why is it that so many people don't believe this is reality?
|