56 replies to this topic

[JWolf_21]

After reading the thread it seems to me that the rendition is essentially an artistic endeavor, so asking about integration times on different filters is akin to asking Leonardo to detail how many tubes of different paint were used on the Mona Lisa.

Then I recommend you to read about light and paint, so you won't mix both concepts.

[rj144]

I don't know how to exactly answer, but with a Bayer matrix, shooting 4 hours of OSC for the red channel is equivalent to 1 hour of mono with a red filter more or less since the 1/4 of the Bayer sensor is red.  

 

So, I would say the sum of the filter times for mono is the better answer.

[gsaramet]

Then I recommend you to read about light and paint, so you won't mix both concepts.

And then there is pointillism (and divisionism, generally)  

[Zambiadarkskies]

So instead of focusing on the simple original question, involving only a sensor and light, to know if exposure of different wavelengths should be summed up or not, you keep adding unrelated parameters like FL, processing flow, etc... And yes, if we print our pictures, I'm sure the printer calibration will show different results It was a nice debate though. Thanks for your suggestions.

Well, the thing is that other things had to be added because your way of involving only the senor and light completely ignored other parameters such as focal ratio, SQM and other aspects that I and others mentioned.  Other parameters that have a huge impact on an end image.  The goalposts are yours and you can place them where you want.  But if you are going to tear apart generally accepted practice such as measuring integration time in hours (regardless of OSC, mono, filters etc) then your measurements are going to be subject to other opinions in order for them to be adopted.  And for me focal ratio and SQM are absolutely vital.  Someone shooting with a RASA under class 1 dark skies has completely different circumstances to someone shooting in B8 with an F7 scope.  Sorry, but I talked about focal ratio not focal length.  To choose to disregard sky quality and focal ratio  and say they are "unrelated" is fine.  But if you want to rewrite the rules then I would have thought to include as many variables  as possible and make your new system as rigorous as possible.  Otherwise what is the point?  To not include as many parameters as possible to me means your new "system" is no more "right" than the current and generally accepted measurement of integration time in hours.  

 

N.B.  I actually agree with a lot of where you are going with your argument.  I think people should state as much info as possible when showing images.  Integration time, SQM or Bortle, filters, focal ratio, sensor size and type, mount, processing.  The list is quite long.  I like to see all that info, but I still look at integration time first and foremost.  

 

Clear skies.    

Edited by Zambiadarkskies, 20 April 2025 - 11:21 AM.

[JWolf_21]

And then there is pointillism (and divisionism, generally)

Maybe we could ask pointilism artists about their debayering method What an end of a topic... I think a mod should close it... some answers here are hilarious  

[Nipkinz]

Being new to AP in general, newly retired with time to devote towards learning this hobby, I have found this thread remarkable; a joy to read and to analyze competing thoughtful perspectives. This thread highlights how diverse people can be when developing personal methodologies that lend favor to our end-goal AP happiness (success). To say that I feel enriched by this thread would be an egregious understatement. I'm thankful to have access to the minds that help us all thoroughly enjoy this amazing hobby!     

[UP4014Fan]

Being new to AP in general, newly retired with time to devote towards learning this hobby, I have found this thread remarkable; a joy to read and to analyze competing thoughtful perspectives. This thread highlights how diverse people can be when developing personal methodologies that lend favor to our end-goal AP happiness (success). To say that I feel enriched by this thread would be an egregious understatement. I'm thankful to have access to the minds that help us all thoroughly enjoy this amazing hobby!

This is probably the most eloquent thing I’ve seen here. Well said.