4 ms·
Part of the idea is that you will need significantly shorter exposures. Shorter than would be needed to introduce artifacts from vibration. Such cameras (sold
by toufka 10y ago
Part of the idea is that you will need significantly shorter exposures. Shorter than would be needed to introduce artifacts from vibration.
Such cameras (sold by Nikon [1]) are routinely used on high-end microscopes. They usually have a smaller resolution though - 1024x1024 is pretty common. There are a number of technologies used in scientific microscopy that work well for night-time photography, but most are just too expensive. Electron multiplying CCDs, chilled CMOS sensors, etc. They end up being one of the more expensive parts to a half-million dollar scope though.
[1] https://www.nikoninstruments.com/Products/Cameras/Camera-Heads/DS-Fi3 https://www.nikoninstruments.com/Products/Cameras/Camera-Hea...
- polyfractal 10y agoIn astrophotography, this is actually the opposite of what you want to do. Generally you add cooling so that you can let your sensor run for longer, so you can collect more photons without increasing the noise appreciably. Image stacking can reduce noise afterwards, but there's no substitute for collecting more photons to increase the signal in an image... and the only way to do that is to try and clean up the noise floor (via cooling, better sensors, etc) :)