RASC Hamilton In camera darks

[Andy Blanchard]

I would not word it that way Mark. But I an pretty sure they would not disagree with what I have said. It's just math and from what I understand you are saying there is a big difference between opinion vs fact. 

I am sure they feel an instant dark is cleaner and that's probably true, as it has more noise to subtract, but that noise is also good data for the reasons that I mentioned in my prior post below.  

I have copied bcc Terry a good friend to protect his email, on this, for him to weigh in. 

Have a great day

Andy Blanchard
289-337-6766H
905-847-7777B
905-330-5626C

> On Nov 30, 2013, at 9:09 AM, "Mark Kaye" <mark.kaye at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> At 09:01 11/30/2013, you wrote:
>> ISo unless you can control the delay on in camera darks and the processing rate on the dark subtraction. In camera processing is a very bad thing for astrophotography.
> 
>    So what you are saying here is that both Alan Dyer and Terry Dickinson, two of the world's leading astronomical imagers, are both blowing smoke out their ass and that they are not correct?
>    Clear skies!
>                MK
> 
> The Observatory by the Lake
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/mark.kaye/index.htm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> astronomers mailing list
> astronomers at hamiltonrasc.ca
> http://hamiltonrasc.ca/mailman/listinfo/astronomers_hamiltonrasc.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hamiltonrasc.ca/pipermail/astronomers_hamiltonrasc.ca/attachments/20131130/9304205d/attachment-0002.htm>