Flatbed scanner used in astronomy photography
Flatbed scanner used in astronomy photography
Hi everyone. I’m an amateur astronomer who has been interested in recycling and adapting affordable tech for astronomy since 1980. I’m considering using a CCD flatbed scanner—like the Epson Perfection 1650—in slide copying mode, without the light on and with the lid off, to capture high-resolution images of the Sun, Moon, and planets.
I plan to build a support structure for the scanner so it can project and focus the telescope’s image onto a ground glass placed over the scanner’s lens. The entire setup should be mounted on a telescope to track celestial objects as they move across the sky.
For the Sun (filtered) and the Moon, there should be sufficient light for the scanner to capture a clear image in a single scan. However, for the major planets—like Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn—it might require multiple scans and stacking them together to achieve a visible high-resolution result, since their images appear very faint when enlarged by 200 or 300 times.
I would appreciate guidance from someone experienced with scanner control software. It would help if I could automate the scanning process and adjust other parameters that aren’t easily changed in the standard software (I’m using Vuescan on Windows 10 64-bit).
There are no technical issues I can fix myself; I just need assistance on the software side. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Giovanni – Italia
Interesting concept, though I believe the correct approach would involve using a real camera with an extremely long exposure setting. Most flatbed scanners have relatively low resolution compared to affordable and easily accessible camera CCDs. High-end scanners can reach around 21 MPixels, which matches the performance of entry-level DSLR cameras. These devices likely offer options for extended exposure times, and all necessary software and hardware are integrated.
I understand this goes against your original plan, but it would be a complex software project. I think it might only be feasible by running the scan continuously, saving each file, and then combining them using tools like Photoshop—perhaps with smart objects or stacking features. Uncertain how practical that would be.
There is also a mathematical method to keep adding light data over time, but it could easily become overwhelmed after several cycles if not handled properly.
Thank you for your feedback. Your calculations seem accurate. Please verify if you are correct.
I don't think it functions that way. The scanner operates by joining an image together, revealing parts of the picture to capture. Examine what a flatbed scanner CCD actually appears as—just a thin horizontal line. As the scanner travels over the document, it captures a very narrow slice. The megapixel figure mainly reflects how much data it can store and process before moving the data to external storage.
In your case, you'd need to position your setup similarly to the standard scanning area, moving at the usual speed. Aligning it consistently would be quite challenging. Alternatively, you'd have to ensure the sensor remains stationary and the image speed matches its expected movement.
If you focus on the same location in the sky, you're limited to a single sensor section. You could attempt the same stitching process, but it might be simpler with a camera instead.
The more I consider this, the clearer it becomes to use a regular camera CCD. It offers a larger sensor area, reducing the need for precise movement. It's an intriguing idea, but I think if you approached a manufacturer and started sourcing raw CCDs, you'd be wiser to begin with a scanner.
In your situation you'd need to position your telescope in a narrow direction, matching the usual scanning area that's visible, and proceed at the standard scanning speed. Aligning it consistently would require remarkable engineering. Alternatively, you'd have to ensure the sensor remains stable and the image path matches the expected movement rate.