|
Heres an interesting reply in another place by Stan Moore as to the difference between an 8300 and an ST8, re well depth etc.
--- "Chris Peterson" <cpeterson@...> wrote:
> The 8300 gives less than 11 bits of dynamic range, while the
> others give more than 12- a huge difference...
Be careful to avoid "pixel fixation" because realistic statistics should be
based on angular and linear sizes. For example, a star imaged by an ST-8 placed
on an optical system that delivers FWHM = 3 pixels will spread the majority of
starlight over 7 pixels (approx) but if you replace that camera with an 8300
then that very same star will produce FWHM = 5 pixels spread over 20 pixels.
So for an accurate comparison it is necessary to normalize full well and noise
characteristics (integrated QE is unaffected by pixel size). For example, if you
compare an ST-8 to a normalized 8300 or a binned 8300, the 8300 is not all that
different and is potentially superior:
ST-8:
9u pixel;
well depth = 50ke- (ABG); 100ke- (NABG)
read noise = 15e-
pixel dynamic range (linear) = 3.3k (ABG); 6.6k (NABG)
8300
5.4 pixel = 0.36 area of ST-8 pixel (normalization factor = 2.78)
well depth = 25.5ke-; normalized = 71ke-;
read noise = 8e-; normalized = 13 e- (noise adds quadratically)
pixel dynamic range (linear) = 3.1k; normalized = 5.5k
8300 Binned
10.8 pixel = 1.44 area of ST-8 pixel (normalization factor = 0.69)
well depth = 102ke-; normalized = 71ke-
read noise = 8e- ; normalized = 6.6e-
pixel dynamic range (linear) = 12.75k; normalized = 8.8k
Stan
|