Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
I have read somewhere that sampling at 1/3 of your usual FWHM is optimal for getting the most detail from data, so I believe your observations are spot on Allan. Drizzle x3 requires more subs/better data than x2, but if it works then why not use it  I like Troy's suggestion of directly comparing different methods visually and by measuring noise/SNR.
As for twisting Mike's arm - good luck with that!  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Thank you Rick for clarifying that.
So it looks like one day I should invest in a camera with about 6micron pixels to give me just under 2"pp with my telescope at f/6, I think something like KAF16200 would be nice. I was hoping that I can get a wider FOV with my tiny ICX814 at f/4.5, but such fast f-ratio on a short refractor is a challenge to get spot on in terms of alignment and spacing. And on top of that frequent refocus is needed...I much prefer riding at f/6. Time to start slowly putting some dollars aside for a camera upgrade! LOL
|
Roland Christen of AP fame always recommends 1 arc sec/pixel for those with average seeing of around 3 arc secs so 2 arc sec is still not quite there. I have noticed this with the various scopes and camera combos I have used over time. When you are close to that 1 arc sec the images look nicer.
I would also add though that full well depth is a very important and underrated aspect of a sensor. Too low and you lose a lot of dynamic range if you overexpose. That's why I tend to keep coming back to my 16803 camera. Its still the best out there for overall performance.
Maybe these Sony CMOS full frame sensors if someone can get their hands on a mono version of the Sony A7r2 sensor it would be pretty sensational and may leave CCDs for dead. At higher ISO this thing's read noise is .58 of an electron. Its backside illuminated etc etc. QE would be very high and 42mp would give super high resolution.
Greg.