Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Interesting read Greg, thank you for sharing. I am still however uncertain about what all of that means in practice for those of us imaging with less than perfect seeing. Have I understood correctly, that for less than perfect seeing refractors could perform better for the given aperture, but since people own reflectors that are usually significantly larger in aperture, the difference is kind of nulled or could even be reversed?
As for star bloating, wouldn't small wells also mean smaller pixels leading to lower sensitivity? Perhaps I simplify things a bit but I think that stretching images makes pixels around bright stars brighter anyway thus possibly leading to bloated stars?
Having said that, I think what you are saying about stars bloating is very true when comparing images acquired with cameras with varying well depths but at the same resolution in arcseconds per pixel.
|
....I think the important thing for optical quality in a refractor for example is whether the optical resolution is
"diffraction limited" rather than limited by glass imperfections etc....
Diffraction also occurs in human vision. The diffraction spread of light at the back of the retina is of comparable size to the spacing of the rods and cones which sense the light - pretty handy isnt it? Millions of years of evolution can do this. (there are several dozen examples of "sight" evolving independently in different species - must be something important in sensing light in your environment one would think??)