Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo
The issue of whether optical quality is justified for deep sky imaging is intimately bound up by the choice of camera and pixel size vs airy disc size. If you are using your eyeball, high quality optics will always win out as your eyes are capable of seeing the moments of clarity in even average seeing Planetary imagers who try to over sample the airy disc significantly with pixels will be fairly sensitive to mirror quality.
My attitude is that the lines of optical quality are probably more 'blurry' for prime focus imaging at faster f #'s but it helps to have good optics, but good optics will not help if you can't focus or guide properly.
|
I have no issues of guiding for how ever long I want and regularly see less than .5 px deviation at 5.4 micron pixel size. Focus well...
here you can see i know how to focus too. Hence why the original post had me very interested as soon I will be upgrading my old Synta 10"
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky
I'm pretty sure the advantage of good optics isn't under question, my understanding of the original post was whether you could actually translate that superior resolution into a better image in real world conditions. Peter Ward has demonstrated what is possible with good optics, and I suspect more importantly, good seeing. It would be nice to know how close his image approaches the theoretical perfomance of the system, or would a c14 have done just as well that night? Would a 'cheapy' 20" have done even better (notwithstanding the challenges of mounting larger instruments)?
cheers,
Andrew.
|
Mid this year I am going to the Hallowed lands of unbelievable seeing!
If i knew just how to make this measurement I would tell you.
Mark do you know how to preform this test?