Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Shallower wells but also usually less read noise. However, in spite of having lower read noise, dynamic range is generally lower with smaller pixels, so more shorter exposures are needed if we want to control saturation of stars. The biggest advantage of small pixels on a small chip for me is substantially lower cost of the entire imaging apparatus.
As I understand, 2.4 micron pixels are in most cases best matched with fast telescopes (f/5 and faster).
|
I’d agree with a seeing-limited approach to pixel/scope choice, but with newer technology the smaller pixels aren’t always at a substantial advantage.
For example, the well depth of the IMX178 is about 15000 whereas the ICX694 is around 19000. Not only does the 178 have lower read noise, but with the use of BSI it has a reportedly higher QE too. With a 14-bit ADC the 178 isn’t at any significant disadvantage either.