Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
Pretty heavy reading for my old brain but a couple if things occurred fo me: based on King's work it would seem that blue filters would give you better resolution. Secondly, looking at the pixel graphic, would not smaller pixels provide better resolution in general, by reducing the number of stars contributing to individual pixels. This seems contrary to the general assumption that large pixels are better DSOs at longish focal lengths.
|
I read it that King showed how the unresolved star noise was less intrusive in the blue (due to the star population having a wavelength dependence) - made it easier to study globular clusters.
Agree that smaller pixels give better resolution. In the end though, the sky will limit how good it can be and in typical Aus seeing, somewhere between 0.5 and 1 arcsec pixel scale would seem to be about the optimum. Big pixels are needed with long focal length scopes, but they are not inherently better at DSO - there is always a tradeoff between resolution (small) and sensitivity (big).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Personally I use noise reduction less and less and my affinity with noise-reduced smooth astroimages weakens.
|
am coming to the same conclusion
