|
I think what might add to the impression that small pixels wreck stars more effectively than large pixels is the aperture of the telescope (given the same resolution).
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what have been said it seems that large aperture scope is more capable of producing tight stars than a telescope with small aperture. And since generally cameras with large pixels are put at the end of a telescope with a large aperture, it might seem that CCDs with large pixels have more effective anti-blooming and saturated pixels do not bleed charge as much to neighbouring pixels (not to mention that large telescope and large camera will be sitting on a well behaving mount, unlike most of small scopes with small CCDs). I believe this might be the main reason for nicer looking stars from large CCDs.
|