|
Hi Paul,
I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that your images are already extremely good and in my opinion are something of a benchmark.
I agree that even a small potential improvement in image quality is an improvement worth having, but I do not believe that AO would be of any quantifiable benefit to you, primarily because of your mount.
Consumer AO units (whether it be SBIG or SX, at whatever operating frequency) simply cannot compensate for high-order atmospheric inhomogeneities, irrespective of what anecdotal or marketing sources might claim.
The effectiveness of corrections made by a tip/tilt system are limited to the isoplanatic patch occupied by the target guide star. Even at the best sites, this equates to an area of around 2-3 arcseconds at visible wavelengths and 5-6 arcseconds in the near infrared.
This is why AO can cause a degradation in image quality in less-than-ideal seeing conditions -- the tip-tilt adjustments being made for the area of the image local to the guide star are incompatible with the turbulence occurring elsewhere in the field of view. On a small sensor (like a KAF407 as someone mentioned) at long focal lengths, this would not necessarily be the case, especially if the imaging sensor field of view and the guide star were situated within the same isoplanatic patch.
I feel that since you're not trying to counter wind or mechanical imperfections in the mount -- two situations where high-frequency active optics can assist -- you'd be more likely to see improvements by addressing the issue of atmospheric turbulence up-front and guiding in the near-infrared.
|