#1  
Old 13-08-2014, 04:34 PM
batema's Avatar
batema (Mark)
Registered User

batema is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,807
Pixel size on CCD cameras.

Hello,

Could someone please explain to me what the difference between the images produced from a Kodak KAI-11002M with 9 x 9 microns and 60 000 well capacity to a Kodak KAF-8300 with 5.4 x 5.4 microns and 25 000 well capacity. I believe that my image with the 11002 will have a wider field of view compared with the 8300 and that the well depth will allow longer exposures without blowing out stars hence getting maybe more nebulosity. What I am lost with, unless everything I have said is incorrect, is the pixel size. Will the smaller pixel size of the 8300 show more detail as opposed to the larger pixels in the 11002.

Thank you,

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13-08-2014, 04:52 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Smaller pixels allow finer resolution, bigger pixels collect more light, at the expense of resolution.

I guess it depends on what telescope you'll be coupling the system to, as well.

H
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13-08-2014, 05:17 PM
batema's Avatar
batema (Mark)
Registered User

batema is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,807
Thanks H. I will be taking possession of a TEC 140 sometime next year so am trying to work out which camera would be best and I suppose that depends on the field of view I want. I have seen a lot of positive comments about both combinations. I am uncertain which way to go. I will be imaging from suburbia on the Sunshine Coast so I do have light pollution but probably not as bad as if I was in a capital city.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13-08-2014, 05:56 PM
Peter.M's Avatar
Peter.M
Registered User

Peter.M is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Smaller pixels allow finer resolution, bigger pixels collect more light, at the expense of resolution.

I guess it depends on what telescope you'll be coupling the system to, as well.

H

This is true except "seeing" usually limits resolution. At F7, the TEC will have a resolution of 1.14 arc seconds per pixel. The 11000 chip will be 1.89 arc seconds per pixel.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-08-2014, 07:48 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Peter,

Of course! That was to be my next point, once I knew what telescope was involved.

Mark, you're better off with the 11000.

H
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13-08-2014, 08:25 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,582
Mark,

There are a lot of things to consider here.

As has been mentioned already, the KAF-8300 will give you finer resolution with an image scale of 1.14 arcsec/pixel vs 1.89 arcsec/pixel for the KAI-11002M. Neither is hugely oversampled for the seeing that you're likely to get in SE Qld.

The FOV of the KAF-8300 would be 47.4x62.9 arcmin and 84.2x126.4 arcmin for the KAI-11002M, so the KAI will give you a much bigger FOV.

The KAI has much deeper wells, so it will suit longer exposures better (bright objects like stars won't saturate as quickly).

The bigger pixels of the KAI will give you an advantage in the speed of data collection. With your system you would get to the same SNR with the KAI approximately twice as quickly (largely because you are imaging at a lower resolution.)

The KAF has lower read noise at approx 8e- vs 11e-, so that's a win to the KAF and reduces the benefit of faster imaging to a degree.

Hope that helps a bit. You really need to consider the resolution and FOV that you'd like to have by thinking about what targets you might want to image. My choice would be the KAI because I like the benefits of big pixels when imaging time is limited... you'll get a lower res image but a nice big FOV and good SNR with less imaging time.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-08-2014, 06:48 PM
Nortilus (Josh)
Registered User

Nortilus is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mackay, QLD
Posts: 455
this has also cleared up a few things i was wondering too...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14-08-2014, 06:57 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 9,319
It's been a hard decision for me - keep the Atik with the KAI 04022, or sell off and buy from a good friend his FLI KAF 8300 chipped Microline.

I decided to go with the FLI - for a variety of reasons - ultra cooling and resolution being my primary requirement. My smallish refractors that I image with I think will be better suited to the KAF 8300 chip than the KAI 04022. (over 1000 pixels difference in resolution). Sure, with the KAI I can make A3 prints, but that is not my goal at all.

To each their own.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement