Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 26-04-2012, 08:28 PM
alistairsam's Avatar
alistairsam
Registered User

alistairsam is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Box Hill North, Vic
Posts: 1,837
Hi Clive,

So do you think it unlikely to yield any difference with details in areas with nebulosity, faint shadows and highlights or overall clarity?
you often read reports of visual observers noticing improved contrast, pinpoint stars etc with higher quality mirrors, I can't help but think it would be similar for imaging especially since the eye is far less sensitive to subtle variations in detail and if they're detectable by the eye, it might be more pronounced with a ccd? just guessing here.

I'm not sure of the details, but wasn't the initial flaw with the hubble mirror relatively minor but yielded dramatically inferior results? I guess the scale of that mirror is very different from what we're talking about here and could've been the contributing factor?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26-04-2012, 09:31 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Beg to differ with Clive's analysis.

With imaging it comes down to field correction, spot size and seeing. A well made Riccardi-Honders delivers 5 micron stars across around a 70mm flat field. Most other systems have spot sizes 2x larger on axis, and
degrade to *way more* off axis due to field curvature, astigmatism etc.

Other factors such as thermal and mechanical stability also come into play, and literally shift focus as an exposure is being taken. Exacting focusers and thermally stable materials usually come at a cost. My experience so far has been, you get what you pay for.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 27-04-2012, 09:48 AM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
A well made Riccardi-Honders delivers 5 micron stars across around a 70mm flat field.
Peter, this kind of performance may be possible on a ray trace program but the reality of diffraction theory says its impossible. For a perfect F4 system of any design the diameter of the Airy disc to the first mimima of the airy pattern will be about 6 micron and then the 50% central obstruction will throw light into the first and second diffraction rings making them very bright , probably doubling the best blur spot diameter to twice that in the presence of seeing.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27-04-2012, 11:28 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
Peter, this kind of performance may be possible on a ray trace program but the reality of diffraction theory says its impossible. For a perfect F4 system of any design the diameter of the Airy disc to the first mimima of the airy pattern will be about 6 micron and then the 50% central obstruction will throw light into the first and second diffraction rings making them very bright , probably doubling the best blur spot diameter to twice that in the presence of seeing.
Not really. Airy disk size and spot size are two different paramaters. I think you knew that

The physical size of the airy disk is purely a function of the F-ratio. 4.7 microns for a F3.8 system. With 305mm of aperture you'd be looking at 0.84 arc sec of sky.

That is not the same as the spot size.

Spot size (and shape) depends on all sorts of variables, but in a nutshell, mirror/lens quality & optical design.

You only need to look at the off axis "sea-gulls" delivered by most camera lenses to see what happens when a design is not corrected well.

The Honders design covers a 3 degree field with essentially perfect color correction from 400 to 1,000 nanometers (UV to IR). The telescope is fully corrected for spherical, coma, astigmatism, field curvature and distortion, longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration.


Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27-04-2012, 01:15 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,875
Peter, Yes I know the difference, I was referring to the quoting of what I imagined were spot sizes from geometric ray tracing ( just talking about on axis to simplify things) . Assuming you had pixels to oversample , the true spot size ( allowing for diffraction effects) achieved in an image would be somewhat larger than 5 micron due to the extra energy thrown out of the airy disc by the 50% central obstruction.

See two simulations I have done with Aberrator. When you add in the blurring effects of seeing the true blur spot diameter of the real instrument is going to be somewhat larger than the one calculated by geometric ray tracing. If the first dark minima is at 4.8 microns, the blur spot will be closer to 10 micron in a time exposure.

Unless you are using very small pixels the obstruction probably makes no difference to the quality of the images.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (0.5.jpg)
7.5 KB38 views
Click for full-size image (0.jpg)
6.0 KB26 views
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 27-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
..... just talking about on axis to simplify things......
That's the rub. Agreed, On axis, most 'scopes can perform very well.

35mm off axis is where many systems simply don't cope....as sensor sizes have grown, the merits, or shortcomings of various designs have become more obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 27-04-2012, 04:28 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
I asked RCOS once what the expected gain was from the Ion Milled optics which are to all practical purposes perfect. I was told the ion milling removed micro scratches from the polishing process and the gain was less light scatter.

Much like the gain from fluorite over FPL53. Minor but noticeable.
Less light scatter. This could mean slight improvements in contrast.

Greg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alistairsam View Post
Hi Clive,

So do you think it unlikely to yield any difference with details in areas with nebulosity, faint shadows and highlights or overall clarity?
you often read reports of visual observers noticing improved contrast, pinpoint stars etc with higher quality mirrors, I can't help but think it would be similar for imaging especially since the eye is far less sensitive to subtle variations in detail and if they're detectable by the eye, it might be more pronounced with a ccd? just guessing here.

I'm not sure of the details, but wasn't the initial flaw with the hubble mirror relatively minor but yielded dramatically inferior results? I guess the scale of that mirror is very different from what we're talking about here and could've been the contributing factor?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 27-04-2012, 05:30 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,875
My guess is that sky background darkness is a function baffling and F# alone and that smooth optics will mean that precious energy isn't scattered from diffuse objects . However I'm not sure what the relationship between spherical aberration and contrast of diffuse objects. I'd say it is much less important a consideration than optical smoothness for imaging faint diffuse objects. Users who report seeing `darker' sky background in premium reflecting optics I think are having themselves on. Perhaps the coatings are cleaner.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 27-04-2012, 09:39 PM
bmitchell82's Avatar
bmitchell82 (Brendan)
Newtonian power! Love it!

bmitchell82 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Mandurah
Posts: 2,597
Okay now im lost!

On one hand people are saying that commercially made optics are just fine as all this PV measurements are just a load of horse whooharr

On the other hand people are saying that the higher quality the mirror the better. Better images, Better magnification etc etc

If high quality mirrors don't mean anything then why would you have "Premium" mirror makers. Isn't it all just a crock?

I might as well just get the bog stock standard run of the mill mass produced optics at 1/4 of the cost!

Could somebody put it in terms that are quantifiable and not in high end optician language?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 27-04-2012, 10:34 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmitchell82 View Post
Okay now im lost!

On one hand people are saying that commercially made optics are just fine as all this PV measurements are just a load of horse whooharr

On the other hand people are saying that the higher quality the mirror the better. Better images, Better magnification etc etc
Shades of gray.

The last 13% of any engineered system seeking "perfection" starts to cost serious $ with not a whole lot of performance return.

Hi-Fi's, cars, etc. all fall in that sort of category.

On a good night (i.e great seeing) average optics will satisfy most punters.

Excellent optics will return good images most nights (in short , it takes crappy seeing to unsettle them)

But, on a really good night (i.e superb seeing) excellent optics will also give you images as good as mother nature allows....

....A place you can never get to if the imaging system is already hamstrung by rough, poorly corrected or short-cut designed optics.

Question is: do you want to pay to capture those rare, albeit sublime, moments??

Proof?? the M104 image I took some years ago with great optics in superb seeing. The link is here
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 27-04-2012, 11:16 PM
bmitchell82's Avatar
bmitchell82 (Brendan)
Newtonian power! Love it!

bmitchell82 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Mandurah
Posts: 2,597
That is what I thought all along Peter!

No i'm not just a happy snapper... Though I am majorly ham strung by uni!

I remember watching Top gear one night and they where testing the bugatti Veyron, the new one or the "suped" up version had close to 40hp at the rear wheels but only went a extra 4 or 5km a hour some piddly amount. At 300+ air becomes thick soup! Wind is my major source of loading where P=0.5*1.2kg/m3*wind speed^2*10^-3 = kN/m^2 so yes I understand that at low end it ramps up quickly but at the high end alot more effort is required.

I think presently I have almost reached the quality limits of a mass produced mirror. Its apparent when sitting side by side with other astrophotographers with similar styles of equipment but differing degrees of quality!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 28-04-2012, 04:28 PM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmitchell82 View Post
That is what I thought all along Peter!

No i'm not just a happy snapper... Though I am majorly ham strung by uni!

I remember watching Top gear one night and they where testing the bugatti Veyron, the new one or the "suped" up version had close to 40hp at the rear wheels but only went a extra 4 or 5km a hour some piddly amount. At 300+ air becomes thick soup! Wind is my major source of loading where P=0.5*1.2kg/m3*wind speed^2*10^-3 = kN/m^2 so yes I understand that at low end it ramps up quickly but at the high end alot more effort is required.

I think presently I have almost reached the quality limits of a mass produced mirror. Its apparent when sitting side by side with other astrophotographers with similar styles of equipment but differing degrees of quality!
That's why you shouldn't be systematically ironing out the deficiencies in your mass-produced and self-tweaked system Brendan. The lure of additional quality images is about to COST big time
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 28-04-2012, 04:52 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,064
Well put Peter, the proof is in the pudding, and that m104 is certainly proof, the detail in the edge is outstanding. I hope to also prove the point with my overpriced RCOS optics (albeit pissy 10") when I install my rig at siding spring shortly right amongst the big toys, that'll make for some interesting comparisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Shades of gray.

The last 13% of any engineered system seeking "perfection" starts to cost serious $ with not a whole lot of performance return.

Hi-Fi's, cars, etc. all fall in that sort of category.

On a good night (i.e great seeing) average optics will satisfy most punters.

Excellent optics will return good images most nights (in short , it takes crappy seeing to unsettle them)

But, on a really good night (i.e superb seeing) excellent optics will also give you images as good as mother nature allows....

....A place you can never get to if the imaging system is already hamstrung by rough, poorly corrected or short-cut designed optics.

Question is: do you want to pay to capture those rare, albeit sublime, moments??

Proof?? the M104 image I took some years ago with great optics in superb seeing. The link is here
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 28-04-2012, 05:48 PM
issdaol (Phil)
Registered User

issdaol is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canberra
Posts: 688
So along the lines of Hi-Fi audio perfectionists being called Audiophiles ,maybe there should be a term for Astronomers - Astrophiles :-)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 28-04-2012, 05:55 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post

Proof?? the M104 image I took some years ago with great optics in superb seeing. The link is here
I'm sorry I'm not familiar enough with your equipment list, Peter. What was the FL, aperture, f ratio and design of the system that produced that truly impressive image? How does the resolution in that image compare with the theroretical capabilities of the system? What was the sensor/camera used?
regards,
Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 28-04-2012, 06:08 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky View Post
I'm sorry I'm not familiar enough with your equipment list, Peter. What was the FL, aperture, f ratio and design of the system that produced that truly impressive image? How does the resolution in that image compare with the theroretical capabilities of the system? What was the sensor/camera used?
regards,
Andrew.
Err...it's all there on the Web page. Just scroll down

What I don't know is: how the actual FWHM's compare to theory. The optical systems figure is however within 4% of perfection.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 28-04-2012, 06:14 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
... my overpriced RCOS optics ....
Yep .....but you neglected to mention the fact: you got them for a song! (Fred actually only threatened to sing...so I gave him the scope to avoid any more Tinnitus than I already have )
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 28-04-2012, 06:22 PM
bmitchell82's Avatar
bmitchell82 (Brendan)
Newtonian power! Love it!

bmitchell82 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Mandurah
Posts: 2,597
how you know it rob how you know it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF View Post
That's why you shouldn't be systematically ironing out the deficiencies in your mass-produced and self-tweaked system Brendan. The lure of additional quality images is about to COST big time
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 28-04-2012, 07:11 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Err...it's all there on the Web page. Just scroll down

What I don't know is: how the actual FWHM's compare to theory. The optical systems figure is however within 4% of perfection.
Thanks - I got a bit caught up in the image. Still - it's only really proof that you got a great image through your system: now someone with a similar aperture but inferior optics needs to step up to that mark.
regards,
Andrew.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 28-04-2012, 07:22 PM
DavidU's Avatar
DavidU (Dave)
Like to learn

DavidU is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 4,835
Here is one of Rohr's optical tests. This is a superb mirror in all respects , now check out the resolution it is capable of in the 3.3u artificial stars test.In there is also the star resolution test of a GSO mirror and a few others. It clearly shows fine resolution is better with an extremely good mirror.
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...M0Kw#post30967
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
mirror, quality

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 12:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement