#1  
Old 18-10-2009, 04:35 PM
TheDecepticon
Registered User

TheDecepticon is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,223
Arc seconds per pixel.

I was wondering if someone could shed a bit of light on the "arc seconds per pixel" story. What is bad, what is good, what is better, how to calculate?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-10-2009, 04:39 PM
DavidU's Avatar
DavidU (Dave)
Like to learn

DavidU is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 4,722
This is a good read
http://www.ccd.com/ccd113.html
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-10-2009, 09:08 PM
jase (Jason)
Registered User

jase is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,916
How good are your skies? Seeing will greatly impact the arcsec/pixel formula. Oversampling has its merits, but only under the right sky conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21-10-2009, 10:09 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
My images are moderately under sampled, that being said, Im happy with the images... Under sampling can cause blocky looking stars when one star covers less than one pixel.. the star will appear square and unnatural.. My seeing here rarely gets better than 3 FWHM, my current resolution is 3.35" per pixel. I would think then that with the average of 3 FWHM seeing, having a better resolution would likely not make too much difference to the quality of my images.. If however I regularly experienced 1FWHM seeing, I would want a camera with smaller pixels that would result in roughly 1" per pixel.

If I was setting up what I'd consider a perfect imaging system, I would aim for between 0.7~0.9 arc sec per pixel.. Some would call that grossly oversampled for most conditions.. but I say, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it...

Alex.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22-10-2009, 07:01 AM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
As far as mechanically calculating it for your scope/camera combination, Rod Wodaski's CCDcalc does the job:

http://new-astronomy-ccdcalc.software.informer.com/

As Jase says though, I guess that seeing conditions will render the result to be variable.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22-10-2009, 09:15 AM
pvelez's Avatar
pvelez (Pete)
Registered User

pvelez is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,250
I've been puzzled by this recently - how exactly do you measure your seeing? Is it just by eye or is there a technique that establishes whether you have 2 or 3 arcsecond seeing?

Pete
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 22-10-2009, 06:02 PM
citivolus's Avatar
citivolus (Ric)
Refracted

citivolus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Carindale
Posts: 1,178
I suspect you measure the FWHM width of the star - the size of the area that a single star covers on your sensor, to 50% of maximum brightness.

IE, if you have:

00001124742110000

The FWHM width would be 3.

000001393100000 FWHM would be 1 (or 1.7 or something)

You then multiple that number of pixels by the width in arc seconds, and you get your effective resolution limit in arc seconds. Divide that number by 2, and you get your maximum effective sampling resolution.

Quite a few apps out there will calculate the FWHM size, as it is also used as a metric to establish how good your focus is.
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 02:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement