ICEINSPACE
 Moon Phase CURRENT MOON First Quarter42.5% Moon Phase...
 The Sun Now

 IceInSpace Archseconds per pixel????
 Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#1
05-08-2018, 09:12 AM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
Archseconds per pixel????

Hi,

I am trying to understand the best resolution to capture planetary images. I have come across formulas out every internet orifice and find it difficult to understand. 0.25" (arcseconds) /pixel seems to be the optimum. But what does this mean in real terms?????

Ok, heres my setup (not an exhaustive list, ony the relevant ones for this thread):
• Skywacher Newtonian 1200mm / 250mm (MAX 500x magnification)
• ZWO 174mm camera
• 5x Televue Powermate (increasing focal length to 6000mm (F24)) (don't know what this means in magnification except for the obvious 5x)
I've taken pretty reasonable images with this setup, but i have seen far better images taken with the same camera and know there must be a better way.

So, my query is how do I work out what is best with the equipment I have, how do know the target 0.25" (arcseconds) / pixel is met (even if this is optimum). Let's take Saturn as an example. It's around 21 arcseconds in diameter, how do I magnify this to reach the optimum.

I find this all very confusing.

Last edited by cyberblitz; 05-08-2018 at 04:23 PM.
#2
05-08-2018, 09:41 AM
 Merlin66 (Ken) Spectroscopy Wizard Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: St Leonards, Vic Posts: 7,295
Arc sec/ pixel is a measure of the plate scale for your set-up.
Based on effective focal length and the pixel size of the camera...

If the object you want to image is say 20 arc/sec in size and the arc sec/ pix is 0.5 then the object would cover 40 pixel on the image.

The optimum arc sec/ pixel really depends on your seeing conditions. Somewhere around 0.5 arc sec/ pixel is a good starting point.

To answer you other questions download CCDCalc and enter your data - it will give you arc/sec pix (plate scale), field of view and comparison with various objects.
I've entered your data into CDCCalc and get 0.19 arc sec/ pixel (Ignore the telescope label - I entered 250 f5 with x5)
HTH
http://www.newastro.com/book_new/camera_app.html
Attached Thumbnails
 75.7 KB13 views
#3
05-08-2018, 10:05 AM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
Thanks, i get 0.19 arcseconds per pixel. I don't know if this is good or bad. It seems i'm 0.06" below optimum.

I've read using a barlow with telescopes less than 2000mm is not a good idea, using projected imaging is better. Not sure which is better, not tried projected imaging.
#4
05-08-2018, 10:17 AM
 Slawomir (Suavi) Amateur Photon Collector Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Proserpine Posts: 3,050
Although I know very little about planetary imaging, I think that one needs to also take into account diffraction limit for a given aperture. 250mm aperture has a diffraction limit of about 0.5", so I believe there would be little advantage in going lower than that with arcseconds per pixel for this aperture, even in perfect seeing. Accurate and precise collimation is also a definite must for achieving highly detailed images.
#5
05-08-2018, 10:21 AM
 Merlin66 (Ken) Spectroscopy Wizard Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: St Leonards, Vic Posts: 7,295
Don't know where you read that.....barlows (and Powermates) can be successfully used on all focal lengths. Much easy to set-up and use than the eyepiece projection.
At 0.19 arc sec/ pixel you're probably over sampling which realistically will add nothing to the image...targeting around 0.3 to 0.5 would probably be better.
#6
05-08-2018, 10:29 AM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
Considering the camera has 2.3Mega pixels, Saturn would only cover a very small area of the sensor, 110 pixels (going by 0.19"/pixel), it is a very small area indeed.

Thought using more pixels would be better?? But i'm probalby limited by the telescope to magnify any more.

Would adding a Atmosphere Dispersion Corrector help with increasing this? If only a little
#7
05-08-2018, 10:32 AM
 Merlin66 (Ken) Spectroscopy Wizard Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: St Leonards, Vic Posts: 7,295

Bigger telescopes longer focal lengths more sensitive cameras....endless circle!!

Practise with what you have, you may be pleasantly surprised with the outcome.
#8
05-08-2018, 10:34 AM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50

Although i may not totally understand their meaning.

Quote:
 The most common accessories for amplifying the image are Barlows and eyepiece-projection adapters. If your telescope has a fairly long focal length (2000mm or more) a Barlow will probably be sufficient. The exceptions to this might be if you have a CCD with very large pixels (16-microns or more), or if you are seeking the most detail possible and have very good seeing conditions. For smaller (shorter-focal-length) telescopes, or for large-pixel CCDs, the usual method of magnification is eyepiece projection. By shooting through an eyepiece, more magnification is provided than a Barlow can give
#9
05-08-2018, 10:42 AM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
No idea what oversampling means
#10
05-08-2018, 10:47 AM
 Slawomir (Suavi) Amateur Photon Collector Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Proserpine Posts: 3,050
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Merlin66 An ADC won't add more data. Bigger telescopes longer focal lengths more sensitive cameras....endless circle!! Practise with what you have, you may be pleasantly surprised with the outcome.
I totally agree. This person gets interesting results with a mere 135mm aperture: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5.../#entry8716678

The reason I mentioned diffraction limit and aperture size is that from what I understand there is little benefit in imaging high resolution way beyond telescope’s aperture limit.
#11
05-08-2018, 10:49 AM
 Merlin66 (Ken) Spectroscopy Wizard Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: St Leonards, Vic Posts: 7,295
Over sampling is a bit like excess magnification - it doesn't add any info to the image.
#12
05-08-2018, 04:26 PM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
Lowering the magnification reduces the image on the sensor, producing a video file containing a pretty small object. I suspect I need to improve on post-processing techniques to both clean it up and increase its size to be of any use.

I understand the diffraction issue; it happens with any camera situation if the f-stop is reduced enough. I suppose this explains over-sampling in a way, but with magnification.

I could do with reading a good book on this if anyone has any recommendations?
#13
06-08-2018, 11:14 AM
 sil (Steve) Not even a speck of dust Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Canberra Posts: 1,402
For planetary you need a camera with smaller pixel size NOT more pixels.
You should be capturing at smaller size (not full) so its not such a tiny dot in the blackness, but you're wasting processing and capture speed on data you have to throw away. By dropping the recording size the planet is still the same number of pixels across but you gain frame rate which is very important. Planetary you only have a few minutes to record before the planet's rotation starts to smear your stacked result (you ARE stacking right?!).
no books, just experiment and learn, it takes time and patience. ADC wont help much if at all, every piece of glass you add to the optical train reduces the photons that reach the camera and adds extra distortions. No such thing as 100.0% transparent glass with 0.0% distortions so a 5x televue sound great but youre often magnifying the atmospheric distortions anyway. There are practical magnification limits of OTAs .
#14
06-08-2018, 12:09 PM
 cyberblitz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Birsbane Posts: 50
Its starting to make a lot more sense now. I'll try less magnification and see were i go. And yes, i do stack - i use Autostakkart 3.

Attached: an example of Saturn with my current setup
Attached Thumbnails
 41.6 KB27 views

 Bookmarks

 Thread Tools Rate This Thread Rate This Thread: 5 : Excellent 4 : Good 3 : Average 2 : Bad 1 : Terrible

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Beginners Start Here     Beginners Talk     Beginners Equipment Discussions     Beginners Astrophotography General Astronomy     General Chat     Astronomy Books and Media     Star Parties, Club and Community Events     Celestial and Astronomical Events     Observational and Visual Astronomy         Observation Reports     Astronomy and Amateur Science     Radio Astronomy and Spectroscopy Equipment     Equipment Discussions     Eyepieces, Barlows and Filters     ATM and DIY Projects     DIY Observatories     Software and Computers     Mobile Astronomy Apps     Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions Images     Solar System     Deep Space     Nightscapes     Terrestrial Photography IceTrade Classifieds     Telescopes & Mounts     Eyepieces     Accessories     Cameras & Imaging Equipment     Non-Astronomy     Trade/Wanted     IceTrade Archives IceInSpace     IceInSpace Announcements     Website Feedback and FAQ

All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:40 AM.