Quote:
Originally Posted by csb
Thanks, Fahim.
Explained clear and simple. That is all good for what I want to do.
With this camera I don't need to get a laptop. Gstar was becoming my preference...until I looked at pixel size.
The pixels in Gstar - 8.5 x 8.3 micron
compared to DMK - 5.6 x 5.6 micron
Then I found this at Finger Lakes Instrumentation www.fli-cam.com :
A primary factor in achieving high resolution images is to match your telescope's focal length to your CCD's pixels size. All things being equal, a long focal length telescope will give better results with large pixels and a short focal length telescope will give better results with small pixels.
Under steady skies, the best combination of telescope focal length and pixel size will result in 2 arc-seconds of sky per pixel. For example, an ideal match for a 9 micron pixel is a telescope of 36" focal length (such as a 8" f4.5, 6" f6). An 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrin telescope (80" focal length), even with a focal reducer, is oversampled (too many pixels per star).
I verified this info on other sites and all agreed - also found a simple table that showed about 6micron is good size for the 400mm focal length of the PST.
So it is probably the DMK or SAC4 II for my solar imaging - darn, I really liked the features on the Gstar, but I'm after detail and resolution.
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread nor end it - but I thought this info may be useful for others.
So, Jeanette, has your thread helped your understanding of SenseUp, it sure helped mine |
Thank You Craig, that is very useful information
