|
Now you say that looking at the image again they are quite bloated aren't they?
As I mentioned with the Tak TOA extender star sizes were smaller. Perhaps it has something to do with the small wells of the 8300 chip (20,000 electrons whereas the 16803 is 100,000). Some images using the 8300 though have very tight star sizes but I think the small well depth gets overwhelmed easily in a 10 minute sub if there are bright stars in the image. That is probably the key- are there bright stars in the field.
I have a 47 Tuc taken with a FLI Proline form this same trip I will be posting soon. Lets check the difference out with that. Fro what I ahve seen from that shot the stars are very tight. Also with the extender shot the stars were very tight which is good as that means its not the scope!
I did notice star sizes reduced using the Proline compared to the Apogee U16M but I put that down to using the Baaders instead of the Astronomiks. Perhaps not. Different antirefelction coatings on the CCD windows perhaps.
|