|
Adam, from a theoretical perspective, I can tell you that the information on the page you linked, about getting more detail by oversampling, is completely false. Yes it looks convincing, because of the way the sampled raw data is presented. In reality, oversampled data contains no more information than data sampled at the Nyquist limit.
Given that the signal is sampled at or above the Nyquist frequency f, and the fact, by definition, that the original signal contains no frequency components greater than 1/2 the Nyquist frequency, then the same original continuous signal can be recovered irrespective of what sampling rate (>= f) is used, if the data is analysed correctly. Correct analysis is not simply connecting the dots like the webpage author did for the waveform (and the star image examples are even more misleading). It is a well defined rigorous mathematical process that guarantees the complete recovery of the original signal. And it applies equally in one, two and higher dimensions, so it works for audio, video, or any other sampled data you can think of.
So don't feel like you need to go nuts with the CCD resolution. Just sample at twice the resolving limit of the scope and that will be as good as you are going to get. The rest is all up to doing the right thing with data you collect.
|