Quote:
Originally Posted by naskies
Roger, thanks - this is an interesting thread! Another couple of titbits for thought...
Very few astro images have enough signal-to-noise to even remotely approach the diffraction limit of the sampling scale. For example, many people target their imaging around completing one LRGB image per evening or month, rather than aiming for a predefined SNR threshold. If all else were equal, larger apertures would equal better SNR.
|
Interesting aspect to consider. How would someone work calculate the SNR of their images and the desired SNR to aim for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by naskies
Larger apertures usually also mean longer focal lengths, and thus larger chips (with correspondingly larger pixel sizes) are needed to maintain the same field of view and pixel scale. Since the performance characteristics of small and big chips can differ quite substantially, you can get other benefits such as increased dynamic range and lower limiting magnitudes with chips that have deeper wells.
|
Interesting thought. I hadn't considered aspects of different pixel sizes such as deeper wells, only having considered the pixel size for the sake of calculating resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logieberra
|
Just to clarify, what I am interested here is not so much calculating the "best practice" best pixel size, more so investigating how the resolution can be pushed beyond that best practice to achieve higher resoultion, what factors can contribute to higher resolution being possible.