Thanks Bert. I've zoomed right in until pixelation is starting on the same field for comparison, FSQ on right.
The tracking on my NEQ6 was pretty average on the night, so I suspect the resolution of the FSQ would have appeared even poorer if not for "mathematical averaging" based on the fair number of frames collected.
For those interested in stats, as far as I can tell:
Bert's RH200:- 8" f/3 FL = 600mm
- 6x32mins 3nm NII (192mins total)
- Theoretical image resolution = 3.09 arcsec/pix
Rob's FSQ:- 4" f/5 FL = 530mm
- 3x5mins + 12x15mins 7nm Ha (195mins total)
- Theoretical image resolution = 2.1 arcsec/pix
Observations:- Seeing can't really be quantitated between the 2 sessions (Melbourne versus Brisbane) but both were relatively close to city centres?
- I'm not sure how to calculate flux gathering capacity, but 8" f/3 should be way ahead of 4" f/5 for roughly equivalent imaging time and I think that shows in terms of details and signal to noise (but then again the NII data is 3nm and the Ha 7nm so perhaps the NII is letting less light through but with better resolution and contrast?)
- The RH200 stars are clearly better resolved
- Focus - its possible and reasonably likely the RH200 is a bit better focused - the FSQ was done by hand with a Bhat mask then not adjusted all night - planning to add Robofocus in future - I'm pretty fussy though so I don't think it would have been out by much (if anything) - not sure how often the RH200 needs checking in this regard?
- There is a little more pixelation showing in the RH200 image (more so on the original TIFF) reflecting the larger arcsec/pix value, but IMHO it hasn't hurt the image and results in an image 50% bigger per pixel, and that's before you start taking into account the massive size of the larger chip - I want a 16803!!
