Re: STUNNING image of M51


Magnum wrote:
> One major reason why Gendler's and Roland's images are sharper is
they are
> using much higher resolution cameras. This image is with a ST 8,
Roland
> with ST 10. His Maksutov has superior optics and is closed tube.
Aperture
> isn't nearly as important as the resolution of the recording device.

First, as long as you don't undersample your PSF it doesn't matter what
is the pixel size (the word resolution has no meaning in this context).
Secondly how do you know that the chap's optics is inferior. For all
that I know it could be as good as it gets. Closed tube matters zero,
maybe even something less.

>
> Sure if you take the best in the business and spend money (correctly)
you
> will eventually get better results.

False. I have seen better pictures taken with far less instrumentation.
Besides Roland's pic had only 1 hour worth of luminance vs 6+. Even if
the two CCDs have not the same performance/sensitivity there's quite a
difference in terms of raw signal.

>
> The point is to the average amateur, this is a great result and was
image
> of the day.

I don't think that kind of instrumentation he used labels him an
average amateur, quite the opposite.

Andrea T.

.