Pete_B

On 14/11/2021 at 11:24, wimvb said:

Thanks for the link, it is an interesting article. But I won't change the title of my post for it. 😉

Actually, the venerable brontosaurus was reinstated as a real dinosaur a few years back, so there is still hope for Pluto. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/

On 18/08/2020 at 12:29, vlaiv said:

Given that you have EQ6 mount and that average skies are as they are and so on and so on (we can discuss that as well but it is rather technical discussion) - you need to sample at about 1.2"/px (in reality I would advocate for 1.2-1.4 but you already have scope that samples at 1.43"/px).

Let's say you go for 1.2"/px. How large would that galaxy be when looking at it at 100% zoom level (1:1 or one image pixel to one screen pixel) - only 750px wide.

You can't get closer than that.

Thank you Vlaiv, for your amazingly clear answer with the 3 Points (a post which I have now re-read several times) !

I have a question - as per your quoted text above, if we just say that we should go with 1.2"/px as the 'best' we can reasonably expect to image (with typical seeing conditions etc) then does this basically mean that (as amateurs) we can really NEVER obtain an image of that example galaxy which is greater than 750px, regardless of telescope focal length, camera etc etc?

If so, that is rather depressing...

(And relatedly: When we take many dithered images and stack them, doesn't that allow clever processing to 'generate' additional image resolution?)

.