Comparison between e2v and 618 sensors - Jupiter

[riklaunim]

For bigger pixels quite likely microlenses do all the job. If there was noticeable improvement from using BSI for bigger pixels they would do it - as the competition between sensor makers is very high. Quite likely BSI increases the cost while doesn't bring enough improvement.

[bus_ter]

Is this a back illuminated sensor? (1/3" Sony IMX035 Exmor CMOS)

http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Imagers-Opticstar.asp?p=0_10_0_50_120

[riklaunim]

Nope It's just a CMOS from Exmor line, where they limited read noise in rolling shutter mode (it's not a sCMOS sensor). Nothing very interesting (global shutter and faster would be better).

Backside illumination is not a holy grail. You don't need it to make a super-good sensor.

[neil phillips]

There is no scope size effect. 100" or 10" imaging on f/20 will use the same exposure times to get the same histogram fill. Only resolution will differ. Of course very big scope doesn't have to do f/20 to get a big planet. It can go on faster framerate (but why - if you can use the f/20).

If the air wouldn't move we would be using DS cameras for planetary imaging and catching like 20 frames per channel at few sec exposures. Decreasing exposures time and increasing gain lowers signal to noise ratio as well as brings read noise and read artifacts as a major problem (grainy noise is the weakest effect of them). Thats why we should use short exposures for planetary imaging - but as short as needed, not as short as possible. Lower gain than lower exposures time is in general better.

Yes your right f number is misleading i am not thinking about the longer focal length the bigger scope will produce. Should be talking about focal length, not F number agreed Rik. Thats something i often talk about, but am forgetting how misleading F number actually is.

But bigger optics at the same focal length certainly will have a effect on exposure and histogram fill or otherwise we could be using 2" scopes at 10 meters focal length with the same exposure and histogram fill. as a 10" scope at 10 meters. Clearly thats not the case. So Larger optics will affect histogram fill for any given focal length. so i think the rather interesting question still is whats the maximum frame rate possible with very large optics. and healthy exposure fills ?

[riklaunim]

At f/2 you would get ~25 time shorter exposures than on f/10 so a 3000/6000 scope would allow quite fast imaging