High Resolution Lunar/Planetary Imaging

[Rodd]

Hi all--I am considering getting a Planetary camera that has 2.8 micron pixels.  Am I wrong in assuming that smaller pixels will necessarilly mean higher resolution images?  Can a camera with 4.4 micron pixels produce lunar images as resolved as the 2.2 micron camera?--Shooting through a C11 Edge at either f10, f20 or f40, depending on seeing.

 

Thanks,

 

Rodd

[Owmuchonomy]

Have a watch of this.  

 

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, Owmuchonomy said:

Have a watch of this.  

 

Great video--but as everything in this hobby--not completely on point.  I understand the theory, but this theory is not even mentioned when shopping for cameras.  For example--many diufferent cameras with different pixel sizes are used with a C11 scope.  My question is more basic--what pixel size will provide the smallest possible detail on the moon or planets.  I don't care about image size when zooming in on a pebble on the moon.    I have a camera with 4.6 micron pixels that produces very clear, resolved lunar images (I have not yet reached its potential.  Will a camera by teh same manufacturer with pixels 2.8 microns allow me to reveal smaller details.  All teh theory in teh world does not allow me to answer this question--in teh end, I still have teh same question

 

Thanks for the vids.  Very useful

[si@nite]

Hi Rod

Ive been using the skyris 236m which is 2.8 micron pixels & you are correct, indeed the image resolution is a deal larger than cams with larger pixels, so large in fact I have to increase r.o.i. when using a 2x barlow with my imaging set up!

 

[Rodd]

52 minutes ago, si@nite said:

Hi Rod

Ive been using the skyris 236m which is 2.8 micron pixels & you are correct, indeed the image resolution is a deal larger than cams with larger pixels, so large in fact I have to increase r.o.i. when using a 2x barlow with my imaging set up!

 

Does this mean that when imaging the moon (or a planet) that smaller details will be visible--or does it simply mean that the visible details will be larger--but no smaller details will be visible?

[si@nite]

22 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Does this mean that when imaging the moon (or a planet) that smaller details will be visible--or does it simply mean that the visible details will be larger--but no smaller details will be visible?

Hi Rodd

I would say the visible detail would be larger because only the resolution has increased, extending the focal length would surely determine the latter!

[Cornelius Varley]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Does this mean that when imaging the moon (or a planet) that smaller details will be visible--or does it simply mean that the visible details will be larger--but no smaller details will be visible?

Smaller pixels won't give you more detail, it's a juggling act between the pixel size of the camera and the focal length and aperture of the telescope. Ultimately both cameras would be capable of imaging the same lunar feature with the same level of detail, the camera with the smaller pixels would be able to achieve this at shorter focal lengths.

[Rodd]

27 minutes ago, Cornelius Varley said:

Smaller pixels won't give you more detail, it's a juggling act between the pixel size of the camera and the focal length and aperture of the telescope. Ultimately both cameras would be capable of imaging the same lunar feature with the same level of detail, the camera with the smaller pixels would be able to achieve this at shorter focal lengths.

Thanks--That's my answer.  Not sure I needed the Skyris 236 then--I have the 618 and the 274.  Oh well--I think the 236 will be better for planets then the 618.

[riklaunim]

Latest Sony CMOS sensors have very low read noise (among mono probably IMX178 has lowest, among color IMX224), lower than ICX618 so it could give some improvement in planetary imaging - especially in more challenging bands. Also CMOS will be faster than CCD, which is most handy for lunar/solar where big panels can be captured quickly.

 

Pixels size, as said above won't give more detail - if both big and small pixels are at optimal f/ratio for their size then both will show the same thing. Smaller pixels will reach that point at faster f/ratio.

[ngwillym]

Do you mean higher resolution or larger image scale.

 

As an example - here's 3 images taken 2 days ago on a c11 @f10 , one with A DFK21AU - 640x480 with 5.6 micron pixels and the other - a QHY5l-II mono 1280 x 960with 3.6 micro pixels and the third a 640x480 subframe from the QHY