Doug David wrote:

> If I am correct in using the following to obtain 2 arc
> seconds per pixel (formulas from Starlight express)

2"/pixel is only for poor equipment in very bad seeing
conditions (> 4"). The original article that recommends
this stressed that this is only for beginners that have
poor equipment. It is compromise between hiding bad
images and at least getting a little bit of detail.

The minium to obtain maximum information (resolution) is
seeing / 2 / pixel. For optimal resolution you want
seeing / 3 / pixel.

In short worrying about "optimizing" pixel resolution is
a complete waste of time as most amateurs are working at
2.5m FL or less, which is just starting to push the limits
of 9u pixels under mediocre seeing. At under 2m FL you
are throwing away information anyway, so why worry about
how much resolution you are losing?

As Doc G has pointed out in the past, worry about fitting
the object on the chip is a much more worthy use of your
time.

Gene Horr

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Telescope dealers rating web page, Paul Markov
Next message: Re: [M]: LX200 Goto problem and Worm gear spring, Steve Blackmore
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: 8" LX200 and Starlight Express MX7-C, Maarten Vanleenhove