Sponsored By:

Subject: [M]: "Seeing" vs Pixel Size
From: Paul E. Snapp
Reply To: mapug@shore.net
Date: Sun Oct 19 05:26:03 1997

Thanks for all the responses to my previous post. My previous question
about seeing was probably unclearly stated based on the responses I have
received. I had read an article which stated that seeing could be a 1
at mountaintop and and high as a 4 at sea level and recommended that
focal length be adjusted such that pixel size was one half seeing. My
application if for a Meade 201XT used for autoguiding and I do no take
CCD images, I use a 35mm camera. I wanted to know what this definition
of seeing really means and how is it calculated or determined in order
to select focal length? I am also wondering if this even applies to
guide stars used for autoguiding? Should I even be concerned about
seeing vs. pixel size while autoguiding? Is there a such thing as over
or under saturation of a guide star? The article I read suggested that
the image being photographed (imaged?) could turn out to be "blocky" if
the pixel size were not right. I now assume that this has nothing to do
with photography but is a statement describing CCD imaging. Am I
correct? Thanks for your inputs and help.