Introduction | Deep Sky Photos | Moon, Sun, and Planet Photos | Applications | Final Words | Links | Appendix: Collection of Rules of Thumb | Appendix: Derivations of the Formulas
On this page I want to investigate how telescope and camera sensor can be tuned to each other and what differences there are between deep sky images on the one hand and moon, sun and planet images on the other hand.
Notes
The quality of the fit of a camera sensor with a given pixel size to a given telescope focal length can be judged on the basis of its image scale (rule of thumb):
The image scale should lie between the guiding values of 1 and 2 (often, a value of 1.5 is mentioned). If you want to consider the seeing, halve the FWHM value ["] for the local seeing:
and use this value or these values as a guide.
The rules of thumb that are presented and derived on this page can be found in Appendix: Collection of Rules of Thumb.
There are a large number of astronomy cameras from different manufacturers on the market. A distinguishing feature is the size of the cells of the camera sensor, also called pixel size. Hobby astronomers, who want to get into astrophotography or EAA (Electronically Augmented Astronomy) or even buy another astronomy camera, are thus faced with the question of what pixel size the sensor of such a camera should have in order to fit the focal length of their telescope or telescopes optimally ("optimal adaptation"). Conversely, for a given camera, i.e. with a given pixel size of the sensor, the question arises what focal length your telescope should have so that it fits it optimally. This raises a number of questions: Why does pixel size matter? What does "optimal fit" mean in this context? And how do you find it? I would like to answer these questions in the following!
Unfortunately the answer to these questions is not easy and has to be somewhat "theoretical". First of all, we have to realize that using a digital camera on a telescope is a process in which an analog signal, the optical telescope image, is converted into a digital one, namely the image produced by the camera sensor. Ideally, this conversion, also called digitization, should be lossless, so that in the digital version even fine or, more so, the finest details of the original are preserved. For example, if you digitize music for a CD, the aim is to transfer all audible frequencies, i.e. all frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. But how do you achieve (as far as possible) loss-free digitization and how does this look like in concrete case of a telescope with a digital camera attached?
While when digitizing temporal signals the analog signal is measured (sampled) in rapid temporal succession, spatial signals are measured (sampled) "side by side", that is, spatially distributed and often temporally in parallel. In digital photography, where two spatial dimensions are to be captured, this "spatial juxtaposition" is realized by rectangular sensors, which are built up from a matrix of tiniest light-sensitive cells, called pixels. Here, too, the aim is to preserve the finest details, that is, to prevent objects and spatial structures that are as small as possible from disappearing. In the case of a telescope, these are the smallest stars that a telescope can show. The size of these "smallest stars" is determined by the resolving power (resolution) of the telescope, which depends on the aperture of the telescope. So these "smallest stars" have to be obtained when imaging with a digital camera!
A camera connected to a telescope captures the optical image produced by the telescope with a sensor consisting of a rectangle of tiny sensor cells, the "pixels". And, as we know from digital photography, the number of pixels that a camera sensor has is important - and for a given sensor size, this number also determines the size of the pixels, which we usually care little about. This is, however, different in astrophotography; here the size of the pixels plays a role, and precisely in the question of how to achieve the best lossless digitalization possible. Our somewhat "imprecise" initial question, namely, what size the pixels should have in order to achieve an "optimal adaptation" of the telescope and camera sensor, can now be reworded as: What size should the pixels of the camera sensor have so that the optical signal can be digitized without losses so that that even the finest stars that the telescope can show are preserved.
This question is first of all answered in general terms by the Nyquist theorem: It states that the "sampling rate" must be at least twice as high as the highest frequency to be transmitted. For CDs, therefore, 44 kHz is chosen in order to transmit 20 kHz safely. In the case of spatial signals (we speak of so-called "spatial frequencies", more difficult for laypersons to imagine...), the "receiving grid" of sensor cells must be at least twice as fine as the finest details of the original image, which should still be preserved.
For astronomy cameras, this means that the smallest imageable stars must fall on at least two pixels for them to be imaged "optimally" (if they fall on three pixels, the stars become even rounder...). The finest stars that a telescope can show correspond in size to its resolving power, so a pixel must be half the size or less than the resolving power of the telescope used. So we basically got the answer to the question asked at the beginning! What is still missing are formulas to calculate the optimal pixel size, because the resolving power is given in arcseconds and the pixel size in micrometers. I have found such and other formulas on the Internet and would like to present them in short form below. More detailed formulas and derivations as well as reasons for certain factors and values can be found on page Telescope and Sensor.
In astronomical practice, there is unfortunately still a complication! The air tends to be restless and turbulent, in English we speak of "seeing" (I will use this term in the following), and this enlarges the star images to some degree. In practice, this does not have an effect on short time exposures (moon, sun, planets), but it does have an effect on photos with longer exposure times, like deep sky photos. For these photos, the telescope resolution is therefore not important, but the larger seeing value (as a FWHM value), which in principle is a measure of the size of a "bloated star". This case can be treated with the formulas mentioned above by entering the desired FWHM value into the formulas instead of the resolution (see below).
The formulas for pixel size on the Internet typically refer to an "optimal pixel size", and I have used this term as well. In fact, the Nyquist theorem has only an upper limit on pixel size, and therefore the pixels might be as small as you like. So there must be practical reasons for the upper limit to be the optimum and therefore also the lower limit, although in certain cases, such as the image scale formulas listed below, you may want to aim for a range around the optimum.
To the upper limit first! If a star falls on less than two pixels, the digitized image becomes coarser than the original. In "technical jargon", this is referred to as "undersampling". The Nyquist theorem helps us to avoid this! Now to the lower limit! Basically, the larger the pixels of a sensor are, the more light-sensitive it is (and the pixels themselves as well). Small pixels therefore lead to a lower sensitivity, and therefore the pixels should be as large as possible to keep exposure times short. They are, as we learned above, when a star falls on exactly two pixels. The range around this optimum is also called "good sampling". However, smaller pixels are not only less sensitive to light, but in the case of astronomy, where we are dealing with weak signals, the smaller the pixels, the more the signals, i.e. stars, spread over increasingly more pixels. This further weakens an already weak signal. On the other hand, the more pixels an object is distributed over, the more details appear (provided that these details can be reproduced). Therefore, in applications where there is enough light available, such as in lunar, solar, and planetary photography, this approach, called "oversampling", is used in practice. For this purpose, formulas have been developed which calculate an optimal compromise between details and exposure time (see below).
In the following I present some simple formulas for the optimal adaptation of telescopes and sensors, for which there are often also "rules of thumb" that simplify the calculations. The formulas for pixel size and telescope focal length are a direct application of the approach just described. For the other formulas I, did not find any derivations, but they are also based on the principles described here.
Because of what is written about seeing, I distinguish in the following between deep sky photography (long exposures) and moon, sun and planetary photography (short exposures), even though the "basic formulas" have the same basis.
In the following I present formulas that are used for deep sky photography; there are "rules of thumb" for them, which make things easier in practice and which I provide here (the exact formulas are presented in the appendix):
For the optimum pixel size or telescope focal length, the following "rules of thumb" formulas have been developed in which the resolving power of the telescope after Rayleigh is indirectly a determining factor (for the derivation of the formulas and more exact formulas see the appendix):
These formulas are typically not used for deep sky photos and presented here for reference only (they are used in a table further down).
For DSO images, the influence of seeing is usually taken into account when fitting a camera sensor to a telescope. Instead of the resolution, the local seeing is used in the form of an FWHM value (in arcseconds) in the formula for the pixel size or telescope focal length; here, are the corresponding "rules of thumb" (for the derivation of the formulas and the exact formulas see the appendix):
Example (TLAPO1027)
The diameter of the Airy disk, which is the effective aperture diameter of an optical system, determines its resolving power. Two points can be separated reliably according to the Rayleigh criterion if the maxima of their images are separated by at least the radius of the Airy disk. The diameter also indicates the minimum size with which stars are imaged in the telescope.
The diameter D (length, angular size) of the Airy disk is calculated according to the following "rules of thumb" (for the exact formulas see the appendix):
Often only the rounded value "277" is used. In angular measure, the Airy disk is twice as large as the Rayleigh resolving power (on which it is based), because the resolving power refers to the radius, while the Airy disk is typically used with the diameter. And it is four times as large as the "optimal pixel size". Since the Airy disk should fall on two pixels, the "ideal pixel size" is half the size of this one, whereas the "optimal pixel size", which also covers two pixels, is half the resolving power and thus, a quarter of the size of the Airy disk.
When observing DSO, the airy disk may be larger than the current seeing values, measured as FWHM values (in seconds). In such a case, the larger value, i.e. the size of the airy disk, has to be used. For a comparison with the FWHM value, the size of the airy disk in seconds is needed, for determining the pixel size, its size in µm. The latter has to be halved for arriving at the sensor's pixel size, because the airy disk size refers to two pixels.
Example (Vaonis Vespera)
The image scale (in arcseconds per pixel; for the derivation of the
formulas see the appendix - in preparation) is used as a
measure of the quality of the fit of telescope and sensor if a sensor
is already given. Depending on the value of the image scale, a distinction is
made between "oversampling", "undersampling" and "good
sampling"*. "Good sampling" corresponds to an optimum fit,
for which there are guiding values for the image scale that differ for deep sky
photos and for moon, sun, and planet photos. For the latter, "oversampling" (smaller
than the "ideal" values) is also often used. Undersampling (larger
than the "ideal" values) should be avoided in any case.
*) See the Baader Planetarium glossary, article Der Begriff sampling, over,-
under- und good sampling (www.sbig.de/universitaet/glossar-htm/sampling.htm)
with sample images for these sampling variants.
The image scale (in arcseconds per pixel) is calculated according to:
Often only the rounded value of "206" is being used.
This value is used to judge the quality of the fit of a camera sensor/telescope combination. For deep-sky photos, the rule of thumb for "good sampling" is to aim for an image scale of about 1 to 2 seconds per pixel (other specifications that I found are: 1.25, 1.5, 1.5-2, 1-2.5 and even 0.7-3)*. Values for the image scale above 2 are called "undersampling", values below 1 are called "oversampling".
*) Reasons for these guiding values are usually not given, but obviously they are based on typical values for the seeing (in Central Europe). More about this below!
Example (TLAPO1027)
According to H.J. Strauch, one simply halves the seeing value (FWHM) in practice and uses this as the desired image scale value. This is, In principle, the application of the Nyquist theorem, which states that the sampling rate should be twice the frequency of the sampled analog signal. Thus, the image scale calculated according to formula 4 is not checked according to whether it lies between the "ideal" values 1 and 2, but rather whether it is close to the image scale value determined by the FWHM value. More on this below!
To determine the pixel size of a sensor at a given telescope focal length, the formula for the image scale has to be transformed; the same applies to the telescope focal length at a given pixel size:
Example (TLAPO1027)
Astronomy.tools writes about the sampling rate: "There is some debate around using this for modern CCD sensors because they use square pixels, and we want to image round stars. Using typical seeing at 4" FWHM, Nyquist's formula would suggest each pixel has 2" resolution which would mean a star could fall on just one pixel, or it might illuminate a 2 x 2 array, so be captured as a square." In order to achieve "round" stars, the authors of the Website propose to sample with the 3-fold frequency of the analog signal - but they do this only partially.
First of all, the authors assign FWHM value ranges to the different seeing conditions, and by dividing these values by 3 or 2 they arrive at "recommended" value ranges for the image scale (which they call "pixel size"...) They divide the FWHM value at the lower limit not by 2, but by 3, which leads to the following table, in which I also included the "standard procedure" of "halving":
Seeing | Image Scale |
||||||
Seeing Conditions | FWHM- Value | Astronomy.tools | H.J. Strauch* | Remarks | |||
From | To | From | To | From | To | ||
Exceptional good seeing | 0.5" | 1" | 0.17 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | |
Good seeing | 1" | 2" | 0.33 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
OK seeing | 2" | 4" | 0.67 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Mean value = 3" for Central Europe => 1.5 (H.J. Strauch) |
Poor seeing | 4" | 5" | 1.33 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | |
Very poor seeing | 5" | 6" | 1.67 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 |
*) According to the "rule of halving" (from H.J. Strauch), if you use the seeing ranges defined by Astronomy.tools
Using an online calculator on the Astronomy.tools Website, you can calculate the image scale for your configuration (it calculates according to the rule of thumb given above) and relate it to the values of the local seeing. So you do not check whether this value lies between 1 and 2 (or whatever is given...), but whether it lies within the limits given by the local seeing conditions.
Example
As already mentioned, Internet sources usually do not provide any justification for the "ideal" image scale values given. My suspicion that they are based on typical values for seeing in Central Europe seems to be confirmed by the table above.
The often mentioned value range of 1-2 for the scale of reproduction corresponds to "OK Seeing", the also often mentioned value of 1.5 corresponds to the "average seeing" of 3", which H.J. Strauch states for Central Europe. Other values or value ranges seem to be merely "variations" of this. In this respect, it is probably best to calculate the image scale for one's own or intended configuration and the expected seeing and compare it with the table above. Whether one then follows the interpretation of Astronomy.tools or that of H.J. Strauch and others is up to the individual...
With the help of the rule of thumb that the image scale should be between 1 and 2, one can also determine the focal length range recommended for a sensor and thus check if one's own telescopes are in a suitable focal length range. For the sake of simplicity, I use here the rule of thumb for the image scale, which I reform accordingly:
To determine the focal length range, I now insert the values "2" and "1" into the formula one after the other:
If you want to include seeing (see Astronomy.tools), just enter the corresponding values for the image scale (upper and lower limit, e.g. 0.67 and 2 for "OK Seeing") into the formula.
Example
In the following I present formulas for moon, sun and planet photography, for which there are often "rules of thumb":
As written above, when photographing these objects with exposure times of fractions of a second, the turbulence in the atmosphere is practically "frozen". This makes it possible to calculate with the theoretical resolution of the telescope; here only the rules of thumb:
Example (TLAPO1027)
From the following formulas, the image scale can be determined, provided the telescope focal length and sensor (pixel size) are given:
Example (TLAPO1027)
I have not been able to find any other standard values for the image scale of these objects (moon, sun, planets), although certain sources write that they exist...
For moon, sun and planetary photos taken with webcams or CCD/CMOS cameras, it may be useful to "oversample" the images in order to capture more details. In doing so, the light is distributed over more pixels than required by the Nyquist criterion to achieve the image resolution, because the loss of sensitivity is not a major factor (if the seeing allows for showing the details). However, an arbitrary increase of the focal length is not reasonable. Instead, a compromise between focal length and image brightness (and thus the exposure time) is aimed at. For this purpose, the optimum aperture ratio "fo" is calculated according to a formula given by Stefan Seip (see the appendix) or according to the following rules of thumb:
The easiest way to determine the optimum focal length is:
Examples
(1) Atik Infinity Colour camera, pixel width 6.45 μm. For this, the formula with factor 5 results in an optimum aperture of 32.25 (i.e. 32) and thus an optimum aperture ratio of about f/32 (1:32).
Application to my telescopes:
(2) Camera ASI 224 MV Color, pixel width 3.75 μm. For this, the formula with factor 5 results in an optimum aperture of 18.75 (i.e. roughly 16) and thus an optimum aperture ratio of about f/16 (1:16).
Application to my telescopes:
Source, modified: https://www.astrovis.at/images/VDS-Journal-48-Astrovis-Kennzahlen.pdf
In the following, I present tables with calculation results based on the above formulas for my and some other telescopes and for camera sensors that are relevant for me. At the end of this section, I try to check the suitability of three sensor sizes for my telescopes using a reduced table.
I calculated the following table using an Excel spreadsheet based on the formulas presented here.
The optimum pixel size is calculated either by using the Rayleigh resolution or the seeing according to the halving rule (in some cases, the size of the airy disk may override these values, because it is larger).
Telescope | Resolution ["] |
Optimum Pixel
Size [µm] |
|||||||
Examples | Focal Length [mm] |
Aperture [mm] |
f |
After
Rayleigh |
Via
Resolution |
Via Seeing (FWHM) |
|||
2" |
3" |
4" |
5" |
||||||
Stellina | 400 | 80 | 5 | 1.73 | 1.68 | 1.94 | 2.91 | 3.88 | 4.85 |
APO 80/480 | 480 | 80 | 6 | 1.73 | 2.01 | 2.33 | 3.49 | 4.65 | 5.82 |
Heritage 100P | 400 | 100 | 4 | 1.38 | 1.34 | 1.94 | 2.91 | 3.88 | 4.85 |
TLAPO1027 | 714 | 102 | 7 | 1.36 | 2.35 | 3.46 | 5.19 | 6.92 | 8.65 |
PS 72/432 | 432 | 72 | 6 | 1.92 | 2.01 | 2.09 | 3.14 | 4.19 | 5.24 |
eVscope, Newton 114/450 | 450 | 114 | 4 | 1.21 | 1.32 | 2.18 | 3.27 | 4.36 | 5.45 |
Newton 114/500 | 500 | 114 | 4.4 | 1.21 | 1.47 | 2.42 | 3.64 | 4.85 | 6.06 |
Heritage P130 | 650 | 130 | 5 | 1.06 | 1.68 | 3.15 | 4.73 | 6.30 | 7.88 |
6" Newton. Explorer 150PDS | 750 | 150 | 5 | 0.92 | 1.68 | 3.64 | 5.45 | 7.27 | 9.09 |
6" Newton | 900 | 150 | 6 | 0.92 | 2.01 | 4.36 | 6.54 | 8.73 | 10.91 |
6" Newton | 1200 | 150 | 6 | 0.92 | 2.68 | 5.82 | 8.73 | 11.64 | 14.54 |
8" Newton. GSD 680 | 1200 | 200 | 6 | 0.69 | 2.01 | 5.82 | 8.73 | 11.64 | 14.54 |
Skymax-102 | 1300 | 102 | 12.7 | 1.36 | 4.28 | 6.30 | 9.45 | 12.61 | 15.76 |
Skymax-127 | 1500 | 127 | 11.8 | 1.09 | 3.96 | 7.27 | 10.91 | 14.54 | 18.18 |
Skymax-127R | 750 | 127 | 5.9 | 1.09 | 1.98 | 3.64 | 5.45 | 7.27 | 9.09 |
Celestron C8 | 2032 | 203 | 10 | 0.68 | 3.36 | 9.85 | 14.78 | 19.70 | 24.63 |
Celestron C8R | 1280 | 203 | 6.3 | 0.68 | 2.12 | 6.21 | 9.31 | 12.41 | 15.51 |
Celestron C8R2 | 1016 | 203 | 5 | 0.68 | 1.68 | 4.93 | 7.39 | 9.85 | 12.31 |
Celestron C14 | 3500 | 350 | 10 | 0.40 | 3.35 | 16.97 | 25.45 | 33.94 | 42.42 |
The rule of thumb was used for the image scale, because the exact formula delivers the same numerical values. The more exact value of "206.265" was used instead of "206". The optimum focal length is used for moon, sun, and planetary photos; the optimum aperture is pixel size [µm] * 5.
Telescope | Image Scale ["/Pixel] |
Optimum
Focal Length [mm] (Color) |
|||||||
Examples | Focal Length [mm] |
Aperture [mm] |
f |
Pixel Size [µm] |
|||||
2.4 |
3.75 |
6.45 |
2.4 |
3.75 |
6.45 |
||||
Stellina | 400 | 80 | 5 | 1.24 | 1.93 | 3.33 | 960.00 | 1500.00 | 2580.00 |
APO 80/480 | 480 | 80 | 6 | 1.03 | 1.61 | 2.77 | 960.00 | 1500.00 | 2580.00 |
Heritage 100P | 400 | 100 | 4 | 1.24 | 1.93 | 3.33 | 1200.00 | 1875.00 | 3225.00 |
TLAPO1027 | 714 | 102 | 7 | 0.69 | 1.08 | 1.86 | 1224.00 | 1912.50 | 3289.50 |
PS 72/432 | 432 | 72 | 6 | 1.15 | 1.79 | 3.08 | 864.00 | 1350.00 | 2322.00 |
eVscope, Newton 114/450 | 450 | 114 | 4 | 1.10 | 1.72 | 2.96 | 1368.00 | 2137.50 | 3676.50 |
Newton 114/500 | 500 | 114 | 4.4 | 0.99 | 1.55 | 2.66 | 1368.00 | 2137.50 | 3676.50 |
Heritage P130 | 650 | 130 | 5 | 0.76 | 1.19 | 2.05 | 1560.00 | 2437.50 | 4192.50 |
6" Newton. Explorer 150PDS | 750 | 150 | 5 | 0.66 | 1.03 | 1.77 | 1800.00 | 2812.50 | 4837.50 |
6" Newton | 900 | 150 | 6 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 1.48 | 1800.00 | 2812.50 | 4837.50 |
6" Newton | 1200 | 150 | 6 | 0.41 | 0.64 | 1.11 | 1800.00 | 2812.50 | 4837.50 |
8" Newton. GSD 680 | 1200 | 200 | 6 | 0.41 | 0.64 | 1.11 | 2400.00 | 3750.00 | 6450.00 |
Skymax-102 | 1300 | 102 | 12.7 | 0.38 | 0.59 | 1.02 | 1224.00 | 1912.50 | 3289.50 |
Skymax-127 | 1500 | 127 | 11.8 | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1524.00 | 2381.25 | 4095.75 |
Skymax-127R | 750 | 127 | 5.9 | 0.66 | 1.03 | 1.77 | 1524.00 | 2381.25 | 4095.75 |
Celestron C8 | 2032 | 203 | 10 | 0.24 | 0.38 | 0.65 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 |
Celestron C8R | 1280 | 203 | 6.3 | 0.39 | 0.60 | 1.04 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 |
Celestron C8R2 | 1016 | 203 | 5 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 1.31 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 |
Celestron C14 | 3500 | 350 | 10 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.38 | 4200.00 | 6562.50 | 11287.50 |
An image scale taken from the above table can now be compared either with the "good sampling" value range of 1-2 (or the value 1.5) or with the following image scale values, which are provided for different seeing conditions:
Seeing | Image Scale |
||||||
Seeing Conditions | FWHM- Value | Astronomy.tools | H.J. Strauch* | Remarks | |||
From | To | From | To | From | To | ||
Exceptional good seeing | 0.5" | 1" | 0.17 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 0.5 | |
Good seeing | 1" | 2" | 0.33 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
OK seeing | 2" | 4" | 0.67 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Mean value = 3" for Central Europe => 1.5 (H.J. Strauch) |
Poor seeing | 4" | 5" | 1.33 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | |
Very poor seeing | 5" | 6" | 1.67 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 |
*) Following the "rule of halving " (after H.J. Strauch), if you use the seeing ranges defined by Astronomy.tools.
The focal lengths were calculated for an image scale of 2 and 1.
Camera/Telescope | Pixel Size | Focal Length (2) | Focal Length (1) | Range | Opt. Pixel Site for Native Tubes | Fits... |
µm | mm | mm | mm | µm | ||
Stellina | 2.4 | 247.5 | 495.0 | 250-500 | 1.68 | PS72/432, APO 80/480 |
eVscope, ASI120, ASI224 | 3.75 | 386.7 | 773.5 | 400-800 | 1.32 | TLAPO1027, SM127R, PS72/432, APO 80/480 |
Atik Infinity | 6.45 | 665.2 | 1330.4 | 650-1300 | depending on the focal length of the tube used | TLAPO1027, C8R, C8R2, SM127R |
Instead, the focal lengths can also be calculated for the border values of the respective seeing conditions.
In the following, I reduced the above table to my telescopes and try to apply the "rules". At the columns for the optimum pixel size, I highlight the 3" column (and slightly the 2" and 4" columns); at the image scale columns, I backlight suitable cells in color and highlight the sensor of my Atik Infinity camera. The result looks like this:
Telescope | Resolution ["] |
Optimum Pixel
Size
[µm] |
Image Scale |
Optimum Focal Length (Color) |
||||||||||||
My Telescopes | Foc. Len. [mm] |
Aperture [mm] |
f |
After
Rayleigh |
Via
Resolution |
Via Seeing (FWHM) |
For Pixel Size [µm] |
|||||||||
2" |
3" |
4" |
5" |
2.4 |
3.75 |
6.45 |
2.4 |
3.75 |
6.45 |
|||||||
TLAPO1027 | 714 | 102 | 7 | 1.36 | 2.35 | 3.46 | 5.19 | 6.92 | 8.65 | 0.69 | 1.08 | 1.86 | 1224.00 | 1912.50 | 3289.50 | |
PS 72/432 | 432 | 72 | 6 | 1.92 | 2.01 | 2.09 | 3.14 | 4.19 | 5.24 | 1.15 | 1.79 | 3.08 | 864.00 | 1350.00 | 2322.00 | |
eVscope | 450 | 114 | 4 | 1.21 | 1.32 | 2.18 | 3.27 | 4.36 | 5.45 | 1.10 | 1.72 | 2.96 | 1368.00 | 2137.50 | 3676.50 | |
Skymax-127 | 1500 | 127 | 11.8 | 1.09 | 3.96 | 7.27 | 10.91 | 14.54 | 18.18 | 0.33 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1524.00 | 2381.25 | 4095.75 | |
Skymax-127R | 750 | 127 | 5.9 | 1.09 | 1.98 | 3.64 | 5.45 | 7.27 | 9.09 | 0.66 | 1.03 | 1.77 | 1524.00 | 2381.25 | 4095.75 | |
Celestron C8 | 2032 | 203 | 10 | 0.68 | 3.36 | 9.85 | 14.78 | 19.70 | 24.63 | 0.24 | 0.38 | 0.65 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 | |
Celestron C8R | 1280 | 203 | 6.3 | 0.68 | 2.12 | 6.21 | 9.31 | 12.41 | 15.51 | 0.39 | 0.60 | 1.04 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 | |
Celestron C8R2 | 1016 | 203 | 5 | 0.68 | 1.68 | 4.93 | 7.39 | 9.85 | 12.31 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 1.31 | 2436.00 | 3806.25 | 6546.75 |
The cells in the image scale columns are highlighted in cyan if they are in the range between 1 and 2 (halving rule); cells with values between 0.66 and 1 are highlighted in blue ("Tweak" according to Astronomy.tools). Text colors are meant to highlight relevant data.
I conclude from this:
The combination of both reducers also fits the C8, as I found out.
In short: on the TLAPO1027 the ASI224 (better with good seeing) and the Atik Infinity, on the PS 72/432 the ASI 224, on the Skymax-127 and C8 the Atik Infinity, but actually only with focal length reducers (on the 127R the ASI224 would also work).
I do not want to comment on the data for the optimum focal length here, except that 3x and 5x focal length extenders seem to be appropriate (which I own...).
It took me some time to recognize a certain "system" in the many formulas on the Internet. I hope that I present everything reasonably correct and understandable, so that other hobby astronomers can apply the formulas to their own equipment.
The rules of thumb presented here are derived further below. They are based on a light wavelength of 550 nm.
The derivation follows:
Often the question is asked what pixel size the sensor of a camera should have for a given telescope focal length. Conversely, for a given camera, i.e. pixel size, the question arises what focal length suitable telescopes should have. The following consideration may be helpful for this: Two objects can only be separated on the sensor if there is another pixel between them. The distance between these objects on the chip is therefore twice the pixel size:
The following can be taken from the diagram:
Note: A symmetrical approach with one pixel above and below the centerline is also conceivable. Then the angle would be "pixel size / focal length" and the Tangens would have to be taken twice (two right-angled triangles). In practice, the angle is so small that there are no numerical differences between the two variants. Even the linearization of the Tangens did not produce any differences in the numerical values for me.
For the size of the angle, the resolving power of the telescope according to Rayleigh can be used under certain conditions, which is given by:
With λ = 550 nm = 0,00055 mm for (average value for the light spectrum perceived by the human eye) and converting the resolving power into more common angular measures ("), we get (see "Sidepath" beow for the numbers):
Inserting the formula for the resolving power and converting the pixel size to µm results in:
Resolving the formula to pixel size in µm, while all other measures are in mm, and inserting a wavelength of 550 nm in mm leads to:
Linearizing leads in first approximation to the following rule of thumb:
With a given pixel size in µm, the focal length of the telescope im mm amounts to:
Linearizing leads in first approximation to the following rule of thumb (550 nm in mm):
Note: Instead of starting from the formuölar for the focal length, we might have also have started from the linearized formula for the pixel size, in order to arrive at the rule of thumb for the telescope focal length.
All these steps brbrought us to rules of thumb for pixel size and telescope focal length, which are rarely used, however, because instead of the resolving power of the telescope, values for local seeing are being used:
Sidepath: For the conversion of radians into angles, or more precisely, into degrees, minutes, and seconds, the following applies:
Often the wavelength is entered in µm, while mm is used in the calculations. For this purpose, everything has to be be divided by 1000, which leads to the constant 206.265, which is often seen in rules of thumb or formulas.
For DSO images, the influence of seeing is usually taken into account when fitting a camera sensor to a telescope. Instead of the resolution, the local seeing is used in the form of an FWHM value (in arcseconds) in the formula for the pixel size:
Linearizing (first approximation) leads to:
For telescope focal length, we get::
Linearizing (first approximation) leads to:
The airy disk determines the minimal size, at which stars appear in a telescope. Its diameter D (length, angular size) is calculated according to the following formulas:
(The numerical values correspond to the Rayleigh criterion.)
Here the diagram above is valid as well, but only for one pixel (the triangle is made of one pixel and the focal length):
Linearisation (approximation) and rule of thumb:
The optimum aperture ratio follows from a formula given by Stefan Seip:
With: fo = Aperture for a diffraction-limited image, pixel size = edge length of a pixel (μm), λ = wavelength of light (550 nm for "white" light) The factor √2 takes into account the influence of the Bayer filter in color sensors.
The optimum focal length can then be determined in two ways:
Typically, with this approach, the telescope focal length must be extended using suitable Barlow lenses or focal extenders.
20.10.2020 |