I guess you can argue in all directions on this subject. My initial
thought remains the same, regardless of drizzling and deconvolution.
If you match the size of the pixel to the size of the Airy disc, you
will get 90% of the performance of your system. If you undersample,
you are throwing away resolution that you cannot get back, even with
the fanciest algorithms. Most of the deconvolution processes give you
speudo-resolution with telltale "stringing" of the fainter stars. I
find that objectionable, but then beauty is in the eye .....
--- In ap-gto@..., "Joseph M Zawodny" <jmzawodny@...>
Well it depends what you are trying to optimize as well as how wellthe
f/2.8 speed should match well with a ~3.75 micron pixel size if youwas
to maintain maximum resolution. But the Tak advertises a uniform 10Perhaps
a better question is who would buy that scope? What are they tryingto
optimize? My guess is that that they are going for large diffusethe
diffuse glow relative to the point stellar sources. Another aspectof
all of this that has been eluded to but not really focussed on issome
of the newer resolution enhancing techniques (drizzling forexample).
With these techniques you oversample the optical resolution at highlost
resolution due to the inherent pixelization of digital imagery. Itis
a lot of work and requires good knowledge of the optical system toof
variables to consider when optimizing the imaging system and they goboils
down to how much data you have (can take), how good the data(sampling
and SNR) is, and how well you understand it.