On 5/21/2021 8:55 PM, Nick Iversen wrote:
I have a 130GTX and a camera with pixel size 3.76um. Is there anyIncorrect. The resolution is the number of pixels within the image, so if the image on the sensor grows by 2X, you have doubled the number of pixels in both directions.
Suppose Mare Imbrium covers a square of 500x500 pixels now, and suppose a crater within it covers 30x30 pixels. Now double the image size to cover 1000x1000 pixels, and the crater now covers 60x60 pixels. Detail that might be lost or fuzzy in the 30x30 area might become visible or sharper in the 60x60 area.
Does that make sense?
But it will increase the exposure required and amplifyMoon exposure should be super-short, and not require guiding at all (what would you guide on?).
Most lunar imagers use "lucky imaging" on the Moon and planets. This uses software like SharpCapture to make a "movie" at 20-60 frames per second, then AutoStakkert to sort through the frames and choose the best ones, and stack them into one image. Registax can sharpen the image.
You can get a lunar image with a single quick exposure, but portions of it will be distorted or out of focus because of atmosphere movement.
Lunar and planetary imaging is completely different than deep-space imaging.
Hope this helps.