Image of the day

Captured by
Yue Ma

Cas A in NIR

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Mars in six scopes - the scopes

Started by jsuro, 07/26/2003 09:56PM
Posted 07/26/2003 09:56PM Opening Post
These were modeled in Aberrator as perfect scopes with no optical aberrations in perfect seeing - all at 400x.

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

Attached Image:

jsuro's attachment for post 7912
Posted 07/26/2003 10:03PM #1
Good to know my 8" dob was just about on during a good night of seeing. Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Posted 07/27/2003 12:55AM #2
Wow...nice comparison...the 4" inch APO photo does not look impressive. Time for a PhotoShop cleanup. In fact, why even purchase any telescope equipment, everyone can design their own celestial photo from scratch in this software. Just a little exaggerated humor and general mockery on the latest technology in astrophotography that has primarily migrated from a once intellectual art of challanging perseverance to mindless mickey mouse digital devices and PC software producing unnatural images.

Posted 07/27/2003 02:21AM #3
Hello there Jose,

In my opinion (and I've played with the aberrator too), the view through the 4" vs 8" is not like what's shown in the aberrator. One has to reduce the image scale to get a better idea as too much magnification will definitely cause softness. My experience so far (and I've been comparing my 4" TV-102 vs my 8" Discovery Dobs with 19% CO), the albedo will appear sharply defined, not blurry like in the picture at 176x and 220x, depending on the steadiness of seeing of course. What is the difference is the appearance of the finer, smaller features which can be seen in the 8-incher while the 4-inch sort of "integrate" these smaller features because they're beyond its resolution. For example, rugged edges in the 8-incher may appear smooth or round in in the 4-incher. Still a sharp image in the 4-inch APO nonetheless if seeing permits. Some really small features maynot be seen altogether in the 4-incher :-(.

Ron B[ee]