Jump to content


Photo

I cant believe the size of the LX600........

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#26 budman1961

budman1961

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2011
  • Loc: Springfield, MO

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:17 PM

Based on the temperature of all the responses to any new Meade thread, why did you ask the question? Not to call you anything, or infer anything, but it seems to me these Meade threads all end up the same way......

Sorry.....

#27 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11004
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

Oops! I had mistakenly posted here a lengthy test result on *spider* diffraction, meant for a thread in the ATM Forum. Silly me... :foreheadslap:

#28 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8425
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:05 AM

So if the CO makes no difference, why do Compound Camera lenses never have the contrast levels of a similar sized non obstructed one?

I'm just having difficulty grasping the concept, I had read in S&T that the larger secondary has a thicker diffraction ring, that gets spread across the entire image that decreases contrast on a scale determined by the % of the obstruction?

Also why is it always such a big topic over in the Refractor Threads?


Well, Glenn is right. Both answers are a result of scale. The CO affects least images on the scale of the first ring, then creates some loss out to about 3 times the Raleigh limit. This equates to features smaller than Jupiter's belt thickness. So, for finer planetary detail, the contrast response can be less that full aperture.

On larger scales, where cameras presumably operate, diffraction on a fence post, for example, is practically none existent. Once you get beyond 10x the Raleigh criteria, all scopes perform about the same.

The trick to reading the MTF is to realize all of the right half are very small features at or near the Airy disc. Much of the left side are also very small features. If you think about it, diffraction effects of a 1" arc pattern have little effect beyond 3 or 4" arc. Contrast improves beyond this range - on the very far left of the MTF graph (spacial frequencies around 0.3 and less.)

The larger COs in SCTs are really designed for general purpose use and do give very good views. No doubt. And they are optimized, really, for resolution across all frequencies, not just a specific region of the MTF.

The problem they present is on peak intensity of the diffraction image. To maintain 80% (diffraction limited equivalent) peak intensity, the CO must remain pretty small and not divert too much light into the rings (along with any aberrations present.) This also requires a good optical figure. Actually, a perfect scope can have a CO approaching 45% and still maintain peak intensity of about 80% or better. Lessor correction requires a smaller CO to maintain that level of intensity (peak vs rings.) This is where refractors have an advantage, they have no CO and their peak intensity (pretty much) equals their (normally very good) Strehl.

But, again, most of that is occurring on scales where diffraction matters, maybe out to the angular dimension of third ring or so. Beyond that and contrast improves dramatically and and obstructed scopes begin to catch up to unobstructed apertures...and camera lenses.

http://www.telescope...obstruction.htm

#29 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5490
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:27 AM

Looks like it's about a 42% or so obstruction.


Obstruction is calculated by two ways, by area and by diameter. Meade uses 'by area' method. A while back I had come up with following figures for LX800 which should be the same for LX600 given the same OTAs:

10" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=4.58" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=20.95%
Obstruction by diameter=45.80%

12" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=4.93" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=16.86%
Obstruction by diameter=41.08%

14" f/8 ACF:
Obstruction size=5.1" [Derived]
Obstruction by area=13.28%
Obstruction by diameter=36.43%

#30 mmalik

mmalik

    DSLR camera modifications

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5490
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 08:34 AM

Following is the math behind central obstruction calculations; following example applies to 10" f/8 ACF:

Aperture=10"
Secondary Mirror Obstruction=4.58"
Pi=3.14
Area of entire aperture=3.14*(10/2)^2=78.50
Area of secondary mirror obstruction=3.14*(4.58/2)^2=16.47

Obstruction (by area method)=16.47/78.50=0.21=20.95% (Meade's way of calculating)
[Easy calc: 0.458*0.458=0.21=21%]

Obstruction (by diameter method)=4.58/10.00=0.46=45.80% (Others vendors' way of calculating)
Obstruction (by diameter, alternate method)=SQRT(16.47/78.50)=0.46=45.80% (Others vendors' way of calculating)
[Easy calc: 4.58/10=0.458=45.8%]

#31 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:04 AM

Good morning, everyone. Let's make an effort to stick to talking about the science of optics in this thread without certain kinds of editorializing that makes us all uncomfortable.

Dave

#32 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4829
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Based on the temperature of all the responses to any new Meade thread, why did you ask the question? Not to call you anything, or infer anything, but it seems to me these Meade threads all end up the same way......


Yeah i see your point, it was just a knee jerk reaction while reading my new S&T and saw the front of one for the first time under the new products out! I was actually looking for a note by someone that had one, to give a "mini review"
In the long run I still think the SCT's and related systems are still the best over all system

#33 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8425
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:32 AM

Something about apparent brightness versus percent central obstruction?


The MTF does not plot brightness, but there is some peak intensity loss spreading the rest of the light into the rings. If you crunch the numbers using some approximations (assuming the same aperture and aberrant Strehl of .95) you get...

http://www.telescope...obstruction.htm

CO 46%
EE 42% (Airy disc, max = 84%)
Intensity 62% (Normalized to 1)
Nominal 59% (Working Strehl assuming aberrant Strehl 0.95.)

CO 41%
EE 50%
Intensity 69%
Nominal 66%

CO 36%
EE 57%
Intensity 75%
Nominal 71%

CO 29%
EE 67%
Intensity 84%
Nominal 80%(Essentially the diffraction limit peak intensity.)

CO 0% (Refractor)
EE 84%
Intensity 100%
Nominal 95%

You can see how a smaller CO reduces light loss due to it's diffraction effect and obscuration of the light path. An unobstructed aperture does not have this "problem." However, a little contrast loss is nothing a little more aperture cannot cure.

#34 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2123
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:37 PM

a little contrast loss is nothing a little more aperture cannot cure


That I understand, despite that I'm still learning to understand all the numbers. This is the quirk that makes SCTs great. Sure, there are trade-offs, but look how big the gains are. A relatively inexpensive, portable telescope that performs pretty much like a giant, costly, heavy refractor! Not exactly, but dollar-for-dollar and pound-for-pound plenty good enough. Gotta love 'em!

I read recently that, compared with an unobstructed scope, an 8" C8 has the resolution of an 8-inch, the brightness of a 6.25-inch, and the contrast of (I forget exactly...) a 5.5-inch. That's a fabulous deal for the size, weight, and price!

#35 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11004
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:40 AM

Earlier in this thread I had given vent to my general frustration regarding the ongoing propagation of myths in the amateur community. My comments were directed at no one in particular, but rather the nebulous, amorphous masses comprised of us all. I have to remind myself than in a community where the participants cannot see nor hear one another, adherence to diplomacy is the watchword. My apologies to any and all who I've offended.

#36 Mike Harvey

Mike Harvey

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Orlando, FL.

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:33 PM

Again, I'm astonished at the vast ocean of confusion out there in amateur land, as regards even the fundamentals of contrast transfer in optical instruments. I really wish the community as a whole would finally get these matters straight, and not propagate the same old misinformation generation after generation.


I'm SO GLAD you posted that! There are, indeed, way too many iron-clad "truths" that are no more than uninformed "beliefs"!

Unfortunately, trying to 'set the record straight' on these forums only leads to flame-wars launched by the Luddites who just will not listen to anything that disturbs their firmly-entrenched worldview.

Wouldn't it be great if someone with widespread credibility wrote a book correcting these misconceptions?

Mike

#37 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2123
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 05 January 2013 - 11:10 PM


Again, I'm astonished at the vast ocean of confusion out there in amateur land, as regards even the fundamentals of contrast transfer in optical instruments. I really wish the community as a whole would finally get these matters straight, and not propagate the same old misinformation generation after generation.


I'm SO GLAD you posted that! There are, indeed, way too many iron-clad "truths" that are no more than uninformed "beliefs"!

Unfortunately, trying to 'set the record straight' on these forums only leads to flame-wars launched by the Luddites who just will not listen to anything that disturbs their firmly-entrenched worldview.

Wouldn't it be great if someone with widespread credibility wrote a book correcting these misconceptions?

Mike


Does this constitute "highjacking the thread," or may we accept that, in order to discuss the size of the LX600's obstruction, one must be willing to discuss whatever is known about the size of obstructions?! Personally, I consider the philosophy behind a topic to be part of the topic, because one must understand how one understands.

I, too, was shocked upon first seeing the LX600's obstruction, and asked myself the same question, so I was glad to see the question appear in a thread. I see the problem as essentially cultural. Highly technical people with scientific training ask each other questions that include all relevant details, including those likely to be known. They also ask, "How do you know?" questions. People outside of this cultural circle sometimes misconstrue this as arrogance. It would help if people knew each other's styles, and so discussed topics fluidly, independently of personal style. Trouble is, it's not clear how they might come to know what they do not know, so the flame wars will likely continue.

The gap is well illustrated by the comedian's gag (wish I could credit this; anyone recognize it? maybe Eddie Murphy?). It's unprintable in this forum in its original form, so let's hope this variant will suffice: "The tech folk be always measuring their biceps. The Romantics just look at their arms and say, 'Wow! They're big!'"

Personally, I'd love to learn the standard misconceptions and the physics behind them. It would be part and parcel of learning the actual truths, but a more thorough way to learn.

It's late. I'm tired. Sorry if this important point is tending toward a rant.

Maybe there should be a new forum dedicated to myths about telescopes!

Anyway, the thread has helped me. As I see it, contrast is the range between the brightest and dimmest regions of an image. Sure, a scope of the LX600's aperture could be built for higher contrast, but with such large aperture and the efficiency of modern coatings, apparently the LX600 works well enough as is, with wide fields of view and fast exposure times as part of the package.

#38 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11004
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 06 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

Joe,
The topic is the large central obstruction and its impact on contrast transfer. Bringing to light the confusion which leads to the very kinds of misinformation brought up during the discussion is most definitely relevant, and not 'hijacking' the thread.

One thing I've long advocated is the treating of contrast at two scales.

Small, where diffraction effects impact the image within the limit of the inner 2-3 rings surrounding the Airy disk for any image point.

Large, where scattering floods all or some portion of the field with veiling glare.

The former is relevant to the observation of fine detail at reasonably high levels of surface brightness, where the eye's resolving power is maximal, or not much reduced. Such targets as the Moon, planets, double stars and compact clusters benefit from minimal degradation introduced by additional diffractive edges within the aperture.

Objects having low to moderate surface brightness are not visibly impacted by diffraction, simply because the eye's resolving power is too low. Galaxies and virtually all nebulae fall into this category; they're called faint fuzzies for a reason.

Another aspect to bear in mind is that the effects of diffraction become visible only when the exit pupil has become sufficiently small. Even for systems having a whopping central obstruction, it requires something like a 1.5mm (perhaps a bit larger) exit pupil to see the Fresnel pattern. At larger exit pupils--certainly by 2mm or so--the image is about as good as unobstructed as regards perceivable detail.

At this and larger exit pupils, veiling glare is the only contrast robber of concern (assuming optical quality is otherwise good.)

#39 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8425
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:07 AM

"Simple minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas."

Indeed.

#40 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:50 AM

I find it interesting from your calculations of the CO by area/diameter in the new Meade f/8 OTA's. It seems that as the aperture gets larger, the CO gets smaller. The M14 f/8 has about the same CO in area and diameter as the C9.25.. The C9.25 is an excellent scope visually, so would the M14 f/8 also be good visually? But maybe the different optical design of the C9.25 primary and secondary mirror f ratios contributes to this?

Bill

#41 freestar8n

freestar8n

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4057
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007

Posted 06 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

Personally, I'd love to learn the standard misconceptions and the physics behind them. It would be part and parcel of learning the actual truths, but a more thorough way to learn.



I recommend references to primary sources. Astronomical imaging is complex enough - and when you combine it with human vision in a changing atmosphere - it becomes a even more complex and touches on many disciplines. This makes it unrealistic that you can draw a single graph and make broad claims to compare the expected performance of two very different systems.

Like most threads on this topic, this one refers to Suiter and to various web pages, but it does not refer to textbooks on Fourier optics or journal articles. Suiter is a good intro to aberrations and helps interpret telescope behavior in the context of things like MTF, but it does not go in depth on ways in which MTF is very limited. MTF would be great if the object being viewed were a single, perfect sine wave pattern - but instead even something like the bands of jupiter involve many spatial frequencies that overlap and interfere, and imperfections in both phase and amplitude can generate artifacts that would spoil the view even though the mtf looks "good" in the "frequencies of interest."

Two references on Fourier optics are Gaskill and Goodman, where MTF is treated in more detail and caveats are provided on its usage. I have cited them previously in other threads.

On the topic of large CO in SCT's, I think it's useful to refer to a key early paper on design options for SCT's where some field curvature is allowed. Sigler's 1975 paper in Appl. Optics fits in well here, although it pre-dates more high res. imaging work with ccd's as opposed to film. I can't quote the whole thing, but will provide a brief excerpt:

"It is ... unfortunately true that the flat field designs, due to the Petzval constraint, have large secondary obstruction ratios, small secondary magnfication... These constraints are not too serious for strictly photographic instruments where the secondary obstruction is frequently as large as T=0.5 without unduly affecting performance. However, for photo/visual instruments, the large field of view and low effective focal ratio are sacrificed for higher secondary magnficiation ratios... The attainment of high resolution, especially in the intermediate spatial frequencies of the MTF curve, is facilitated by having the smallest possible secondary obscuration ratio."

So here is a journal article that points out that you can flatten the field by reducing the power of the secondary, but it ends up being bigger - and that will impact high resolution performance in visual work. In summary, a big motivation for the larger secondary in imaging Cassegrains is to reduce Petzval curvature and flatten the field - but doing so is undesirable due to the loss of resolution. Anyway, you can flatten the field and reduce the f/ratio with lenses near the focal plane, while keeping the secondary small.

With regard to comparisons of contrast and sky blackness with a refractor vs. an sct - key differences are the much better baffling that you can have in a refractor, and the potential for less scatter by using only lenses rather than mirror surfaces. If some people feel the overall contrast is better in refractors vs. sct's, it may not be easily explained in terms of mtf - but it may be nonetheless true due to other factors.

People have different feelings for how important the CO is to the view, and my attitude is simply that smaller is probably better. But how much difference it makes depends on many factors that are not captured in an MTF plot or simulations - and also depend on each user's visual system and preferences - and how the optical characteristics combine with the object and visual system to cause the thumb on the human to point up or down in response.

Frank

#42 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4949
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

My take-away from all of the above posts is this:

If you have a 45% (by diameter) obstruction in your scope and you take a photo of a 1.5 x 1.0 degree field surrounding the Rosette nebula there will be zero contrast loss - as any number of astrophotographers will tell you - the contrast loss is entirely at arc second scales, a level of detail that the pixels on the chip cannot resolve. The telescope is designed with this in mind. Ceravolo and Officina Stallare and others make some very expensive, state-of-the-art astrographs with central obstructions approaching 50%. Visit the websites of these companies to see the astonishing, contrasty images they produce. I bet the farm that if you buy a scope of this configuration you won't even get a diagonal with it - it is not meant for visual use.

If you take those same telescopes and throw on a diagonal and a 6mm eyepiece for a 250x view of the detail in Jupiter's cloud bands, you're going to run into some serious degradation of the contrast.

This seems straightforward to me. To discuss contrast loss in greatly obstructed telescopes without referring to the angular size of the target leads directly to 'myths'.

Dave






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics