Quote:The trouble with a rule of thumb is that people's thumbs vary greatly in length.....Dave
Quote:When they refer to the percentage of the central obstruction, Is that a percentage by area or diameter?
LX850 blog: www.LX-850.com
personal website: www.wadsworthobservatory.com
Quote:Eddgie,I was recently given Suiter's 1994 edition by a friend. In it, the MTF chart is always normalized to the *fraction* of the maximum spatial frequency. This is appropriate when considering a telescope in the afocal configuration, where diffraction effects scale as the exit pupil.My emphasis in this discussion is on the appearance of the image at the eyepiece and at given exit pupil. The better quality instrument, irrespective of aperture, will deliver the better quality view.The eye sees an image, and knows not what is the aperture delivering it. All it 'knows' is whether the image is good or not so good as regards such things as diffraction and aberrations. If at some particular exit pupil one rates the view less afflicted by diffraction and aberrations for a smaller aperture, then that smaller aperture, in some respect at least, delivers by definition better contrast transfer.Any two telescopes, no matter how much they may differ in aperture but which have identical MTF charts, will deliver identical contrast at the same exit pupil.
Zeiss, Fujinon, Istar
Quote:Concentrating on the *absolute* differences in resolving power resulting naturally from differences in aperture is all well and good. But that this scales linearly with aperture is so easily appreciated it hardly bears more than the briefest thought.
Quote:The section continues, exploring various aspects of the central obstruction, equivalence formula, etc.
It appears that (from that section, and his formula on page 163), that all other things being equal (including the crucial element of seeing...) that the unobstructed equivalent of a 14" with a 32% would be 9.52", according to Suiter. On that score, the 34% CO equivalent of a 6" unobstructed aperture would be a tad more than 9 inches?
Quote:Quote:While it is true that larger apertures suffer more from seeing, I would say that there is when using both scopes side by side, there was rarely a night that I did not see more detail in my C14 than in my 6" APO.Even on the best nights, I have not seen detail using the 6" APO that I routinely see in the C14.And when seeing is so poor that I can't see more than in the 6" APO, then it just is not worth doing, because even the 6" APO will suffer on such nights.Yours really must be a fantastic C14!And I envy you your obviously paramount seeing conditions.Chris
Quote:While it is true that larger apertures suffer more from seeing, I would say that there is when using both scopes side by side, there was rarely a night that I did not see more detail in my C14 than in my 6" APO.Even on the best nights, I have not seen detail using the 6" APO that I routinely see in the C14.And when seeing is so poor that I can't see more than in the 6" APO, then it just is not worth doing, because even the 6" APO will suffer on such nights.
Quote:Now it gets interesting.
Here, I have modeled the same scope as appears above.. A 9.25" 36% obstructed apeture.
This one though, is less than perfect. I have modeled in a bit of spherical abberation and a bit of astigmatism, both of which are not at all uncommon in mass produced scopes.
By compraison, just about any 5" APO from a specialty provider you can buy these days will have optics that consistently border on perfect.
Notice now that the sag has incresed a bit. While it does not seem like much, suddenly, at the important visual frequenceis, the 9.25" 36% obstructed aperure is not transferring contrast any better than perhaps a perfect 5" instrument.
And this is perhaps why accounts when comparisons are made differ.
The "Rule of tumb" formula is only really good for visual observing. For imaging, obstruction is not usualy an issue.
All defects or design quailites (secondary obstruction, and optical defects) add to the sag of the MTF line.
When the scope is unobstructd, even a little quality error does not affect the contrast enought to be a concern.
But when the obstrucion is large, the quaity becomes much more critical.
Any meaningful amount of spehrical abberation or astigmatism can quickly lower the MTF performance so that it is reduce to contrast transfer no better than an apeture half its size.
So now, you have one person that says thier C9.25 is better than a 5" APO and one that says theirs is not as good.
Sample to sample quality varations could easlily account for that.
The purple line shows that with a little sperhcial abberation and a little astigmatism, the 9.25" apeture is now performing with less contrast transfer at the lower (visually important) frequencies than a perfect 5" instrument!!!!
And that is the beauty of MTF.
John Hayes, Ph.D.
Adjunct Research Professor
College of Optical Sciences
University of Arizona
I take the example of the Celestron Omni XLT 150, which has a 150mm objective with a 46.5mm CO. Now according to Jarad's formula, that should make the Omni XLT equivalent to a 103.5mm refractor for planetary performance. But in my proposed reworked formula, the "Refractor Equivalence" of the Omni XLT should be a 126.75mm scope. Now, people may say this is wishful thinking, and I cannot say with any certainty that it isn't, but it would be nice to see how an Omni XLT 150 compares with 4" ED, 110mm ED, and 120mm ED (as well as the equivalent achromatic) scopes. I own neither the 110 nor 120mm ED scopes, nor any achromat, though there's a STRONG temptation for me to buy the XLT and compare it to my 102mm ED scope. According to Jarad's formula, it should still surpass it, but really, just barely, and the planetary performance should really be about the same. Stay tuned, but anyone else wishing to evaluate my recalculation of that old Reflector ~ Refractor Equivalence formula is more than welcome to educate me and the rest of the CN Brotherhood.
Losmandy G8, Alt-Az AZ5 and Voyager, Telementor, AS80/1200, AS110/1650, Atik314L Pan 27-19; Delos 10; BGO 18-12.5-9; Pentax XF12-8.5 XO5.1-2.5; Siebert 36, TV Plossl 55; TMB SMC 16-7; Zeiss H-40-25-16, O-40-25-16-12.5-10-6-4; ATC 40K-20K-15E-8E; ATC Barlows 2x and 1.5x My astro page
Quote:5) Finally, while it is completely valid to analyze the MTF performance of the telescope objective, you guys haven’t included the eyepiece in the discussion. Remember, MTF can only be cascaded for incoherently connected components. An eyepiece is coherently coupled to the objective and must be considered a part of the system to correctly analyze full system performance. That means that you can completely destroy the performance of even a perfect objective with a poor eyepiece.
So, a 9.25" 36% obstructed aperture, when used visually, will have conrast transfer that is fairly close to a 6" perfect apeture.
This is a crucial qualification though. Again, this is only if the obstucted scope is perfect.
Finding 6" APOs with perfect optics is not difficult. No leanding manufacturer is going to sell you an expensive APO that is less than near perfect.
Near perfect C9s though are not the norm. And when you add the typeical inperfections, it can cause the MTF line to further sag.
And it doesn't take much for the line to sag enough so that the contrast falls to a 10% difference.
And when it does, the difference starts to show at the eyepeice.
If you know the amount of error though, you can model it.
WO GTF 102, iOptron iEQ45, WO Megrez 80FD, Celestron C8, WO SWAN 33mm, WO UWANs 4mm, 7mm, 16mm, WO SPLs 3mm, 6mm, 12.5mm, WO Zoom II 7.5-22.5, WO EZTouch, SV F50B2 Finder
Quote: Fascinating topic!I keep seeing the comparison of mirrored optics that are perfect used in the mtf and formula comparisons. I would love to see an objective way to compare not perfect mirrored optics whether newtonian or sct which is much more realistic, to a high quality apo refractor.And I like the approach I see by some who are taking into consideration all of the factors including the human eye, seeing, cool down, etc. Somewhere I remember reading that our eyes can resolve the most detail with a 2mm exit pupil which should also be a factorTimm
Quote:Maybe I missed it but is anyone considering the difference in the amount of light lost due to the two reflective surfaces required for reflectors? Wouldn't this significantly reduce light gathering whereas a refractor loses much less light throughput? I have no idea how much or how this is calculated by the way Timm
Quote:The referring to the ~2mm exit pupil as about the 'optimum' for the eye goes to the point I've been making earlier. For example. In all telescopes (of reasonable quality), the observer will find an exit pupil where for his eye the effects of diffraction *just* becomes apparent. The exit pupil just marginally larger than this might be considered the 'best' compromise between image resolution and a clean view not visibly marred by diffraction.
Regarding your point #4. The phrase "normalize the MTF to the exit pupil" is a clumsy way of mine to try to get across the following point. Any equally good telescope (as a system, with eyepiece of course) working at a given exit pupil will present to the eye an identical degree/scale of visible diffraction on an image point. If the Fresnel pattern subtends some angular scale in a small scope at some particular exit pupil, it will be the same for a larger scope at the same exit pupil.
In other words, the resolving power as a fraction of the maximum is a function of the exit pupil.
Again, a clumsy way to place a basic principle of the afocal system into some perspective, so as to provide something of a more complete picture.
Quote:The 2mm exit pupil comes from the book, "The Backyard Astronomer" but it basically means that your eyepiece that you are likely to find looks the best to your eye, and you are likely to use the most is one that produces a 2mm exit pupil. Just double your focal ratio to pick the eyepiece in that sweet spot. For example, an F/10 SCT a 20mm eyepiece is likely to look the best. I found a complex link that explains the biology behind it here - http://www.telescope-optics.net/eye.htm so for planets. I'll let you decipher this at your own leisure.Timm