Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Lee Jay
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/27/08

Loc: Westminster, CO
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Alph]
      #5535643 - 11/23/12 02:35 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Second, is a whole host of images ... taken with a Meade 12" ACF bare (no reducer/flattener, etc.).



+1.
Just check images posted to 'CCD Imaging & Processing' forum by Rick J. The practical impact of the field curvature of the R/C and the ACF on the quality of pretty pictures is insignificant.




Ooooo....show me the "bloat" in this image!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Lee Jay]
      #5535678 - 11/23/12 02:52 PM

Quote:

The blur radii given at the edge of the f/10 coma-free scope in the Celestron white paper (which may or many not be the actual spot sizes of the Meade ACF scopes), are smaller than 2 arc seconds - the common limit of seeing for long-exposure photography. So, nearly all of the size of the smallest stars isn't coming from either diffraction or field curvature, it's coming from the atmosphere.




CCD Inspector does show star bloat in ACF images. However you have to look really hard to find its effect in a pretty picture.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gord
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/06/04

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Lee Jay]
      #5535820 - 11/23/12 04:16 PM

Quote:


Two things keep me from accepting such analyses. First, the standard professional scope type is the R/C, curved field and all. Yet, they use flat sensors and get scientifically-valid results from those instruments.




Actually, this is an area (scientific work) where things are very different than with pretty pictures, and a lot of aberrations/problems have little/no impact. For example, photometry doesn't even require the stars to be in focus, or the tracking to even be perfectly accurate. Field curvature or other problems that spread out the star light will not have an impact other than reduced sensitivity.

Another is the R/C design as it relates to astrometry. The inherit aberration in an RC is astigmatism, however this has one nuance that means it will have no effect on use in measuring positions in that the star centroid is always in the same spot relative to the blur of the spot plot. That is the reason the RC design was chosen for this role. Field curvature will not affect that (other than reduced sensitivity, as I understand it).

As for how images look in scopes with field curvature, it's hard to tell how they were focused as well. Could be going for a midway point to try to average things out (little less focused at center, more at the edge). This is often what people suggest to do with standard SCT's and visual observing. I find it just looks "soft" everywhere.

Of course, combine that with wider seeing disks and more average light in the first ring in an exposure lasting several minutes and things are going to take on a larger size in terms of star appearance. I wouldn't say any of those images that I looked at have particularly tight stars. We don't know how they were processed of course.

I think the last image in the quoted white paper is sharper (the single frame of M51 in b&w). Or for example this one taken with a newtonian:

http://www.dreamscopes.com/pages/2010/16inDAtube_MelHelm_05.htm

Clear skies,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
fred1871
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/22/09

Loc: Australia
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. [Re: Gord]
      #5536611 - 11/24/12 03:03 AM

Quote:

Quote:


Two things keep me from accepting such analyses. First, the standard professional scope type is the R/C, curved field and all. Yet, they use flat sensors and get scientifically-valid results from those instruments.





Another is the R/C design as it relates to astrometry. The inherit aberration in an RC is astigmatism, however this has one nuance that means it will have no effect on use in measuring positions in that the star centroid is always in the same spot relative to the blur of the spot plot. That is the reason the RC design was chosen for this role. Field curvature will not affect that (other than reduced sensitivity, as I understand it).

As for how images look in scopes with field curvature, it's hard to tell how they were focused as well. Could be going for a midway point to try to average things out (little less focused at center, more at the edge). This is often what people suggest to do with standard SCT's and visual observing. I find it just looks "soft" everywhere.







R-C scopes have evolved over time. Starting in the 1960s with the invention of the Gascoigne corrector, which got rid of most of the astigmatism, then the addition of field-flattening optics, the professionals from the 1970s were no longer having big issues with field curvature in the way they did with the classic Schmidt camera (it's no fun bending glass plates).

If you have a look at the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Project Book, there's a section on the optical design of the 2.5 meter telescope, that discusses these matters and how they were dealt with.

to be found at: www.astro.princeton.edu/PBOOK/welcome.htm

The Sloan was not the first telescope to have modified R-C optics to improve performance.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Lee Jay
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/27/08

Loc: Westminster, CO
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, interesting read. new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5538779 - 11/25/12 02:01 PM

Quote:

And it confirms what another forum member told me a couple of weeks ago, which is that the formula for the EdgeHD scopes had changed (f/1.9 primary).




Does this mean that Hyperstar on edge scopes is f/1.9 not f/2? Not much difference, I realize, but I'm just wondering.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Lance1234
sage
*****

Reged: 11/01/12

Loc: SoCal
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Lee Jay]
      #5543977 - 11/28/12 02:21 PM

Just wonderful...wish I had seen this white paper two weeks ago before I purchaced my non-HD 9.25. Nothing like buying a horse and buggy while the Ford factory is rolling out model A's. And so much for getting good advice, "oh the HD is really only of merrit for imaging; not really a significant benefit for visual observing" (my interest). Based on the paper this is obviouly not the case, with the HD being superior in all respects. And way to go Celestron for waiting how many years after the HD came out to really explain this? Even their marketing made it look like an imaging instrument. Oh well, at least I have a telescope again.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Lance1234]
      #5544243 - 11/28/12 05:19 PM

I don't think Celestron has _ever_ promoted it just as an imaging instrument, and the basics, if not the details, were known from the beginning. I am sorry about your disappointment, but if returning/selling the standard SCT is out of the question, consider just buying a Celestron f/6.3 reducer/corrector. That takes an old kitty a long way toward the goodness of an HD.

Edited by rmollise (11/28/12 05:19 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
wolfman_4_ever
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 07/15/11

Loc: El Segundo, Ca, So. Cal
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: rmollise]
      #5544261 - 11/28/12 05:28 PM

If your going F2, it doesn't really matter..

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MrJones
Pooh-Bah
****

Reged: 09/15/10

Loc: Indiana
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: wolfman_4_ever]
      #5544267 - 11/28/12 05:34 PM

I still think the C9.25 Edge is priced too high vs. the others. $1000 more for HD! And you can always say "less glass".

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mistyridge
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/28/05

Loc: Loomis, CA
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: MrJones]
      #5544378 - 11/28/12 06:44 PM

Actually less than $1000 more since they include a very nice 23mm 82* EP that costs $200+ and a 2" diagonal instead of the 1.25". which you do not have to buy.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
astroricardo
sage
*****

Reged: 11/14/11

Loc: Marietta, GA
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: mistyridge]
      #5545552 - 11/29/12 01:34 PM

my wife will be thrilled to know I want one even more now

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TG
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: MrJones]
      #5545717 - 11/29/12 03:28 PM

Quote:

I still think the C9.25 Edge is priced too high vs. the others. $1000 more for HD! And you can always say "less glass".




You always have the option of not buying it...

Tanveer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TG
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/02/06

Loc: Latitude 47
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: crow]
      #5545732 - 11/29/12 03:44 PM

Quote:

Nice white paper on the EdgeHD design, production etc available for those that are interested. Lots of good info on the Focal reducers too.

http://tinyurl.com/c4n69wn

under the more info button. (Celeston Webpage)

These are cool/capable scopes.




Thanks for the link, "crow". Some people are always harping about the inferiority of "mass produced" optics and it's interesting to see what current Celestron production is like. I find it striking that there is no difference, in principle, between what Celestron's doing and what, say, Astro-Physics does for their refractors:

http://www.astro-physics.com/about_us/optical-production.htm
YouTube video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc6Nj9R3NO4

till the figuring stage. For this final stage, A-P's Chief Cook and Bottle Washer, Roland, figures one surface (or perhaps two, I'm not sure) using an interferometer. Celestron uses double-pass auto-collimation to do the same during the final figuring step. A-P used to use the same method before they switched to interferometers and I've owned two specimens of A-P scopes produced this way and I can say that their optical performance leave little to be desired.

The variables in Celestron's process are obviously their acceptance criteria for the optical components, the time spent on the final figuring and the skill of the optician. I think they're completely capable of producing a "DX" version where the optics are guaranteed to a much higher level but I have no faith, going by the whinging on this forum about HD prices, that people would be willing to pay the premium.

Tanveer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: mistyridge]
      #5545758 - 11/29/12 03:57 PM

Actually the "worth" of the included eyepiece is what it will fetch on the used market, not what it sells for new, if you already have better eyepieces than the one bundled in. Consumers would be better off having Celestron skip the bundled eyepiece and drop the price by a couple hundred bucks IMO.

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MisterBill
super member


Reged: 09/18/10

Loc: Geezerville aka S.FL, MILE 264
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Lance1234]
      #5545789 - 11/29/12 04:17 PM

Quote:

And way to go Celestron for waiting how many years after the HD came out to really explain this? Even their marketing made it look like an imaging instrument. Oh well, at least I have a telescope again.




This is from a couple years ago, when I was looking for a scope. From Celestron's website....

"As a visual instrument, EdgeHD optics deliver pinpoint images even with your widest field eyepiece."

This first sentence helped me decide to buy one. I think it's still on there or at least something to that effect. Sorry you overlooked it, but don't blame them.

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Slow Astronomer
member


Reged: 05/01/10

Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: MisterBill]
      #5546107 - 11/29/12 07:32 PM

What an awesome document. I ordered a Edge HD 800 and can't wait for delivery. Got a deal on an open box sale from a well known supplier and saved $300. Just got the UPS delivery notice for delivery on 12/5. I can't stand it so much I already added it to my signiture!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gdd
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 11/23/05

Loc: N Seattle suburb, WA
Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Slow Astronomer]
      #5547080 - 11/30/12 12:11 PM

Quote:

What an awesome document. I ordered a Edge HD 800 and can't wait for delivery. Got a deal on an open box sale from a well known supplier and saved $300. Just got the UPS delivery notice for delivery on 12/5. I can't stand it so much I already added it to my signiture!!




Slow down, Slow Astronomer!

Gale


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jeff B
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/30/06

Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: crow]
      #5547291 - 11/30/12 02:03 PM

Quote:

Nice white paper on the EdgeHD design, production etc available for those that are interested. Lots of good info on the Focal reducers too.

http://tinyurl.com/c4n69wn

under the more info button. (Celeston Webpage)

These are cool/capable scopes.




Thanks, a nice read. My hat's off to Celestron.

Two things jumped out at me.

1. The C9.25 is the best corrected on axis, with even the spherochromatism reduced to below the airy disk.

2. No mention of the effects on image quality with the use of bino-viewers. These critters add about 4" more backfocus past the "optimum" back focus of 3.5". Curious about that.

Jeff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Jeff B]
      #5547334 - 11/30/12 02:40 PM

Quote:

The C9.25 is the best corrected on axis, with even the spherochromatism reduced to below the airy disk.





I am not disputing at all what you are saying, but on the other hand, this may give a misleading impression that somehow the other scopes are not going to provide as good on axis performance, and that really isn't the case.

This is the danger of spot diagrams.... Unless people know how many spots were used, it can make a tiny difference in distribution seem much more meaningful than it really is.

The difference depicited by the spots regarding spherochromatism seems to suggest that the correction is perhaps much better, but chances are that the actual percentage of spots falling outside of the circle represented by the Airy Disk diameter is very small.

In fact, Celestron says as much with this quote for the 8" version and this quote is lifted directly from page 18 where the spots for the EdgeHD 8" are published.

Quote:

And because blue rays are strongly concentrated inside the Airy disk, the 8 inch EdgeHD is diffraction limited in blue light.




Again, I am not at all disputing what you are saying, but trying to make sure that people don't get the impression that this means the C9.25 will somehow offer better visual performance than the other scopes. All of them are diffraction limited in red, green, and blue at the center of the field.

The EdgeHD 8" is totally color free in visual use, and for imaging, I doubt that the amount of color distribution is worse than for an 8" APO.

Also (and I am sure that you already know this), the spot patterns are geometric and do not at all include diffraction induced by secondary obstructions. This means that in actual use, more rays would fall outside of the Airy Disk of the C9.25 than the other scopes because of the larger central obstruction.

Again, I what you say is true, but I am just trying to ensure that people who don't work with spot diagrams don't get a mistaken impression that this subtle difference would be meaningful when using the scopes.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Eddgie
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: EdgeHD White Paper, A Must Read. new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5547378 - 11/30/12 03:14 PM

And a followup to my note.

The reason I felt so compelled to comment on this is because I believe Celestron took a bold step in presenting this information.

I believe that manufacturers have been hesitent to provide spots in the past because people with no experinece with them might infer something negative about how a telescope could perform based on the fact that perhaps not all spots would fall into the circle represented by the Airy Disk (and I am not speaking here about the poster of the note I responded to, becuase this was not really intended for him, but rather for people that do not have much experience with spot diagrams).

Now that Celestron has published spots for these instruments, we the consumers should do our due dilligence to study how spots are generated and distributed so that we can better assess the meanings.

Not picking on the poster. What he said is 100% correct. My intention was solely to say only what I said... That the spots in this case might suggest to someone that did not know how spot diagrams work that the other SCTs would somehow be inferrior to the C9, and that really isn't the case because as Celestron says, the instrument was still diffraction limited even in blue light.

We should all applause Celestron and demand this data from other manufacturers, but we should also do our own due dilligance to make sure that we know how to use this data properly.

I would be very sad that someone would think that the EdgeHD 8" or any of the other EdgeHD scopes that don't put all of the dots of one color into a circle represented by the size of the Airy Disk and it resulted in their feeling that the EdgeHD scopes are in some way inferrior to other types.

And that is why I think manufacturers don't want to publish spots.

And my guess is that the on axis spots from any number of ED refractors would look scary as compared to these...

The book "Telescope Optics," (a book that I can't praise highly enough) spends several pages discussing how spot diagrams are produced (there is actually a lot to it) and the effect that the number of spots can have on how the distrubution looks.

Our own web sites and media (astronomy magazines and such) tend to ignore this kind of important info but to really get the best use from spots, it is important to study the topic a bit to get a decent understanding of how to read them.

And finally, one more time to say that the person I responded to was 100% correct. The C9.25 shows the best spots.

But the varience between it and the other scopes (at the center of the field) is so small as to be totally meaningless in terms of performance differences. And that was my point. You can't just "look" at the dots. You have to know the distribution to see if enough dots fall outside of the circle to make a meaningful difference. And the fact that Celestron said it was still diffraction limited suggests that it was a tiny fraction of all of the dots that were plotted.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
18 registered and 27 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Cotts, Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 4696

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics