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)
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
CO Madness new
      #5562695 - 12/09/12 03:54 PM

Just got the latest Sky and Tel - huge Lx600 is pictured In it with this humungous CO!! It's F/8 I'm assuming but at what cost? It's gotta be at least 50% by diameter and I wouldn't rule out 60%. I'm getting it that it's an advantage to have a faster scope for wider fields in the interest of deep sky and imaging. Still, the light in those diffraction rings has got to be bothersome on a number of fronts and lunar and planetary has to be aggrevated in terms of contrast loss .


Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CottsModerator
Just Wondering
*****

Reged: 10/10/05

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Re: CO Madness new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5562764 - 12/09/12 04:47 PM

I would think this is an Astrophotography scope so, unless you're doing crazy things with barlows and/or severely cropping the images then the somewhat extra brighter diffraction rings won't be visible at all.

It is possible that the limiting magnitude of the photos will be a bit less due to the more 'spread out' energy in the diffraction pattern, even if it is unresolved. This doesn't seem to discourage the use of RC's and other heavily obstructed scopes, sometimes very, very pricey ones and with stunning results.

I wouldn't want to compare these scopes with similar aperture Newts and Refractors on the planets, though. 'Twould be a slaughter......

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
desertlens
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 12/06/10

Loc: 36N 105W
Re: CO Madness new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5562801 - 12/09/12 05:07 PM

I've often thought that percentage of diameter was a bit misleading as a measure of CO. I realize that this is the conventional method but still... Area is another matter. As an example, my C6 has a diameter based CO of 36% but calculated by area of primary minus area of secondary it's only about 13%. Still, I'd agree that that Lx600 has a large CO by any standard.

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

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: CO Madness new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5562811 - 12/09/12 05:14 PM

This is an imageing system.

That does not mean that it can't be used visually, but I am not sure why anyone would want to do that really. For visual use, an obstruction this large will rob a huge amount of contrast.

That doesn't mean anything to some people though, and I am sure that somewhere someone is using one visually, but I don't think this is really how the designer intended the scope to be used.

When used for imageing, a very large obstruction has little meaningful impact. Yes, it lowers contrast, but at prime focus, the image scale is so small that in most cases, you are not looking for miute low contrast structural detail in Nebula with a scope like this.

And stars are such small points at prime focus that it really doesn't matter that the first ring is bright. It will be too small to resolve in the images.

Anyway, this is a scope design that is heavily compromised toward imageing. Not that you could not use it for general observing, but clearly that is not what the designer intended. The contrast will suffer to badly for visual observing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5562848 - 12/09/12 05:41 PM

Quote:

And stars are...too small to resolve in the images.





Okay, that makes sense. Didn't do the math, but I am sure that's right. All the light is captured by one pixel. Never thought of that being the reason large COs are fine for imaging. Visually, on planets, t'would be a slaughter, for sure.

Now, if I got this right, however, the central visible disc will fall of in brightness and angular diameter somewhat. This could allow a bit higher frequency (extended) objects to be resolved.

However, remember a telescope transfers contrast from the image to the focal plane. At these high frequencies (at or beyond maximum for that aperture), the contrast translated is not very high even for 100% on the target. And you need contrast between the spurious disc and the darker feature to resolve them. You could loose all advantage at some point by dimming the spurious disc too much. The resulting contrast on the focal plane could be zero or close to it. Hence, no resolution.

This condition begins to really degrade visual observation at some point despite any gains in smaller disc size. And, 50 or 60% /might/ be getting close to that point.

Edited by Asbytec (12/09/12 05:44 PM)


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: CO Madness new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5562979 - 12/09/12 07:00 PM

Quote:

Just got the latest Sky and Tel - huge Lx600 is pictured In it with this humungous CO!! It's F/8 I'm assuming but at what cost? It's gotta be at least 50% by diameter and I wouldn't rule out 60%. I'm getting it that it's an advantage to have a faster scope for wider fields in the interest of deep sky and imaging. Still, the light in those diffraction rings has got to be bothersome on a number of fronts and lunar and planetary has to be aggrevated in terms of contrast loss .


Pete




Well, maybe. The RCXes worked pretty well on the Moon and planets from what I recall.


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

Reged: 01/06/04

Loc: Toronto, ON, Canada
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5563009 - 12/09/12 07:19 PM

Quote:

This is an imageing system.

That does not mean that it can't be used visually, but I am not sure why anyone would want to do that really. For visual use, an obstruction this large will rob a huge amount of contrast.




Hey Eddgie,

I know you are very familiar with the MTF curves. For yuks, would you be able to generate a comparison set between one of these (14") and a C14?

My gut says there is going to be a noticeable difference, and I would go as far as Dave says and say these things are going to get pummelled by many other scopes for planetary duties. Of course, that isn't what they were designed for, but it is a departure from the all-around scope that Meade has traditionally sold.

Clear skies,


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Gord]
      #5563075 - 12/09/12 08:09 PM

Scroll down...

http://www.damianpeach.com/simulation.htm

More...

http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/c-o's.html


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Asbytec]
      #5563253 - 12/09/12 10:22 PM

I'm familiar with Peaches simulations on contrast versus CO and for the life of me I really believe he's greatly played it down and the results are probably twice as apparent as his sims let on. I've hot a lot of respect for the guy but I can't agree with his finds at all. Graphs fine but sims are a bit flattering of CO.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: CO Madness new [Re: desertlens]
      #5563257 - 12/09/12 10:27 PM

Quote:

I've often thought that percentage of diameter was a bit misleading as a measure of CO. I realize that this is the conventional method but still... Area is another matter. As an example, my C6 has a diameter based CO of 36% but calculated by area of primary minus area of secondary it's only about 13%. Still, I'd agree that that Lx600 has a large CO by any standard.




I don't think it matters so much which is used so long as its the common measure from one scope to another. I've got to believe tho the lx600 has the CO diameter of at least a medium sized refractors aperture .

Pete


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


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: CO Madness [Re: azure1961p]
      #5563405 - 12/10/12 12:26 AM

Quote:

probably twice as apparent as his sims let on.



I am interested to see how you would quantify it. Apparently you have a better way of measuring it. Please explain.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hottr6
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/28/09

Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM
Re: CO Madness new [Re: desertlens]
      #5563991 - 12/10/12 11:31 AM

Quote:

I've often thought that percentage of diameter was a bit misleading as a measure of CO. I realize that this is the conventional method but still... Area is another matter. As an example, my C6 has a diameter based CO of 36% but calculated by area of primary minus area of secondary it's only about 13%.



I'd have to agree. Measuring CO linearly is pretty, I'm going to have to say it, stupid. Lineal measurements of square and circular CO may indicate the same, when the differential impact of these two obstructions on photon count will be enormous.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Asbytec
Guy in a furry hat
*****

Reged: 08/08/07

Loc: La Union, PI
Re: CO Madness new [Re: hottr6]
      #5564046 - 12/10/12 12:07 PM

As I understand it, the biggest impact is on contrast rather than the square of some radius. There is exponentially more area of aperture in relation to the CO, that photon count - while important - is not the primary concern.

When a large CO ~0.5D (or whatever percentage of diameter) reduces the spurious disc by nearly half and sends the other half into the rings - most of that into the first ring - well, good luck resolving a low contrast feature anywhere near it. Not only has the contrast fallen on the brighter surface, but the double whammy is light from the rings reducing contrast against nearby darker features.

Small light and dark features more rapidly blur into a more uniform shade of gray. A white picket fence would still look fine, though, from down the street. That's the importance of the MTF, diffraction describes your scope more accurately than light gathering power.

Edited by Asbytec (12/10/12 12:20 PM)


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

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: CO Madness new [Re: hottr6]
      #5564533 - 12/10/12 05:11 PM

Norme has covered it pretty well.

The clear aperture method though (the diameter of the primary minus the diameter of the secondary obstruction = clear aperture) is only an approximation.

If fails when the obstruction is very small or very large.

And it ignores the fact that when an obstruction is present, at the very very highest spatial frequencies, the contrast transfer in an obstructed scope is almost always better than in an unobstruced scope. That's right. At the limits of angular resolving power, the obstruction improves contrast transfer vs an unobstructed scope.

But the damage cased by the obstruction is not really much to do with shading of the mirror reducing light transmission. Reduced transmission has no effect on cotrast transfer at all.

All of the damage is done because light that would normally go into the Airy Disk in an unobstruced system is now going in to the diffraction rings around the point.

84% of the light in an unobstructed scope goes into the Airy Disk, 7% into the first diffraction ring, 3% into the second ring, and the rest in the outer rings.

By comparison, a scope with a very large obstruction, rather than putting 91% of the light into the Air Disk and first only puts about 70% of the energy into the Airy Disk and first ring.

Now remember, the Airy disk may be small, but the first ring goes out to twice the diameter of the Airy disk, and the second ring goes out to three times the diameter of the Airy Disk.

And this is what kills the contrast. Low contrast details of a size that are two or three diameters of the Airy disk will be washed out but the light that is being thrown from the point on the image that created it.

And if the obstruction is very large, it can extend to four and five rings, which is why we see such a huge droop in the MTF plots around .5 in MTF plots. Small details simply get drowned out.

Anyway, the "Clear Aperture" forumla offers an approximation for contrast transfer, but is not at all accurate when the contrast is for detail that is very fine.

For example if you have two equal magnitude doubles, an obstructed system might show them better seperated than a perfect unobstructed system because the Airy Disk will appear smaller, if the stars are seperated by the widty of the gap between the edge of the Airy Disk and the first ring, they will actually appear to be seperated by a wider space in the obstructed instrument. For this reason, we say that the contrast transfer is better. The space between the stars appears wider, and hence, blacker.

The damage is very real, and the MTF plots do a very exact job of describing how contrast transfer will differ between two different scope.

Anyone that chooses to ignore MTF plots or treat them as witch-doctor stuff is simply ignoring the physics of how telescopes work. It is 100% reliable. If you accuratly model a telescope, an MTF plot describes exactly how it will behave.

That is why professional optical engineers talk in terms of MTF and encircled energy. These describe how an instrument performs with great clarity.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
desertlens
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 12/06/10

Loc: 36N 105W
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5564600 - 12/10/12 05:51 PM

Quote:

Anyway, the "Clear Aperture" formula offers an approximation for contrast transfer, but is not at all accurate when the contrast is for detail that is very fine.




Thanks Eddgie. I knew there was a contrast issue and the application of MTF in this case explains that aspect to me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hottr6
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/28/09

Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Eddgie]
      #5564678 - 12/10/12 06:31 PM

Thanks Norme and Eddgie, that's a good explanation.

So if CO has such a "profound" effect on image quality, it seems that we should also include the area of the spider vanes (Mak-Gregs and Schmidt-Cass' need not apply). Looking at the thickness of the vanes on some current-production visual and AP Newts, this will have a considerable effect.

The reason why I think I am less than happy with CO as a "specification", is that it has been too casually thrown around by well-meaning users. This casual use ignores vanes, shape of the secondary and/or holder, etc.

Am I making sense, or just being a curmudgeon?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: CO Madness new [Re: hottr6]
      #5564693 - 12/10/12 06:39 PM

Curmudgeon.

The vanes cause spikes on stars- more out there on this than there is on central obstruction effects.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hottr6
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/28/09

Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5564740 - 12/10/12 07:17 PM

Quote:

The vanes cause spikes on stars- more out there on this than there is on central obstruction effects.



With a concomitant effect on contrast and image quality, similar to CO effects.

A good article here, though a little scholarly:
http://www.telescope-optics.net/spider.htm

I'm not a curmudgeon.... yet!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: CO Madness new [Re: Alph]
      #5564751 - 12/10/12 07:26 PM

Quote:

Quote:

probably twice as apparent as his sims let on.



I am interested to see how you would quantify it. Apparently you have a better way of measuring it. Please explain.




"Alf"

Quantify it? Oh that's simple I'd say the effects are twice as apparent as the sim photos let on. And yes I have a better way of measuring it - you put down the simulation and look through the eyepiece.


I'm onboard with the graphs and such but something's lost in the translation in those sim pix. Too, Jupiter would have been a better sim photo as the contrasts are in greater variety. In the end though that would fail too. You simply can't photoshop a soft filter and call it that simple. Their are nuances in contrasts with varying to no CO that simple slide rule image softening won't address. A lot of things change a little and cumulatively it's more involved than the simplistic sim pix. Too, a nifty program to apply direct contrast attenuation per the numbers is no solution either . It is not an absolute and its as subjective as the human being developing it.

You want to do it right? Get a 6" apo and add varying central obstruction discs. Image it and process it fairly raw as wavelets applied can skew the results. Line up all the raw pix and there's a fair representation of CO to no CO differences. Attenuating fixed photos is playing. Just be careful the seeing is stable enough to allow even handed sampling.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (12/10/12 07:30 PM)


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

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: CO Madness new [Re: hottr6]
      #5564969 - 12/10/12 09:50 PM

Quote:

So if CO has such a "profound" effect on image quality




I didn't say that at all.

I said a very large CO has a very big effect. My response was meant in the context of the scope the OP is talking about.

The effects of a 20% obstruction are so small that most observers would struggle to see it.

Even the 33% SCT obstruction does not degrade the image to the point that it is glaringly obvious, but in a direct comparsion by a good observer, it will be enough to see.

Once the obstruction gets over about 40% though, the damage becomes more apparent, and this is why this has been considered the cut-off for the maximum size allowed for visual use. Below this and the damage is not so great as to make the scope undesirable to use. As any C9.25 owner. The obstruction is 38%.

In fact, most telescopes sold with an obstruction larger than 40% are usually sold as "Imaging" telescopes.

Anyway, it is all relative to the size. A small obstruction does almost no damage, and a very large obstruction (50%) is not really all that good for high resolution observing (though it works well for most other kinds of observing).


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


Extra information
23 registered and 38 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: 2344

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics