Ok, Borodog, thanks to your ponderment I can more clearly see (if you'll pardon the pun) what my 7-in aperture is capturing as compared to the Hubble. For the last couple of years, I've been painfully aware of the trade between detail, artifacts, and noise from my 7-in Mak. But as it turns out, the aperture holds its own pretty well—even against Hubble.
For starters, here is my processed image with the best method I have available to date. Full sensor FOV, full sampling pixel scale:
(Click for full size.)
First, I've always gotten some amount of albedo variation in the NPR, but I've never assessed what it correlated with. But since I was just two days from the Hubble, those details don't change that quickly. So if I derotate Hubble and mine so I can accomodate spatial distortions, I can do an almost (~within a few revolutions) apples-to-apples between my scope and Hubble:
(Click for animation.)
Second, the GRS. In spectacular seeing, I get a lot of little features that I've never known whether they have anything to do with reality. But thanks to your query (and the two days between my best-ever seeing and Hubble), I can piece together what my scope actually captured:
(Click for animation.)
From this analysis, I assess that my Mak's detail cutoff is somewhere between the line spread cutoff and the edge spread cutoff.
Thanks for the lesson, Borodog!
BQ
Edited by BQ Octantis, 02 October 2021 - 06:47 AM.