The amount of resolution and detail that can be achieved with lucky imaging is not scope dependent. A scope can have very poor contrast, which would make it a poor visual instrument, but when you combine thousands of very short exposures
with lucky imaging techniques, you can achieve the theoretical resolution of that aperture. Low contrast becomes meaningless because you can enhance that with filtering techniques (wavelets and other sharpening). Aperture and good seeing are of prime importance
for imaging planets.
Therefore, for imaging of planets, aperture is always going to be king. I have seen even higher resolution images of Jupiter taken with an amateur instrument (36" i believe) on a mountain top in Chile at Cerro Tololo. Marj and I spent a
week at Cerro Tololo a number of years ago and I can tell you that the seeing there is second to none.
For visual, the human eye/brain does not have the luxury of enhancing contrast or stacking many thousands of video frames. Therefore a good optical system will need high contrast. That means excellent polish and figure, and a very small
secondary obstruction. I have pointed my 10" Mak-Cass (23% obstruction) at Jupiter right next to my 17" Cassegrain (34% secondary obstruction). Almost always the 10" presents a cleaner and more contrasty image and will show more fleeting detail. The local
seeing does not support the 17" aperture except for very rare nights that occur maybe once in a blue moon. The 10" is a much more satisfying scope to use visually. A C14 at our location is not any better than my 17" for visual planetary observations. The 10"
beats them both by a mile.
From: Christopher M <mirfak@...>
Sent: Tue, Nov 23, 2021 8:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Hubble vs C14
Nicely done. I can't wait to see what you would do with one of Roland's Maksutov's or any other better telescope.