> What is the resolution he (Parker) is achieving by the way? Is
> it as good as one sees with the eye through the same instrument, or could
> see if the instrument performed at an optimum level for its diameter? I
> don't know the answer but am curious to hear from those that do.
CCD plus good postprocessing easily beats the eye in the amount of detail one can see/record. For CCD few tenths of the second is all it takes, unlike the eye that needs much more to get convinced (and then you've got problems of fading memory, wishful thinking and "averted imagination"). I don't know what is the exact resolution that Don achieves, but he's been lately into imaging of SATELLITES of Jupiter ! Also, he's been using 12 incher for quite a while before getting 16". I think that in ANY climate there will be moments of good enough seeing to exploit the difference between 12" and 16", especially armed with CCD. But as it was said many times before, the QUALITY of optics is most important. It was fun to compare images of Jupiter in some older issue of CCD Astronomy, done with 14" SCT and 5" APO ... You don't have to guess twice !
Bratislav