Re: [ATM] Quantifying visual seeing error

["vladimir" <svla@isp.com>]

Mel Bartels wrote:


>> in a telescope. In the absence of professional attention to the
>> effect of seeing on visual observing, we're left to wonder
>> where in between time-averaged (long exposure) and
>> instantaneous seeing error fits the visual seeing error.
>
> Another parameter I argue is important is the contrast.  If very faint and
> only the central peak visible, then that results in a different visual
> conclusion for a very bright star.  Also, extended objects react 
> differently
> depending on fineness of their detail.

If I understand correctly, this implies that one same
error level will affect differently details of different
nature (different contrast, intensity, shape, color, etc.)
That seems to be evident. In fact, there should be
multiple standards for "diffraction limited", or acceptable,
according to different classes of details. Just kidding -
we've got more than we can handle with this single one...

Vlad 

_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/