

-----------------------------------

GunDALF

20 Oct 2020 19:48



-----------------------------------

Eu cand zic magnificatii mari ma refer la cele ce sfideaza seeingul. Magnificatiile mici sunt cele ce se impaca cu seeingul. Evident ca n-o sa ma uit la planete cu 25x. Dar nici cu 300x, decat in conditii exceptionale. Si asta numai daca rezolutia instrumentului mi-o permite. 
Ideea e ca la o discutie trebuie definite bine subiectele.
Iar totul a pornit de la faptul ca amicul nostru se intreba de ce 300x se vede mai putin clar decat 48x. Iar explicatia ca de fapt la 300x ar trebui sa se vada mai bine, pe mine m-a siderat.
Sa se convinga fiecare de ce inseamna magnificatie vs. luminozitate vs. detalii...

PS: acel optim de magnificatie este... vezi mai jos. Daca permite atmosfera.  :lol: 

Aperture sets the limit on resolution: greater aperture means greater resolution. Matching our eye's resolution to the aperture resolution requires a magnification of roughly 25x per inch of aperture 

Deasemenea, https://starizona.com/tutorial/understanding-magnification/
Apropo de magnificatie optima.
Observational experiments usually find that, for deep-sky observing, the best detail can be seen with an exit pupil of between 2mm and 3mm.  This would be a magnification of around 35-50x on a 4&#8243; scope, 70-100x on an 8&#8243; scope, and 120-175x on a 14&#8243; scope. 

