![]() I think people who are getting better performance than Polemaster with Sharpcap are doing so because the resolution of the optics used is better. So to improve over the Polemaster performance would require better optics than the Polemaster camera/sensor. I would imagine that the Sharpcap algorithm suffers from exactly the same limitation since it similarly uses the position of stars to determine the two unknowns- using the same sensor and camera as the Polemaster. The resolution of the Polemaster's camera is 30 arcseconds/pixel, which is the accuracy claimed by the Polemaster folks. In both cases, a fundamental limitation is determining the exact position of the stars. The second frame allows the construction of a set of radius vectors, the intersection of which is where your RA axis is pointing. ![]() Sharpcap achieves 2 by plate solving your first frame. ![]() There is a fine tuning portion as well, where better estimate of the location of the NCP is made by analyzing star drift. Where the RA axis is pointing is estimated by constructing a circle from three points (the whole select a star, rotate, click routine) and estimating its center. Polemaster determines 2 by asking you to align the asterism (the circles) around Polaris. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |