|
telescopeѲptics.net
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪▪▪▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪ CONTENTS
2.2.
Telescope resolution
Resolution is another
vital telescope function. Simply put, telescope resolution limit
determines how small a
detail can be resolved in the image it forms. In the absence of
aberrations, what determines limit to resolution is
the effect of diffraction. Being subject to eye
(detector) properties, resolution varies with detail's shape, contrast,
brightness and wavelength.
The conventional indicator of resolving power - commonly called
diffraction resolution limit - is the minimum resolvable separation
of a pair of close point-object images, somewhat arbitrarily set forth by
the wave theory at ~λ/D
in radians for incoherent light, λ
being the wavelength of light, and D the aperture diameter (expressed in
arc seconds, it is 134/D for D in mm, or 4.5/D for D in inches,
both for 550nm wavelength).
While there is no difference in a single point-source
imaging between coherent and
incoherent light with respect to the relative intensity distribution, the resolution limit
for a pair of point sources for the former varies with the
phase difference between the two sources, from ~2λ/D
with zero phase difference, to ~λ/D
with π/2 phase difference, and
somewhat better than that with phase difference equaling π
(i.e. λ/2), as shown on
FIG.9A left (from Optical Imaging and Aberrations 2, Mahajan).
Since, according to Van Cittert-Zernike
Theorem, light arriving from stars is coherent in amateur-size
telescopes, as long as it is near monochromatic, it is an interesting
question how much this coherence factor, combined with the
coherence-lowering polychromatic spectrum and OPD differential between
two close stars influences their actual resolution limit in the field.
The point-source diffraction resolution
limit for incoherent light, coherent light with λ/4 OPD between
components and, perhaps, specific cases of partly coherent light, is given by ~λF,
F
being the ratio number of the focal length to aperture diameter (F=ƒ/D,
with ƒ
being the focal length).
It is a product of angular resolution and focal length: λF=λƒ/D. Specifically, this is a limit to resolution of two
point-object images
of near-equal intensity (FIG.
9A). Resolution limit can vary significantly
for two point-sources of unequal intensity, as well as with other object
types (FIG.10).

FIGURE 9A: LEFT: Diffraction limit to resolution of two point-object
images in incoherent light is approached when the two are of near equal, optimum intensity.
As the two
PSF
merge closer, the intensity deep between them diminishes. At the
center separation of half the Airy disc diameter - 1.22λ/D
radians (138/D in arc seconds, for λ=0.55μ and the aperture
diameter D in mm), known as Rayleigh limit
- the deep is at nearly 3/4 of the peak intensity. Reducing separation
to λ/D (113.4/D in arc seconds for D in mm, or 4.466/D for
D in inches, both for λ=0.55μ) reduces the intensity deep
to less than 2% below
the peak. This is the conventional diffraction
resolution limit, just below the empirical double
star resolution limit, known as Dawes' limit
(116/Dmm
arc seconds for white stars of
m~5logD-5
visual magnitude for D in mm (m~5logD+2 for D in inches), nearly identical to the Full-Width-at-Half-Maximum, or
FWHM of the PSF, equaling 1.03λ/D)). With further reduction in separation, the contrast
deep disappears, and two spurious discs merge together. The separation at
which the intensity flattens at the top is called
Sparrow's limit, given by 107/D for D in mm.
RIGHT: Resolution of two
stars in coherent light at 1.22λ/D angular separation varies with the
OPD between two sources. At zero path difference, the two patterns merge
together, forming the central maxima of 1.83λF in radius and 1.47
peak intensity. At π/2 OPD the combined pattern is identical to that in
incoherent light, and at OPD=π the two 1.11 maximas are somewhat more
widely separated, with the intensity deep between them dropping to zero,
the latter two indicating significantly better limiting resolution. Note that for given flux of x waves, individual wave amplitudes A for coherent light are first
added and then squared, as (xA)2,
while squared and then added for incoherent light as xA2,
in order to obtain their combined intensity.
That makes the actual image intensity of
coherent light for given amplitude higher by a factor of x than in
incoherent light, and its change
proportional to x2,
not x.
Peak intensities of the
two point-object images on Fig. 9A remain unchanged at the central
separation of 1.22λ/D, and larger. At smaller separations (inside the
Rayleigh limit), the two peak intensities start to increase, at first
slowly, then rather fast, with the combined intensity doubling as the
two centers merge together.
The combined intensity
of the two patterns (normalized to unit peak intensity) at
any point of their overlap is given by Ic=I1+I2,
with I1
obtained from Eq. (c) for
t1=[x-(s/2)]π/2,
and I2 for
t2=[x+(s/2)]π/2,
with
x being the point coordinate on the horizontal axis (with zero at
the mid point between two PSF centroids), and s being the
pattern center separation, both in units of λF.
EXAMPLE: For the center
separation s=1.22 (Rayleigh limit), t1,2=0.305π
(the sign of t doesn't matter, since it is under even
number exponents), and the combined intensity at the mid point
between two equal intensity patterns Ic=0.7346,
for the first four terms in the series. For one peak intensity
point, at x1=-0.61,
t1=-1.22π,
t2=0
and for the other, at x2=0.61,
t1=0
and t2=1.22π,
with the intensity of both remaining 1.
At the center separation s=1 (equaling
the approximate
theoretical diffraction limit of resolution for point-sources, given by λ/D in radians), combined
intensity at the mid point (x=0, t1,2=π/4)
is 1.042. The two peak intensity points shift closer, away from the original centroids at xc=±0.5,
to x1=-0.32
(t1=-0.41π,
t2=0.09π),
and x2=0.32,
(t1=-0.09π,
t2=0.41π),
with the intensity only slightly higher at 1.060.
At s=1.02, which is formally given for
the empirical Dawes' limit, the combined intensity at the mid point
(x=0, t1,2=1.02π/4)
is 1.013, with the peak intensity points also shifting closer from
their respective original centroids to x1=-0.4
(t1=-0.455π,
t2=0.055π),
and x2=0.4,
(t1=-0.055π,
t2=0.455π),
reaching 1.045 peak intensity. This is only slightly more than 3%
difference in contrast, and considered below detection threshold of
the human eye in field conditions. Formally acceptable limit should satisfy ~5% minimum
contrast, which would require nearly 2% increase in separation, to
s~1.04 (Suiter may be giving similar hint on p287, where he states
that the separation in Dawes' criterion is "little less than 85%" of
the Rayleigh limit; the exact number, as given by Sidgwick, is
83.7%). In any instance, the difference is negligible: satisfying
the 5% minimum contrast differential requirement with Dawes' limit
would take as little as reducing 550nm wavelength by ~2%.
The separation at which
the combined PSF flattens at the top occurs at the center separation
107/D in arc seconds, for D in mm (4.2/D for D in inches).
It is so called Sparrow's limit,
allowing detection of close doubles based on visual elongation of
the bright central spot of diffraction pattern. For closer separations, peak
intensity of the combined pattern forms at the mid point
between two Gaussian point-object images.
The PSF plots above are for the nominal (normalized)
intensity. While it is rather common way of illustrating point-source
resolution, the human eye response to light intensity is mainly
logarithmic, hence better illustrated with logarithmic PSF. For
instance, the intensity gap between central peak and second maxima in
aberration-free aperture is 57 to 1, respectively; the eye, however,
sees the peak as less than twice brighter (this applies when both are
well within eye's detection threshold; as the fainter 1st bright ring
nears detection threshold and falls bellow it, the perceived intensity
differential dramatically increases). Graph below (FIG. 9B) shows
logarithmic
(log10)
PSF for polychromatic light (in the range that is 1/10 of
the mean wavelength, inset E),
closer to the PSF of an actual star than monochromatic PSF.

FIGURE 9B:
Logarithmic PSF of aberration-free aperture on the (stellar)
magnitude scale shows intensity distribution within stellar image
more closely to that actually perceived by human eye (i.e. the
apparent intensity scales inversely with magnitude). Going from
zero magnitude star to magnitude 15, there is no indication that
visual size of the central maxima differs considerably between bright vs. average and
moderately faint stars (this neglects possible - and probable -
secondary physiological effects on the retina, particularly with
very bright sources). Only as the outskirts of the central maxima
begin to fall below detection threshold, its visible size
diminishes. For the maximum theoretical resolution of two
point-sources, set at λ/D in radians (206,265λ/D in arc seconds),
visible central disc cannot be significantly larger than λ/D
angularly (illustrated for the zero magnitude star, for
convenience). Moderately larger disc still should allow clear
resolution, due to the intensity low forming between two star images,
with the discs likely appearing less than perfectly round. The graph
above implies that it would take place at the detection threshold
approximately two magnitudes below the peak intensity. This is not
far from the reported basis in establishing empirical resolution limit by Rev.
William Rutter Dawes: near equally bright pairs about three
magnitude brighter than the faintest star detectable with the
aperture tested (Sky Catalogue 2000.0, Hirshfeld/Sinnott,
p.xi). According to it, limiting resolution is possible only in the
absence of visible ring structure (typical aberration level, or
average central obstruction, brighten the 1st bright ring less
than a magnitude - as illustrated on
FIG.
58 - which amounts to ~2mm on the above graph).
As mentioned, this
limit applies to near-equally bright, contrasty point-object images at
the optimum intensity level. Resolution limit for star pairs of unequal
brightness, or those significantly above or below the optimum intensity
level is lower. For other image forms, resolution limit also can and
does deviate significantly, both, above and below the conventional
limit. One example is a dark line on light background, whose diffraction
image is defined with the images of the two bright edges enclosing it.
These images are defined with the Edge Spread Function (ESF), whose
configuration differs significantly from the PSF (FIG. 10). With
its intensity drop within the main sequence being, on the other hand,
quite similar to that of the PSF, resolution of this kind of detail is
more likely to be limited by detector sensitivity, than by diffraction
(in the sense that the intensity differential for the mid point between
Gaussian images of the edges vs. intensity peaks, forms a non-zero
contrast differential for any finite edge separation).

FIGURE 10: Limit to diffraction resolution vary significantly with
the object/detail form. Image of a dark line on bright background is a
conjunction of diffraction images of the two bright edges, described by Edge Spread Function (ESF). As the illustration shows,
the gap between two intensity profiles at
λ/D
separation is much larger for the ESF than PSF
(which is nearly identical to the Line Spread Function, determining the
limiting MTF resolution). It implicates
limiting resolution considerably better than
λ/D,
which agrees with practical observations (Cassini division, Moon rilles,
etc.).
Gradual intensity falloff at the top of the intensity curve around the
edges can produce very subtle low-contrast features, even if the
separation
itself remains invisible.
Image of a point source on the surface of
extended
objects in general - with the exception of Sun - is not
detectable in amateur telescopes. For instance, Jupiter shines as if
having a ~6th magnitude star in each square arc second of its surface.
But there is many point sources within every square arc second; images
of all these point sources overlap, effectively forming a smallest
detectable patch when the amount of its energy, combined with its
background contrast, reach the minimum size required by the eye under
those circumstances. This minimum size is related to the telescope
nominal (point-object) diffraction resolution limit and light gathering
power, but it is in general significantly lower, varying with the
particular brightness and contrast of a detail. For typical bright
low-contrast details (major planets), and dim low-contrast details (most
nebulas and galaxies), the MTF analysis by
Rutten and Venrooij (Telescope Optics, p215) indicates
MTF resolution limit lower approximately by a factor of ~2 and ~7,
respectively, than the MTF resolution limit for bright, contrasty
pattern (practically identical to telescope's nominal stellar resolution limit).
Formal premises and experimental results on
the subject of telescope resolution
are covered in detail in Amateur Astronomer's Handbook, J.B. Sidgwick (p37-51). Naturally, resolution in general
will deteriorate with introduction of wavefront aberrations.
◄
2.1. Light-gathering power
▐
2.3. Telescope magnification
►
Home
| Comments |