Large aperture planetary setup heavily underperforming for an unknown reason - Forums

So this Jupiter image i took recently, its somewhat decent i would say, but as im exploring this site i notice people getting far better results with significantly smaller telescopes and less data, makes me wonder what am i missing / doing wrong. For context i’ve had the setup for 2 years now and while i did improve significantly by practicing processing and learning new things for a while now ive been stuck on some sort of a wall preventing me from obtaining better images

This image i took here for reference is a selection of 30K frames from a total of 320K, the frames were split into sets of 4K each, each capture lasting around 30 seconds to prevent rotation blur, then from each set i selected 10% of the best frames and stacked them, which left me with 80 stacks (only 70 were used as there were unexpected tracking issues, causing about 10 images to be cut or left with nasty artifacts) , each made from 400 frames, then i sharpened them in AstroSurface, and finally painstakingly - and i mean it - registering 70 images manually in winJUPOS to derotate and stack them all. as the final step i sharpened the final stack slightly in AstroSurface.

The Imaging setup i used:

16” (406mm) aperture Dobsonian telescope with a focal length of 1800mm - The telescope has been cooled for 6h, using 3 strong fans blowing at the mirror from the back of the optical tube for the entire cooling period, temperature difference to overcome was 30 degrees. The fans were shut down after cooling to prevent vibrations. After the cooling was completed I freshly collimated the telescope with an aligned laser collimator. Optics of the telescope were cleaned recently, little to no dust on any optical components
Camera: ASI294MC-Pro with a TeleVue X4 2” powermate, resulting in ~0.12”/px sampling, 1.5ms exposures and gain adjusted accordingly, between 300 and 450, a UV+IR cut filter was also used
Tracking doesnt really matter in this pretty sure, but ill add that it generally is good enough to take long exposure DSO images with a field derotator, its a SynScan system that came with the dobsonian mount
When it comes to the surroundings there is no heat sources nearby or in the imaging path, a large grass field towards the south too, no concreate
Weather conditions: 6m/s jet stream, barely any wind on the surface as well, temperature -5C
Focusing via a ZWO electronic focuser, image as focused as it can be
Jupiter altitude above the horizon during capture was over 55 degrees trough the entire session

First and foremost: what does Jupiter look like in the EP and at high magnification (say 400x). If does look sharp and full of details then you have issue with your imaging strategy, camera and set-up in general. If not then you need to look at a star at high magnification (again 400x and such) and see whether you can clearly distinguish the Airy disk, whether it fluctuates in and out of focus or whether it gets any shimmering at times. Rack in and out of focus. Do the Fresnel pattern look symmetric or close enough at the same distance inside and outside focus? This assumes steady seeing to start with. If you can't achieve any of the above and/or have problem keeping a constant stable Airy pattern then you either have a lemon or the optics are still acclimatizing. Might take forever unless you leave them outside all the time, which I strongly suggest you do. This assumes you take from a inside a heated place to the cold outer temperatures.

Several things I'd never do:

1. Use the ASI294MC for planetary imaging. Not sensitive enough against the competition. Too heavy and bulky.
2. Use an electronic focuser except for taking measurements
3. Too short exposures at this image scale. If the seeing is good you don't need this many, if it is bad pack up and go home, it isn't your day (or night).

BTW, and don't take it too badly, I could get this sort of results with a 6" mak.

One tip: if you focus the telescope-barlow-camera combination on a bright star, you can immediately capture a short 10 second video to record the seeing. Then compare the Airy pattern in the video to the Pickering scale: https://www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm

For me, it’s a convenient method that doesn't require swapping the camera for an eyepiece. I posted a couple examples on my blog (link)

Since your results have been below expectations for 2 years, I suspect that you might have poor local seeing. Seeing can vary significantly around the world, and you might be living in a place where you only have a few clear nights per year with decent seeing.

I don’t see anything that stands out to me. I guess my first question is how good is your primary? Is it from a premium maker or has it been tested. If that’s too much then a very careful round of star testing will tell you a lot.

My second question would be just how good was the seeing during this session? As Andrea suggested, monitoring the image in an ocular or even on the screen usually tells the story. It should hold the fine detail for seconds at a time, not just fleeting glimpses.

I’d say use a dedicated planetary camera, also electronic focusing is essential. 1.5ms is too short, not enough signal. Around 10ms usually good. Also work on your processing

Craig Towell:
also electronic focusing is essential

In fact I shan't think so, like at all. Possibly a negative in some instances.

andrea tasselli · Jan 21, 2026 at 01:36 PM
Craig Towell:
also electronic focusing is essential

In fact I shan't think so, like at all. Possibly a negative in some instances.

I don’t mean auto focus like with star detection focus curves, I mean using a motorised focuser to avoid shakes and focusing by eye on the screen

I'm getting my C11 set back up for a few Jupiter runs so this post is interesting to me....

1. Typical 16-inch dobs are f/4.5 or so. Doing the "5X rule" on this with your setup with assumed good seeing, pixels size on the 294 (4.63) x 5 (for good seeing) = 23.15. You should aim to produce a focal ratio of around f/20. With your dob at f/4.5 you'd need a 5x Barlow to get good resolution. This "rule" isn't exact science, but I've found it to be a good guide. The 4x Barlow you have may be good enough for your average seeing. I wouldn't think it's the weak link here.

2. Which platform are you using to capture your video stacks? You say you're using the ASI hand controller to focus with, I'm assuming you're using the ASIAir to capture. The ASIAir is severely underpowered to do planetary work. I have fought with this for so long trying to get good results and just had to give up as it will never happen. I've made exponential progress with FireCapture and a standalone PC.

3. Get a dedicated planetary cam. The 294MC Pro isn't nearly fast enough IMO. With my 2600MC Pro I was maxing out at around 50fps with low capture resolution. With my dedicated planetary cam and FC I'm getting closer to 300FPS. This is important so that you're capturing more data as quickly as possible to combat rapid seeing changes.

4. Get a ADC. Even at higher altitudes colors can shift a bit through the atmosphere. They are cheap and can make a huge difference.

5. Collimation (and this is critical)... you mentioned that you collimated with a laser collimation device. Not good enough. The best planetary imagers will collimate using the "donut" method or a tri-bat mask before every session. Sometimes, they will re-collimate as the targets get higher in the sky. I found that my biggest progress in image quality was spending more time getting collimation as perfect as you can.

My final comment is this: planetary imaging is not easy

I can throw out my widefield rig and have it imaging in a 10th of the time it takes to get planets capturing. And all this above doesn't even touch processing data and all the tricks to that.

Keep at it, it's worth it when you get it figured out.

Craig Towell:
I don’t mean auto focus like with star detection focus curves, I mean using a motorised focuser to avoid shakes and focusing by eye on the screen

Whether is "essential" or not is the rub and it is very much NOT essential. In fact may be counterproductive if you don't have a hand controller. I don't but that is beside the point.

andrea tasselli · Jan 21, 2026 at 04:55 PM
Craig Towell:
I don’t mean auto focus like with star detection focus curves, I mean using a motorised focuser to avoid shakes and focusing by eye on the screen

Whether is "essential" or not is the rub and it is very much NOT essential. In fact may be counterproductive if you don't have a hand controller. I don't but that is beside the point.

Well I guess we can only go off our own experiences, and I personally found trying to find critical focus at 7m focal length using my hand on the focuser an exercise in futility with the image dancing all over the place - maybe I have particularly shaky hands?! I can recommend to the op the basic skywatcher motor focus unit which comes with the hand paddle, I have that fitted to most of my scopes and it makes focusing much much easier.

I wound up with a surplus ASI EAF, and an optional extra ($40) hand controller.

I installed it on my 80mm refractor the Grandkids are using, and a solar charged power pack (phone charger). They love it!

Because they don’t need to touch the telescope to focus between each other or friends.

So no matter what a telescope is being used to observe, an electronic focuser can be a big plus.

andrea tasselli · Jan 20, 2026, 11:55 PM
First and foremost: what does Jupiter look like in the EP and at high magnification (say 400x). If does look sharp and full of details then you have issue with your imaging strategy, camera and set-up in general. If not then you need to look at a star at high magnification (again 400x and such) and see whether you can clearly distinguish the Airy disk, whether it fluctuates in and out of focus or whether it gets any shimmering at times. Rack in and out of focus. Do the Fresnel pattern look symmetric or close enough at the same distance inside and outside focus? This assumes steady seeing to start with. If you can't achieve any of the above and/or have problem keeping a constant stable Airy pattern then you either have a lemon or the optics are still acclimatizing. Might take forever unless you leave them outside all the time, which I strongly suggest you do. This assumes you take from a inside a heated place to the cold outer temperatures.

Several things I'd never do:

1. Use the ASI294MC for planetary imaging. Not sensitive enough against the competition. Too heavy and bulky.
2. Use an electronic focuser except for taking measurements
3. Too short exposures at this image scale. If the seeing is good you don't need this many, if it is bad pack up and go home, it isn't your day (or night).

BTW, and don't take it too badly, I could get this sort of results with a 6" mak.

Thanks for all the advice, i will get a dedicated planetary color camera, as well as try longer exposures/lower gain. I was never able to truly see the airy pattern like people describe it, my stars usually appear as unstable violently fluctuating masses. I tried leaving the telescope outside for whole 12h with fans on full power before an imaging session, i did not notice a difference that i could observe with my eyes. I went as far as borrowing a thermal camera to scan my setup for heat sources, i did not find any, aside from trace heat from camera and focuser, which wasnt even in the optical path

Jeramie · Jan 21, 2026, 03:51 PM
I'm getting my C11 set back up for a few Jupiter runs so this post is interesting to me....

1. Typical 16-inch dobs are f/4.5 or so. Doing the "5X rule" on this with your setup with assumed good seeing, pixels size on the 294 (4.63) x 5 (for good seeing) = 23.15. You should aim to produce a focal ratio of around f/20. With your dob at f/4.5 you'd need a 5x Barlow to get good resolution. This "rule" isn't exact science, but I've found it to be a good guide. The 4x Barlow you have may be good enough for your average seeing. I wouldn't think it's the weak link here.

2. Which platform are you using to capture your video stacks? You say you're using the ASI hand controller to focus with, I'm assuming you're using the ASIAir to capture. The ASIAir is severely underpowered to do planetary work. I have fought with this for so long trying to get good results and just had to give up as it will never happen. I've made exponential progress with FireCapture and a standalone PC.

3. Get a dedicated planetary cam. The 294MC Pro isn't nearly fast enough IMO. With my 2600MC Pro I was maxing out at around 50fps with low capture resolution. With my dedicated planetary cam and FC I'm getting closer to 300FPS. This is important so that you're capturing more data as quickly as possible to combat rapid seeing changes.

4. Get a ADC. Even at higher altitudes colors can shift a bit through the atmosphere. They are cheap and can make a huge difference.

5. Collimation (and this is critical)... you mentioned that you collimated with a laser collimation device. Not good enough. The best planetary imagers will collimate using the "donut" method or a tri-bat mask before every session. Sometimes, they will re-collimate as the targets get higher in the sky. I found that my biggest progress in image quality was spending more time getting collimation as perfect as you can.

My final comment is this: planetary imaging is not easy

I can throw out my widefield rig and have it imaging in a 10th of the time it takes to get planets capturing. And all this above doesn't even touch processing data and all the tricks to that.

Keep at it, it's worth it when you get it figured out.

Im using FireCapture already, i will get a color planetary camera for sure as i see multiple people pointed this out. I will try even stronger collimation methods as well

Craig Towell · Jan 21, 2026, 01:16 PM
I’d say use a dedicated planetary camera, also electronic focusing is essential. 1.5ms is too short, not enough signal. Around 10ms usually good. Also work on your processing

planetary camera, ill get one for sure, i do already use ZWO EAF for focusing, and ill try higher SNR the next session as well

Victor Van Puyenbroeck · Jan 21, 2026, 03:24 AM
One tip: if you focus the telescope-barlow-camera combination on a bright star, you can immediately capture a short 10 second video to record the seeing. Then compare the Airy pattern in the video to the Pickering scale: https://www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm
For me, it’s a convenient method that doesn't require swapping the camera for an eyepiece. I posted a couple examples on my blog (link)
Since your results have been below expectations for 2 years, I suspect that you might have poor local seeing. Seeing can vary significantly around the world, and you might be living in a place where you only have a few clear nights per year with decent seeing.

I live in central Poland, and honestly i never encountered any fluctuations in image quality, only less or more shaky, im not sure what that means. i will do all the steps everyone has suggested to me and i will then try looking at a star once more, maybe its bad collimation thats the issue, maybe my laser is off alignment or so, a lot of people suggest seeing is the issue, but then i should be able to see it vary at all from night to night right? its not like every single night for 2 years im gonna have the exact same resolution limit out of nowhere

Hvboy738 · Jan 22, 2026, 07:48 PM
andrea tasselli · Jan 20, 2026, 11:55 PM
First and foremost: what does Jupiter look like in the EP and at high magnification (say 400x). If does look sharp and full of details then you have issue with your imaging strategy, camera and set-up in general. If not then you need to look at a star at high magnification (again 400x and such) and see whether you can clearly distinguish the Airy disk, whether it fluctuates in and out of focus or whether it gets any shimmering at times. Rack in and out of focus. Do the Fresnel pattern look symmetric or close enough at the same distance inside and outside focus? This assumes steady seeing to start with. If you can't achieve any of the above and/or have problem keeping a constant stable Airy pattern then you either have a lemon or the optics are still acclimatizing. Might take forever unless you leave them outside all the time, which I strongly suggest you do. This assumes you take from a inside a heated place to the cold outer temperatures.

Several things I'd never do:

1. Use the ASI294MC for planetary imaging. Not sensitive enough against the competition. Too heavy and bulky.
2. Use an electronic focuser except for taking measurements
3. Too short exposures at this image scale. If the seeing is good you don't need this many, if it is bad pack up and go home, it isn't your day (or night).

BTW, and don't take it too badly, I could get this sort of results with a 6" mak.
Thanks for all the advice, i will get a dedicated planetary color camera, as well as try longer exposures/lower gain. I was never able to truly see the airy pattern like people describe it, my stars usually appear as unstable violently fluctuating masses. I tried leaving the telescope outside for whole 12h with fans on full power before an imaging session, i did not notice a difference that i could observe with my eyes. I went as far as borrowing a thermal camera to scan my setup for heat sources, i did not find any, aside from trace heat from camera and focuser, which wasnt even in the optical path

What you are seeing is well, the effects of seeing. It will vary from night to night. I would recommend a site like Astrospheric that will give you a seeing prediction. You’ll have to wait for a prediction of at least good seeing to make any more judgments. Good nights are rare in most places so it might take awhile.

Big thanks to everyone who is sharing experience with me, i hope it will allow me to achieve better results

Thanks for all the advice, i will get a dedicated planetary color camera, as well as try longer exposures/lower gain. I was never able to truly see the airy pattern like people describe it, my stars usually appear as unstable violently fluctuating masses. I tried leaving the telescope outside for whole 12h with fans on full power before an imaging session, i did not notice a difference that i could observe with my eyes. I went as far as borrowing a thermal camera to scan my setup for heat sources, i did not find any, aside from trace heat from camera and focuser, which wasnt even in the optical path

Have you tried in the summer? If all you see is a terrible mess with any hint of stabilization then there isn't much you can do unless you are imaging across rooftop or other source of hot air columns. Central Poland should however experience nights of relative calm, especially with a deep frost.

andrea tasselli · Jan 22, 2026, 08:25 PM
Thanks for all the advice, i will get a dedicated planetary color camera, as well as try longer exposures/lower gain. I was never able to truly see the airy pattern like people describe it, my stars usually appear as unstable violently fluctuating masses. I tried leaving the telescope outside for whole 12h with fans on full power before an imaging session, i did not notice a difference that i could observe with my eyes. I went as far as borrowing a thermal camera to scan my setup for heat sources, i did not find any, aside from trace heat from camera and focuser, which wasnt even in the optical path

Have you tried in the summer? If all you see is a terrible mess with any hint of stabilization then there isn't much you can do unless you are imaging across rooftop or other source of hot air columns. Central Poland should however experience nights of relative calm, especially with a deep frost.

the image i posted is from a few days ago, during summer jupiter isnt nearly high enough in the sky as of the current years, i imaged it at opposition for the image. also i just remembered that i also imaged ganymede, and did actually manage to resolve a little bit of surface albedo differences across the disk, im also sharing a small part of the ganymede capture if this helps to see what the issue is, i captured it with a mono ASI462MM camera with 5ms exposures and gain of around 300 ganymede capture .mp4

for the ganymede stack i used 1000 out of 100K frames to just barely resolve 4 regions of different brightness on the disk that did align with the ganymede map i compared it to (to verify if its not noise/overprocessing)

almost forgot to add, im not imaging over any rooftops or roads or buildings, grassy fields for a few km in the direction of the optical path

and in the summer i did try saturn, it was quite low above the horizon, and the results were so bad i dont think its even worth showing them here, no cassini gap in the rings, no atmosphreic features, just disk, some bands in IR, and if lucky the space between the inner ring and the planet, before the ring incline drifted to nearly zero

he image i posted is from a few days ago, during summer jupiter isnt nearly high enough in the sky as of the current years, i imaged it at opposition for the image. also i just remembered that i also imaged ganymede, and did actually manage to resolve a little bit of surface albedo differences across the disk, im also sharing a small part of the ganymede capture if this helps to see what the issue is, i captured it with a mono ASI462MM camera with 5ms exposures and gain of around 300 ganymede capture .mp4

for the ganymede stack i used 1000 out of 100K frames to just barely resolve 4 regions of different brightness on the disk that did align with the ganymede map i compared it to (to verify if its not noise/overprocessing)

almost forgot to add, im not imaging over any rooftops or roads or buildings, grassy fields for a few km in the direction of the optical path

Then you should *definitely* try imaging at high resolution during the summer; Saturn, Uranus and the Moon being obvious candidates. And get an ADC for sure, you'll be surprised on what you can get in those hazy summer nights. And, yes, your Ganymede capture is a conspicuous proof as any of "poor" seeing. Also try to use the ASIS462 with a IR or deep R filter to improve resolution and get a better response to the seeing. This is especially true for the Moon and Mars, and to a degree, with Saturn too.

Not having read the entire thread, I don’t know how much of what I’m about to say is going to be repeated, however, in my experience (albeit, a LOT of years ago.. before Astrobin…) I did a lot of planetary imaging, and what I’ll say is this.

I started wtih an 8” F/6 newtonian, a Televue 5x powermate (7200mm effective focal length) and a tiny little ImagingSource DBK41 colour planetary imaging camera, and on nights of reasonable to good seeing, I was able to create some very good quality images.

As I got more and more involved, I moved to a Celestron C11XLT, with a 2.5x powermate (7000mm effective focal length) and continued to use the same camera, however, I found that on nights with the same reasonable to good seeing, my images with the C11 were actually worse than the 8” Newtonian… to get an equivalent image with the C11, I needed considerably better seeing.. Without a doubt, the images with the C11 were brighter, and I could use faster frame rates for essentially equal brightness images, the seeing simply had to be better for it to perform.

Over the years I had the C11, I did MANY modifications to it in order to improve its abilities.. I insulated and flocked the tube first then I took it apart, added peltiers to the rear cell to chill it, and internal fans behind the primary to then push the tubes internal air onto the chilled back plate, then circulate around the mirror to expedite thermal cooldown. The chiller would be on for about 35 minutes until the primary mirror was at ambient temperature.. I don’t have any picutres of it, but there are plenty of examples online of the same type of work being done to many C11’s and C14s back in the day…

When the seeing was perfect - the results were out of this world, but anything less than perfect sky produced muddy images…

I don’t know enough about optical physics to know if this is an expected result, or if my experience is completely unusual/anecdotal, but I can say for certain, planetary imaging is a fickle beast, and imaging at these resolutions on optical system is more demanding on the seeing and transparency than any other type of imaging.

Deep sky imagers have to deal with light pollution and tracking accuracy, but you can drive to darker skies, and buy better mounts to resolve those things… Planetary imagers biggest concern is seeing and transparency, and you’re really at the whim of the gods in that regard… You can have a perfect rig, 0 clouds or fog, and the jetstream will ruin your night…

Alex Nicholas · Jan 23, 2026, 12:41 AM
Not having read the entire thread, I don’t know how much of what I’m about to say is going to be repeated, however, in my experience (albeit, a LOT of years ago.. before Astrobin…) I did a lot of planetary imaging, and what I’ll say is this.

I started wtih an 8” F/6 newtonian, a Televue 5x powermate (7200mm effective focal length) and a tiny little ImagingSource DBK41 colour planetary imaging camera, and on nights of reasonable to good seeing, I was able to create some very good quality images.

As I got more and more involved, I moved to a Celestron C11XLT, with a 2.5x powermate (7000mm effective focal length) and continued to use the same camera, however, I found that on nights with the same reasonable to good seeing, my images with the C11 were actually worse than the 8” Newtonian… to get an equivalent image with the C11, I needed considerably better seeing.. Without a doubt, the images with the C11 were brighter, and I could use faster frame rates for essentially equal brightness images, the seeing simply had to be better for it to perform.

Over the years I had the C11, I did MANY modifications to it in order to improve its abilities.. I insulated and flocked the tube first then I took it apart, added peltiers to the rear cell to chill it, and internal fans behind the primary to then push the tubes internal air onto the chilled back plate, then circulate around the mirror to expedite thermal cooldown. The chiller would be on for about 35 minutes until the primary mirror was at ambient temperature.. I don’t have any picutres of it, but there are plenty of examples online of the same type of work being done to many C11’s and C14s back in the day…

When the seeing was perfect - the results were out of this world, but anything less than perfect sky produced muddy images…

I don’t know enough about optical physics to know if this is an expected result, or if my experience is completely unusual/anecdotal, but I can say for certain, planetary imaging is a fickle beast, and imaging at these resolutions on optical system is more demanding on the seeing and transparency than any other type of imaging.

Deep sky imagers have to deal with light pollution and tracking accuracy, but you can drive to darker skies, and buy better mounts to resolve those things… Planetary imagers biggest concern is seeing and transparency, and you’re really at the whim of the gods in that regard… You can have a perfect rig, 0 clouds or fog, and the jetstream will ruin your night…

Well said! The bigger the aperture the more it will be affected by seeing effects. You have to have seeing cells that are as large as your aperture or a situation where the air flow is almost perfectly laminar. Nights with 6” cells are not that rare in most places, 11” not so much.

Tony Gondola · Jan 23, 2026, 01:32 AM
Alex Nicholas · Jan 23, 2026, 12:41 AM
Not having read the entire thread, I don’t know how much of what I’m about to say is going to be repeated, however, in my experience (albeit, a LOT of years ago.. before Astrobin…) I did a lot of planetary imaging, and what I’ll say is this.

I started wtih an 8” F/6 newtonian, a Televue 5x powermate (7200mm effective focal length) and a tiny little ImagingSource DBK41 colour planetary imaging camera, and on nights of reasonable to good seeing, I was able to create some very good quality images.

As I got more and more involved, I moved to a Celestron C11XLT, with a 2.5x powermate (7000mm effective focal length) and continued to use the same camera, however, I found that on nights with the same reasonable to good seeing, my images with the C11 were actually worse than the 8” Newtonian… to get an equivalent image with the C11, I needed considerably better seeing.. Without a doubt, the images with the C11 were brighter, and I could use faster frame rates for essentially equal brightness images, the seeing simply had to be better for it to perform.

Over the years I had the C11, I did MANY modifications to it in order to improve its abilities.. I insulated and flocked the tube first then I took it apart, added peltiers to the rear cell to chill it, and internal fans behind the primary to then push the tubes internal air onto the chilled back plate, then circulate around the mirror to expedite thermal cooldown. The chiller would be on for about 35 minutes until the primary mirror was at ambient temperature.. I don’t have any picutres of it, but there are plenty of examples online of the same type of work being done to many C11’s and C14s back in the day…

When the seeing was perfect - the results were out of this world, but anything less than perfect sky produced muddy images…

I don’t know enough about optical physics to know if this is an expected result, or if my experience is completely unusual/anecdotal, but I can say for certain, planetary imaging is a fickle beast, and imaging at these resolutions on optical system is more demanding on the seeing and transparency than any other type of imaging.

Deep sky imagers have to deal with light pollution and tracking accuracy, but you can drive to darker skies, and buy better mounts to resolve those things… Planetary imagers biggest concern is seeing and transparency, and you’re really at the whim of the gods in that regard… You can have a perfect rig, 0 clouds or fog, and the jetstream will ruin your night…
Well said! The bigger the aperture the more it will be affected by seeing effects. You have to have seeing cells that are as large as your aperture or a situation where the air flow is almost perfectly laminar. Nights with 6” cells are not that rare in most places, 11” not so much.

Does that mean as long as my aperture will stay at 16” i will basically never reach results of lets say people imaging with C11s? or does it just mean i will need to wait longer until a night with seeing cells of 16” occur?

Does that mean as long as my aperture will stay at 16” i will basically never reach results of lets say people imaging with C11s? or does it just mean i will need to wait longer until a night with seeing cells of 16” occur?

*You'll have to wait a bit longer or a lot longer depending on where you are and when you are, so to speak (e.g. Caribbean island in mid-winter). Most locations around the world aren't up to a 16" but certainly a 16" can perform as a 10" at least as many times a 10" can, but with a lot brighter image if you don't chase needlessly the maximum resolution you scope could potentially achieve. I'll see whether I can retrieve some old movie with very good seeing to show what is like.

This was taken just over 21 years ago with a mono camera and R filter using a 10" newtonian (at around 11m of FL). At the time I rated the seeing as 9/10 (Pickering scale). Heavily compressed to keep the size small enough for a post.

saturn_r_0002_1.mp4