Hubble vs. ground-based adaptive optics

After a bit of searching, I found at least a few images from large
ground-based observatories using adaptive optics.

And by few, I mean very few.

Only two observatories seemed to me worth comparing to Hubble - the VLT in
Chile, and Keck in Hawaii.

My completely amateur appraisal is that the VLT image of Io does not match
the resolution of the Hubble image.

An image from the VLT of Saturn, which was touted as a rival to Hubble's
Saturn images, also lead me to conclude that the VLT with AO is noticeably
inferior to Hubble.

The Keck image of Io, however, looks like it does have more detail than
that of Hubble. Not the more than four times as much detail as a perfect
AO system should grant (from Keck's 10-meter objective, versus Hubble's
2.4-meter objective), but noticeably more.

I could not find a picture of Saturn from Keck, but there was one of
Neptune. It doesn't look as polished as the ones from Hubble, and is
quite small, but it seems to me that finer features are visible in the
Keck image than in the Hubble images.

Any other opinions?

Hubble on Io:

http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter...eases/1995/35/
http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter...eases/1997/21/

Hubble on
Saturn:

http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter...s/2001/15/imag
e/f

Hubble on
Neptune:

http://www.hubblesite.org/newscenter...s/2003/17/imag
e/d

VLT on Io:

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re...-02-normal.jpg

VLT on Saturn:

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re...-02-normal.jpg

Keck on Io:

http://cfao.ucolick.org/pgallery/io.php

Keck on Neptune:

http://cfao.ucolick.org/pgallery/neptune.php


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.