I find the last part amusing - if the seeing's good the seeing's good regardless of what frame rate you are using, but also if the seeing's bad the seeing's bad also regardless of what frame rate you're using. Contrary to (apparently?) popular belief, the higher frame rate of lucky imaging helps stabilise the normal atmospheric distortion you get; it doesn't fix seeing, and doesn't "see through" bad seeing. I've tried it on many occasions in bad seeing comparing the lower and higher frame rates. The capture qualities remain garbage, but more importantly equally garbage in my experiments.
I have to disagree with this. You're correct that shorter exposures cannot fix geometric distortions present in a given moment of time, but it *does* reduce blurring as those distortions change shape.
I absolutely do see more blurring at 30ms than I do at 4-5ms.
I can get good results at 4-5ms, but I'd have to throw them away if I used 30ms.
That said, I do use 30-45ms and lower gain to aid in focusing.
EDIT: thinking about this some more, I have another argument to make, which is a thought experiment of what you would prefer given two choices:
1. Single 30ms exposure
2. Six, 5ms exposures
In the first instance, you might have steady seeing for 20ms, and then in the last 10ms, some bad turbulence comes in and blurs the frame. Now that frame is completely wasted, including all 30ms of data.
In the second scenario, at least you got four good frames and you only have to throw out two. So you at least get 20ms of good data instead of 0ms of good data.
And yes, seeing conditions can vary on the millisecond level.
Edited by CrazyPanda, 20 September 2021 - 01:25 PM.