53 replies to this topic

[Jan_Fremerey]

I do not have a database of Hubble images from the same moment for comparison.

You may easily compare with outstanding earth-born images of similar aperture.
 

[Jan_Fremerey]

I've been trying to follow along every day or so, but am not seeing any convincing arguments for your proposition, Jan.

 

Might it be possible to capture two consecutive videos (thus a best attempt at comparable seeing), one at prime focus and one with a barlow, and compare the stacked/sharpened content?

There is just opportunity to compare recent Mars images taken with similar aperture:

1. C11 at around f/30

2. 10" at f/5

 

CS Jan

[RedLionNJ]

There is just opportunity to compare recent Mars images taken with similar aperture:

1. C11 at around f/30

2. 10" at f/5

 

CS Jan

Those are two totally-unrelated images with an unknown number of differing variables (instrument, date, location, seeing, imager, optics, etc).  We only want to change one thing, which would be the amplification factor.  And we don't want to simulate it after, we want to vary it at capture time. Hence my request for data, from, say, an effective f-ratio of 3x the pixel pitch and an effective f-ratio of 5-7x the pixel pitch, captured with the same instrument and technique consecutively (certainly within minutes, although even that is no guarantee of identical seeing) on the same occasion.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually very open-minded on your initial position in the original post.  I would be very happy to do my imaging with the proven assurance I can capture at 3x instead of 5x and know for certain I did not 'leave resolution on the table'.  It's that nagging doubt "did I capture everything the seeing/optics/technique were capable of?" which would be nice to eliminate.

[Jan_Fremerey]

It's that nagging doubt "did I capture everything the seeing/optics/technique were capable of?" which would be nice to eliminate.

Thank you for your interest in my efforts to better understand the mechanisms of high resolution image acquisition by video, realignment and selected stacking. I think that your statement quoted above gets to the heart of the problem of missing acceptance of the short focal length acquisition technique rather than physical-technical reasons. Apart from that, I am convinced that the large-scale annihilation of image content of a fully processed shot by reducing it to a grid size corresponding to a coarser camera grid realistically reflects the actual facts of a shorter focal length adjustment. Regarding the comparison of short and long focal length images, I am of the opinion that in view of the unclear influence of local seeing, one and the same celestial object and the telescope aperture are quite sufficient as sole criteria.

 

CS Jan