0.90
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
John Leimgruber: Good luck with ubersmooth. I suspect I read some very similar papers and intended to do something like that myself, but never got round to it. The more options that are available, the better! |
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Szijártó Áron: Hello, You know that you have to do a psf from the stars first to get the deconvolution to work, do you ? If you just run deconvolution without psf it doesn't do much grts Sieg |
3.81
...
·
|
|---|
| Judging from your star image you must have very good seeing. What is average from your location? |
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
|
I you are referring to my above large star PSF: this was taken by stacking 186 of 1000 images (15 ms, Gain 500) on a night with very good seeing at my location (Munich), which was ~0.7" according to Meteoblue. Average seeing is 1.2" to 1.5", and I do planetary imaging only if Meteoblue prediction is <= 1.0" because PSF ring structure must be clear enough to get an advantage over standard wavelet sharpening. Here are the first 100 original (cropped) images as an animated GIF:  You see that there is still a lot of turbulence, also main mirror pinching effects, and normally I should have taken 10000 images - but at that night I did not yet know about the PSF deconvolution method, so I finally did wavelet smoothing of the 186 images stack, which already brought good results on the Jupiter (and Uranus) SER files from the same session. |
