Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
...........Make no mistakes, processing is king. Regardless of the optical design and quality, you still need to process the data. .................Of course, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but in almost all cases you can improve the data you’ve acquired through processing.
|
In effect you are saying on one hand processing is everything, yet are having an each way bet by also saying: you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Jase, I think this is where our respective outlooks differ. I am not saying you are right and I am wrong, but simply that I personally put stock into getting great data far more than I do post processing....as IMHO you can't create detail that isn't there in the first place. i.e. I believe data is king.
To illustrate my perspective, I downloaded some freely available .fits data and did my own version of the Helix. In the space of twenty or so minutes got the following result
http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/images/pn/hubhexpjw.jpg
Is this any less valid than my putting my name to 24" RC data someone else acquired for me? While the end result is not too shabby....I certainly don't believe this particular result is something I can take much credit for.