View Single Post
  #3  
Old 15-07-2017, 01:02 PM
brisen (Brian)
Registered User

brisen is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Port Macquarie, Australia
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA View Post
Surely that can't be correct, IF the Signal to Noise ratio is indeed what is being measured! A Signal to Noise ratio of 3.5 would make for a very poor image. Are you sure there is not a 100x multiplier(or something) on that, or are the 3.5 SNR images noticeably vastly inferior to look at compared with the other images with the 170 odd SNR? If they look similar then I'd revisit the SNR calc.or sampling used in the software to see further to understand the discrepancy.

Best
JA
Thanks JA. I just went back and looked at the L and the NB and the L is not that bad in comparison. I will do some more investigating with this once the weather clears here again.

Brian
Reply With Quote