Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Like any sharpening tool easily overdone. But several layers of different decon strength is a very useful tool in bringing out galaxy data. I don't see a conflict in that its merely sharpening. Much like using unsharp mask (gasp - does anyone use that anymore??).
Greg.
|
Hi Greg. Well you could use it for merely sharpening, but then you would not be using most of its capabilities.
Deconvolution is a fairly general purpose image restoration method. It certainly does help sharpen up an image with atmospheric blurring, but, used appropriately, it can also help correct for irregular star shapes, stray diffraction patterns (possibly), minor defocus, motion induced blur (eg from wind), residual aberrations etc. There is a plug-in for Astroart that can be used to correct for coma and the use of deconvolution to correct for SA in early Hubble data is well known.
An appropriate deconvolution algorithm should automatically give you close to the best possible enhancement of stars and galaxies. If it measures PSF it knows how the image has been affected and from that, tries to correct for what has actually gone on in the imaging process - without any guesswork from the user.
In addition, most of the iterative algorithms include noise reduction and deringing at each step, so you don't need to do much massaging of the enhanced image.
Typical deconvolution algorithms are much more comprehensive and potentially reliable than ad-hoc sharpening, even though they can be used in that way if desired. Regards ray
EDIT: just noticed that PI has an input to allow motion blur to be incorporated into a predefined PSF.