Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
I have read somewhere that sampling at 1/3 of your usual FWHM is optimal for getting the most detail from data, so I believe your observations are spot on Allan. Drizzle x3 requires more subs/better data than x2, but if it works then why not use it  I like Troy's suggestion of directly comparing different methods visually and by measuring noise/SNR.
As for twisting Mike's arm - good luck with that!  |
Yes that's right Suavi. Nyquist theorem for sampling is a minimum of 2. Minimum being the main word there. So practical use is to go for 3X.
Greg.