Yep, this technology will certainly be relatively cheap to implement, provided the accelerometers used are sufficiently low noise (yes, they are SMD MEMS devices.. one commercial example can be found here:
http://www.analog.com/en/sensors/ine...s/product.html
The similar (or same) is used in applications from electronics levels to game consoles and robotics..
The main problem with this particular one (and other similar sensors) is noise vs response time (for lower noise, the response time must be longer due to more averaging).
Giro's are much better.. but (being mechanical assemblies) they are bulky and expensive
Quote:
Originally Posted by rally
If a PSF of a given optical system is known absolutely it is conceivably possible to reconstruct a focussed image from a completely blurred one
|
However, I have one question re deconvolution... why NASA people bothered to installed corrective optical assembly in the optical path of Hubble Telescope to compensate for the stuffed primary? The exact cause of the manufacturing error was known soon after realising somethig was wrong with the mirror. From there, it was possible to determine exactly the actual shape of the mirror (the twin mirror is still on Earth, btw). So, the good reconstruction of the image should have been possible.
While the software you mentioned earlier is amazing (downloaded, I will try it today), there must be some fundamental limitations with post-processing.. like I tried to point out in my responses...
It is known that before installation of corrector optics, post-processing of Hubble images, based on actual mirror shape was used.. but obviously, this was not good enough. I don't think it was only a PR exercise...