Quote:
Originally Posted by codemonkey
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification, Ray. You mentioned "final stack" so I assumed they had been integrated.
There's a very clear trend in the charts that you provided, and the results are intuitive. That's what I'd hoped I was seeing in the initial charts.
From here, I think the next step is to evaluate the net gains of having more, sharper subs vs fewer less sharp subs.
Are the rejection algorithms good enough to provide a tangible benefit in the integrations? If you integrate 2x5s less sharp subs with 10x1s sharper subs, is the latter integration still sharper?
It might be interesting to do a drizzle integration as well, with a scale of 1, as this would avoid the sharpening effects of (some of?) the interpolation algorithms used in registration.
|
Will look at stacking over the next couple of days. - should be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rally
What was the frequency and range of the seeing changes that night ?
Next time try this with a DIMM (or a camera with dual apertures and appropriate software - a link exists somewhere on the net !) to measure the instantaneous FWHM and plot that.
I think you'll find there will be a correlation between the length of sub, period and range of seeing changes and the FWHM captured up to a point where Id expect it would plateau due to averaging.
|
Don't know the seeing statistics Rally, but I would not expect seeing to have any effect at all with periods of a minute or more (0.5 second guiding should clean up anything with a period longer than a second or so) - and yet there was no plateau up to five minute subs on both nights.
Have been toying with the idea of making a DIMM, but am not sure I want to put in that much effort and expense for now (a 10 inch+ SCT, a non-standard prism and half a grand's worth of software). Maybe when curiosity gets overwhelming).
Regards ray