Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
well, that is something to think about - thanks for posting. Now to work out what your method does that reduces the FWHM?.
|
Not sure what's going on there. I did stick with Moffat 4 without analysing the MAD, so it's possible it might have changed the profile such that a different beta parameter might have given a better fit with a different outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto
Yes, same lousy seeing here in Sydney, though a bit better tonight. I've been trying to get a decent amount of data on NGC4038 and had a very similar thought; could I somehow use the bad data together with the sharper data? I am more interested in using nebulosity from the bad data, but a smoother background also is tempting. Your experiment is most interesting!
Peter
|
Great minds eh Peter! I think careful masking could put some of that data to good use. I'm keen to hear about / see your results if you give it a shot.
I think my issue is actually a mount issue, rather than seeing
I seem to be having problems with RA. I just disabled guide output and watched RA go almost 40" off in the space of a couple of minutes (was still going when I left it to gather data), whilst DEC drifted only 4". I'd been hoping it was just seeing, but now that I disabled guide output I think I'm going to have to be sending Luciano from Avalon an email. Man, I am so sick of hardware problems...