Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
I guess if you want to win and that's the trend or what's expected then AI would be the least of one's concerns but that sounds like dopping at the TDF. Win at all cost? I like astrophotography because you're looking deeper at something you could look up at the eyepiece and you get to take the photo as a record home to look at it further. That's how it felt the first time I plonked a camera on the scope not knowing what I'd get. The feeling hasn't changed. Not interested in competitions. I do that for personal enjoyment. No pressure. No expectations. No insecurity. Just chilling under the stars.
|
I get it and agree, detail and resolution has to be real not perceived (or flat out bogus) or, yes, what's the point
I am continually surprised actually, to see what some people clearly "think" is real detail
, it is like they either just have no idea
or have simply convinced themselves, intentionally or unintentionally, perhaps from staring at their screen for so long, it all gets lost in unreality, that what they have come up with is real, when it is plainly not and I have noticed this is not limited to the novice imager either!
There is a limit to what processing should do to your data for sure and like most limits, it is different for everybody becasue everyone's reality is slightly different, based on perceptions, interpretations, backgrounds, previous habits and experiences.
I was just pointing to what (mostly) non'astroimagers, seem to be liking the look of and.. that's not necessarily
real details in an astronomical object for example, because they don't really know what that is, so the "look" is the deal clincher
...sad but true.
Over the years I have often done comparisons with Hubble or other larger pro telescopes (which I know has annoyed a small number of people
), for exactly this reason, to validate and check exactly what I have recorded is in fact real
Mike