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 - I think the article I pointed to below is a rebuttal
of Nyquist's sampling theorem that we've all been using.
3 x is considered better than twice when considering sampling.
As for twisting Mikes arm - that was a joke -
I'm not a strongman.
cheers
Allan