Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 03-08-2010, 10:11 AM
Steffen's Avatar
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,882
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
If mount is so shaky and/or prone to PE, it is better to replace it :-)
It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, I guess. Stepping up from a $1500 HEQ6 to a $5000 G11 might be the second best choice when a apparatus like this one can be had for, say $1000.

Regarding the Hubble, I suppose NASA got tired of waiting for Microsoft to conclude their research Also, it isn't clear that the method for deconvolving motion blur can be readily translated into reckoning away optical aberrations or figuring errors.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 10:53 AM
bojan's Avatar

bojan is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,947
If data is lost (due to smear or bad optics), there is no way it can be retrieved in full (garbage in, garbage out - this is what data processing is in essence). It is like trying to recover data loss by heavy jpg compressing... It is perfectly well known how data is lost (jpg compression is a known procedure), but it is impossible to get it back, once it is done.. because of ambiguity of the final image (two completely different details in the original image can and will produce the same final result in the compressed image). The software can only guess about original data... and by trial and error, it can reconstruct the image with certain probability of accuracy. For full reconstruction, in ideal case, infinite processing time is required.

I remember a movie with Kevin Costner ("No way out") where he plays a American CIA officer but is in fact a Russian spy.
His blurred image was enhanced for days by a supercomputer, until finally it was finished and his face was shown.. Something like this can happen only in Holywood movies, not in real life, I am afraid.

With imperfect optics, it is a bit easier, i think, by performing some additional data collection.. to reduce uncertainties.
With couple images with known amount and direction of de-focussing, and knowing the exact figure of the mirror, I imagine more data can be retrieved.. but not all of it.
And this method should work better on images with known point-like sources (because we know what the final result of point-like source should look like)

Anyway, we shall see :-)

Last edited by bojan; 03-08-2010 at 11:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 02:17 PM
leon's Avatar
Registered User

leon is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ballarat
Posts: 10,812
Geezers this is getting serious.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 04:47 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Thousands of $$ for Gyroscopic Inertial Measurement Sensors eh?
Or...buy a tripod!

Interesting link H

Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 05:03 PM
tlgerdes's Avatar
tlgerdes (Trevor)
Love the moonless nights!

tlgerdes is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,280
Microsoft CamOS 7, please wait while we shutdown and restart before taking a picture.

Sorry i cant take a photo, my camera has a virus.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Lunatico Astronomical
Meade Australia
SkyWatcher Australia
Celestron Australia
NexDome Observatories
Astronomy and Electronics Centre