Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
Drizzling is quite a bit different to this as they have far less data frames so even a more selective mathematically valid sampling is required. They have the added variable of sensor orientation in the case of Hubble.
It is pointless stacking images without dither as any residual noise is enhanced along with the signal.
My method is just elegant brute force. What essentially is happening is that I collect lots of real signal while ensuring that the noise is suppressed.
Bert
|
Yep, I also dither all of my images and usually aim to collect around 20 luminance sub-frames for a given target. I also realise that the Hubble images are quite specifically dithered in terms of offset and angle. My interest though is in the practical application of drizzling to amateur images; to what extent is random dithering compensated for by taking additional sub-frames, etc. Ie. will the purported gains in resolution for undersampled amateur images be realised?
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk
'We are indeed children of the stars.' Carl Sagan.
|
You know, I think Carl may be right; the more I stare at your great image of the Vela SNR the more certain I am that I can see a family resemblance ...
