Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Ah nah, it's all good, differing opinions is a healthy thing as long as we don't get too wound up and cranky (  ) 
As for Robbo's image and I'm not criticising juuuust observing  , there are tell tale signs of de convolution remaining on the stars, they are bright points inside more defuse discs and the background is evenly speckled, the gradients are pretty obvious too  I know the theory is probably sound but I always doubt the accuracy of deconvolution and how people apply it, how does the filter know to shrink a feature so that it remains the actual shape it should be rather than just get shrunk to a point with arbitrary or in fact differing shape and thus simply creating more of an illusion of higher resolution...?There is also a magenta hue to the core area too..ok, ok sorry Rob not being critical it was an APOD after all 
Mike |
Hi Mike,
I would say that deconvolution applied to high signal to noise ratio areas
definitely increases the correct detail.
In low signal areas it tends to make a false grainy look that can only
be remove by adding noise such as in this helpful example:
http://bf-astro.com/backgndRepair.htm
I used this technique on my NGC 1808 galaxy background
on flickr which had super high noise.
Stars & low signal areas should be masked when applying deconvolution.
cheers
Allan