Quote:
Originally Posted by ghsmith45
Wow! I really started something here with what I thought was an obvious and uncontroversial statement.
Let me rephrase what i was getting at:
If you have instrumental defects (bad tracking, miscollimation, poor focusing etc) you are better off fixing the hardware problem rather than trying to fix it with software. If you have vignetting or dust motes you are better off correcting them with proper flats rather than resorting to software (DBE and/or cloning). If your images are noisy you are better off collecting more data rather than using noise reduction etc, etc. I was essentially talking about what I think is the optimum way to correct problems, not about how a skilful Processor A can produce a better image with bad data compared to what a newbie Processor B can produce with good data.
Geoff
|
Well, I disagree again Geoff. Im not getting cranky, its just an interesting subject.
I think "competing" and "optimum" ways of producing a result (sometimes "any" result) is
always a balance of hardware and software, and that balance always depends critically on circumstances.
Unless you already have gear perfectly set up and unlimited imaging time, there is always some sort of compromise on a given project that may absolutely give software the edge.
A/ Say you have 2 nights imaging at Wiruna or other dark site, some things arnt quite right with hardware, as you mention, so you sort them out the 1st night rather than take a risk taking bad data. The second night is cloudy, no result.
B/ Instead you image the 1st night with dodgy guiding, need to focus manually, pointing is bad so you hunt down the object manually. Take 6 hrs of dodgy subs and spend 10 hrs with software repair monday and post a pretty good effort on IIS and feel satisfied.
I saw exactly this at my last visit to Wiruna. The astrophotgrapher in question had rediculous hardware problems and just powered on (to my amazement) to produce, with software correction, a very pleasing result.
If you like, software out "competed" hardware perfection in this situation, easily. Software was the "optimum" solution by far.
Ive seen many hardware perfectionists on IIS spend
months iron out hardware issues before producing an image. Is that an optimum situation?, lost opportunity can be a dire cost of perfection.
Many times I have sacrificed hardware setup perfection by compensating with software correction just to get a friggen result when circumstances demanded a result or tedious endless tuning and no image at all. If i and probably the majority of us always considered hardware perfection always the "optimum" path, then you would see a lot less images posted on these hallowed pages
.