Quote:
Originally Posted by codemonkey
Low signal detail can be lost just as well through poor SNR as well as through using convoluted data.
End of the day, it's a trade off, and maybe you're not happy with making it, which is fine, some things matter more to some people than others.
The success of this method will largely be based off how good you are at creating masks to preserve the areas you care about. Remember that you have total control here, so you could literally protect every detail if you're fastidious enough.
Anyway, it was just an idea to consider, a potential to scrape some benefit out of those house of less than great data.
|
I'm with Marcus on this. I have done the same as he has and many times. Versions with all the data of which some are poor and some with only the better. I find invariably the ones with only the good data are better. The only cost usually is extra noise. I think overall you are better off wasting some data (obviously within reason) and reshooting if needed to get the required data to get the low noise image. What that amounts to depends on the system, speed of the scope, aperture and sensitivity of the camera. Also the seeing. I definitely prefer less high quality data than a mix of good and poor. Rick S though went over how in PI you can weight the mix so that may salvage a bit more if you use FWHM values to weigh the mix of data.
It would make a good thread-what does it take to get the ideal image?
Greg.