Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephane
Mike, thanks for the compliment. True, a lot has changed in recent times and it’s good to pause and think about these things. Personally, if a process is performing calculations to, say, map a point spread function to what a star should look like, I’m all for it. The process is trying to undo the effects from the atmosphere just as how my flat frame calibration is trying to undo vignetting caused by my camera (okay, probably quite an unfair comparison…!). Anything in addition to the math is, I guess, more art and less science.
|
I feel the uncertainty or "smoke and mirrors" effect, is mostly in the "look" I see showing up in images of, bright nebulae, rather than galaxies for instance. I think it is much easier to discern what is
real detail in a galaxy image and what is not, at least for me, compared to say, a wide field shot of a much brighter nebula. It is easy to see the processing artifacts in the detail of a galaxy they are much less forgiving in this sense I think, probably due to the longer focal length/finer image scale generally used on such targets? Artificially induced or software filter induced, exaggerated filigree features/detail in a galaxy image are easy to spot but tend to blend into
believability in an image of a bright nebula, especially wide field shots, imparting a sharper but questionable/doubtful "look"...all interesting stuff really
Mike