Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
As to whether image de-convolution is a valid post processing technique......I suggest you take that up with the high-res planetary imaging specialists on ISS.  |
I know, decon is ok, I was just having a go at all the "buts" in your post that was all
Quote:
The only thing I am jealous of is not being able to be at home often enough to use the gear I do have. ( I can see Jase champing at the bit here...urging me to pull my finger out and finally set-up my system for remote access  )
|
Yes it must drive you made not imaging much with that incredible gear, must be heartbreaking that it is in Sydney too?
Quote:
|
Though I didn’t comment earlier, I have no problem with amateur astronomers using large aperture remote telescopes to acquire first class data. Some very remarkable imagery will no doubt continue to appear here and elsewhere using this technology.
|
Let me be very clear, unless it appears in an amateur imaging contest, I have no problem with the practise either, truly! the results are amazing indeed but since it has been topical lately and Jase enters them I thought Jases Helix was a great example of what shouldn't be considered amateur in the context of an amateur imaging contest. I love the work some amateur guys are doing using proffessional observatories, I just don't think it is fair to allow it to be entered in an amateur imaging contest that's all, a rather simple concept really?
Quote:
|
I prefer a more hands on approach, and enjoy the challenge of personally getting the equipment choices I have made to perform at their optimum to produce good data in less than ideal skies.
|
Yes, a hard task and you will never get the performance out of it that you could...how about moving it to a remote lcation and well you know...
