Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigel003
Can you tell me the difference between the 3 deconvolution methods?
So many questions!
Graeme
|
Janoskiss knows the theory and the rest of us have fiddled enough to know generally what will work for our scopes. So by no means is this gospel:
I have found that ME 3 or 4x1.1 exponential deconvolution works best for me. I am imaging with a 10" reflector at f38.5 or 1684x.
When i was imaging at less magnification, then LR seemed to do the trick.
Bird and Asimov have been experimenting with VC and Asimov has adding FFT into the mix as well.
There is no idiot proof recipe here, the best thing to do is experiment.
Many processing / image capture settings have been turned on their head in the last 12 months and there is so much more to try.
You will be happy to know that what we are discussing / nutting out here on IIS is more indepth and leading edge than other forums in the US and UK. I get the sense we here in australia are much more keen to experiment and discuss amongst each other and it shows! There are no secret processing techniques, we share and thus we are moving forward quicker than anywhere else in the world in my opinion.
This results in Mike's jupiters popping up in all the BIG websites.