Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal
Yes it's worth it on a super closeup as it will stop pixelation.
|
thanks for your input Al - something i might consider on planetary or small deep space objects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
you can measure any changes in FWHM (on unstretched data) to see if drizzle improved resolution (scaling by the drizzle upsample factor of course).
On the whole though, OSC images are mainly estimated data already, so it is difficult to see how drizzle will get you much super-resolution. However, as Allan points out, it is a useful mechanism for resampling.
|
Thanks Ray - I had a feeling you'd respond to this thread
I might give this a go tonight just to see if there is any numerical difference. i guess cropping prior to drizzling and 'non drizzling' would be the go, stitching upsampled images could get a tad massive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobF
If you've got lots of good data and your set up is undersampled, then drizzle is definitely the go. Might be worth playing with CCDCalc and reading up around the web what pixel/resolution combos tend to give the best outcome. What sort of scope and FL are you shooting with?
|
Hi Rob, thanks for the ideas, i haven't got CCDCalc so will look into it - my scope is 12" newt f4 (1200mm FL).
cheers
Rusty