https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html<
On 01/02/2022 01:51, RichA wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
Depends what you mean by real. The trade off is between resolution and
signal to noise. Those raw images all look to have plenty of signal to
noise and so are amenable to being processed by deconvolution.
On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 11:48:24 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 01:51, RichA wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
Depends what you mean by real. The trade off is between resolution and
signal to noise. Those raw images all look to have plenty of signal to
noise and so are amenable to being processed by deconvolution.
I remember how God-awfully bad the pre-fix "deconvoluted" Hubble images were. >Of course, computers weren't what they are now.
On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 11:48:24 UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/02/2022 01:51, RichA wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
Depends what you mean by real. The trade off is between resolution and
signal to noise. Those raw images all look to have plenty of signal to
noise and so are amenable to being processed by deconvolution.
I remember how God-awfully bad the pre-fix "deconvoluted" Hubble images were. Of course, computers weren't what they are now.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 298 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 01:44:08 |
Calls: | 6,673 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 12,219 |
Messages: | 5,339,428 |