• Have to wonder if computer-derived images are real

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 31 17:51:21 2022
    https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon Jan 31 20:58:16 2022
    On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 5:51:23 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
    https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html

    Let me take you down
    'Cause I'm going to strawberry fields
    Nothing is real
    And nothing to get hung about
    Strawberry fields forever
    Living is easy with eyes closed
    Misunderstanding all you see

    Beatles

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 31 21:38:46 2022
    On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:51:21 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html

    No reason to think they're not. They are tested with synthetic inputs
    that are deliberately "blurred" in the ways that we understand EM to
    behave.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to RichA on Wed Feb 2 16:48:18 2022
    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.

    Effectively the software asks the question "what is the most uniform
    positive image that is consistent with the observational data?".

    It knows how the image is affected by solar wind and sparse
    interferometer baselines so it can compute forward from various trial
    images and obtain a self consistent solution.

    In the cases where a comparison made using a later bigger telescope has
    been possible the agreement was remarkably good. Cass A 5GHz from the
    Cambridge 5km telescope with Maximum Entropy decovolution vs VLA in full multiple A,B,C & D raw image being one such example. The latter was
    latter processed with the same algorithms to a higher resolution:

    https://www.nezumidemon.co.uk/astro/radio/cassa.htm

    I think the final definitive version that made it onto SPL is too soot
    and whitewash for my taste but then I may be biassed.

    https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a

    I would be wary of anyone claiming to push super resolution much beyond
    3 or 4 times in linear dimensions unless their data was exceptionally
    low noise. The bright unresolved point sources in some of those radio
    galaxies make them very amenable to some of the heuristics and tricks.

    They will also have images made at other wavelengths of the same
    objects. It is standard to compare one with the other. You can often extrapolate what something might look like between frequencies.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MitchAlsup@21:1/5 to RichA on Wed Feb 2 19:39:14 2022
    On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 7:51:23 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
    https://phys.org/news/2022-01-universe-sharper-focus-algorithms-supercomputers.html
    <
    If one knew the precise PSF (point spread function) associated at each pixel* in the image,
    there are correlation(*) algorithms that can remove even the diffraction effects converting
    the typical Airy 2-D wave into a Lawrencian spread function. The problem is that the calculations
    are "very time consuming". Requiring a 2-D Fourier Transform, a height×width conjugate multiply
    for every pixel in the image, and an 2-D inverse Fourier Transform. height×width is the size where
    the PSF function is greater than ¼ the noise level in that area of the image. <
    If the PSF is identical across the whole image (like from a Three Mirror Anastigmat) this
    calculation can be performed with a 2-D Fourier transform, a conjugate multiply, and an
    inverse Fourier transform.
    <
    * the PSF is identical at each radial offset from the center of the image. (*)Correlation is a close relative of convolution.
    <
    I used to do this kind of stuff for an fast sweep NMR machine just out of college more
    than 45 years ago in 1-D. For a 4096×1 pixel "image" the calculations took more than
    7 seconds on a Sigma 5 minicomputer. When setup correctly, we could correct even the
    phase of the detector and remove the oscillations of the resonant exponential decay.
    This allows us to take (thousands) of images (sometimes hours), add them up, and the
    make the image "look" like the sweep took infinitely long (no ringing). A PSF in in the
    same class of data/image as a ringing Lawrencian line.
    <
    But still, you cannot improve the image more that the Lawrencian without inducing ringing,
    but you can add other filtering functions to the calculation almost for free.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed Feb 2 20:17:46 2022
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 3 07:59:23 2022
    On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:17:46 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    They may have been ugly, but they were not inaccurate. That is often
    the case for deconvolved images.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to RichA on Fri Feb 4 09:32:10 2022
    On 03/02/2022 04:17, RichA wrote:
    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.

    They were not pretty in the classical sense but they were accurate for scientific purposes. The main problem was that the algorithms back then
    had no way to suppress ringing from stars embedded in nebulosity.

    The positivity constraint doesn't work on a raised baseline.

    They worked incredibly well for star fields on dark sky but not for more complex objects. Remember that the codes used and also to diagnose the
    faults in the myopic HST came from radio astronomy and were originally
    done to figure the Jodrell Bank dish during its refurbishment.

    It is that very same procedure that they are doing now to commission
    Webb - aligning the panels so that they are all accurately in phase.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)