View Single Post
Old 2022-07-15, 18:06   #101
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

709910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
You necessarily have to throw away information to "fix" the images.
No. Always preserve the raw data, and with good backups. I would argue that ignoring the diffraction transform is throwing away data and resolution.
Quote:
if you care about the science then you won't retouch them just to make them pretty.
It's not subjectively retouching them that I proposed, it's generating a scientifically justified corrected image, more accurate than the raw observation data, compensating for as much of the diffraction transform error in a copy of the observed data as practical. One could use observations of certain well known objects to generate reference corrections across the JWST field of view. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_...tion#Astronomy
Where I used to work, we would commonly calibrate certain custom-ordered instruments we produced, as well as measure reproducibility, to small portions of a microradian, over a range of a significant portion of a radian. (Resolution/repeatability to as good as ~1 in 2 million.) And we accomplished this with room air in the path of the calibration optics. That takes some care. Including knowing the errors in the calibration hardware.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-07-15 at 18:33
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote