[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TASS - PSFs
- To: email@example.com, Michael Gutzwiller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: TASS - PSFs
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:18:18 -0500 (CDT)
- In-Reply-To: <3404C285.747F@fuse.net>
- Old-Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-From: email@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"iIFNiB.A.aO.F6VB0"@kani.wwa.com>
- Resent-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mike and all,
My problem with the V may be that I have a completely different
lens in V. I have run out of the Aubel lenses. I have some
Canon and Nikon coming. It will be interesting to see how they
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Michael Gutzwiller <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I have been focusing and adjusting the VCO. The best I can do is:
>> Camera PSF
>> V (Camera O) 3X9
>> R (Camera 1) 5x7
>> I (Camera 2) 7x7
>> The PSF seems to stretch out much more than can be explained by the
>> VCO setting. I can get numbers like 3x5 for V with the optimum VCO
>> setting for V, but then the R and I numbers get much worse. I assume
>> that the minimum area for all three is what I want to work for?? What
>> say Mike?
>Minimal area is correct. The smaller the area of the PSF the better the
>separation from other stars and the better the statistics.
>> The PSF above is what comes out of Star in the star list.
>> How do these numbers compare with what the rest of you are seeing?
>They arre comparable. I have had great difficulty getting the I
>filtered PSFs to be smaller than 7x7 though I usually can get V to 5x5
>at the same time. I don't seem to be seeing as much disparity in focal
>length between the two as you are getting.