[AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- From: Tom Polakis <tpolakis@xxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 0:14:53 -0400
Jeremy,
That mouseover shows very well why people are insisting that it's a ring. I
neglected to mention it in my earlier message today, but after reading Brian's
message, I was very careful *not* to do any processing other than image
rotation and cropping.
When I have used wavelet processing in Registax for planetary images, it does
introduces the same artifact, and to a greater degree.
Tom
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
- References:
- [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- From: Jeremy Perez
Other related posts:
- » [AZ-Observing] 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- » [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- » [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- » [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- » [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- [AZ-Observing] Re: 17/P Holmes Annular or Not?
- From: Jeremy Perez