More importantly it does so at a different location than the theoretical one.Īnd now comes the really important part for us amateur astronomers. To be correct I had to switch to 600 nm wavelength as this is the wavelength my camera has the highest QE, so just being fair to the sensor.Īs you can see the measured MTF eventually goes down to zero.

The green one is completely correct, I have even re-assessed my pixel scale of my camera, so that is spot on where theory tells us the MTF should be. I do the whole processing without super-resolution and without any interpolation whatsoever (happy?) So we we get this graph for the MTF. Here is the aligned edge data, you can see it gets quite nicely aligned, so the 1D FFT is valid, it is a 1D problem.

Look just for the sake of argument and as you put in sooo much energy to prove things, I decided to run my real world edge data without super-resolution. I will post more results as soon as I have my new scope and some time for daytime testing. Hence I was arguing from the start to use an edge that is not aligned with the sensor array.Īnd yes, this is why I do the alignment code of the tilted edge data, to compensate for the fact that the edge is tilted. Anyways, I agree we will have to deal with the under sampling, hence my suggestion to use super-resolution, which is in this case about the same as drizzle.Įxactly, we will need to have the edge at an angle, to make use of a 'drizzle' approach. You remember my post on using super-resolution. Well that is what I have proposed in the beginning. I will have to wait until my 125 mm APO gets delivered. I agree we should explore how much we can exploit the edge detection method. Sorry, little time these days to hang on the forum, which is a pity.

Siemens star mtf imagej