Deconvolution

[Jairo]

Hi, are there any freeware for deconvolution aplied to astrophotography?

Thanks,

[RickJ]

Only one I have used recently is CCDSharp. It can be touchy and not accept all FITS files for some reason. Costs nothing to try. It is fine with all FITS created by CCDSoft or CCDOps but doesn't accept all imaging programs FITS for reasons I've never understood.
http://sbig.impulse.net/sbwhtmls/softpage.htm

You need a very low noise image for it to help much. If stars develop "panda eyes" (dark rings around the star) then back off the iteration count until they go away. Typical image can stand only a few iterations. (each is really 10 so keep that in mind if moving from a true iteration count program.)

IRIS has some deconvolution as well. It didn't work as well for me as CCDSharp but that was many generations ago. It did help with out of round stars however.
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm

I now rarely use deconvolution any more. I find other routines better for my system. So haven't kept up with what's going on as to free deconvolution software. There may be others.

Rick

[Jairo]

Hi! What other routines do you use?

[Jairo]

I see the CCDSharp is dedicated to deep space imaging. I tried to deconvolve a planetary image and it asked for stars to calibrate. :(

[RickJ]

You didn't specify planetary imaging. Today deconvolution is rarely used on planetary images. For that I use Registax's wavelet function on a stack of many AVI images. Usually gives far better results. I don't use FITS files for planetary work. Can't get enough in short enough time.

Deconvolution needs a star to determine the state of the image to run an accurate routine if it is pure LR or Van Clittert deconvolution. Without one it isn't very effective so rarely used for planetary work by those I know. Some pay software (AIM for Windows as an example) will do Van Clittert deconvolution for planetary work if you specify one of several artificial stars that seems a reasonable to match to your seeing. Usually takes trial and error to find the closest match. I know of none that are free however nor any that work as well as wavelet and other methods available with free Registax. It can work with FITs as well but due to far fewer usable frames I've never found that very effective compared to AVI with a high quality video camera like a Flea 3 and others in or above its price range.

Rick

[Jairo]

I already use RegiStax 6 for my planetary images. I wanted to try deconvolution to check if it was better than wavelets, at countering bad focus and diffraction.

Well, I will save deconvolution for my future deep space images, to correct tracking errors, then.

Thank you!