NavList:

   

Reply

This may perhaps be a bit of a diversion  from the main thrust of our
original investigation. But those curious apparent-flares around the Sun
edge have intrigued me somewhat. I've been looking at those images, and
particularly picture 11 that came with [6070], in more detail.

Although Greg informed us that the original Sun image was 108 by 108 pixels
(or thereabouts), the image, as it arrived to me, covered something like 680
by 680 pixels, as became obvious when it was blown up further on my screen.
So at some stage it had been resampled, and software, somewhere, had done
its best with the original bitty image, to expand it up and smear it out,
over 36 times as many pixels as before. That may indeed be a good way to
expand a family photo, for example, but in our present inquiry, does that
treatment create unwanted artefacts that may be confusing our original
contrasty, and perhaps overexposed, image of the Sun? I only ask...

I hesitate to ask for more from Greg, who has done much to aid us in
providing good information and nice pictures of his observations. But does
he have a way to transmit his image as an attachment that shows no more than
that Sun disc, with a bit of a margin around it, say 150 x150 pixels or so,
at its original bitty encoding, without inflation? That might tell us more
about what the camera alone is doing with the Sun image, without being
messed-about by anything else on the way to us. If I had any idea, myself,
how to do that, I would offer advice: but I don't.

George.

contact George Huxtable at george@huxtable.u-net.com
or at +44 1865 820222 (from UK, 01865 820222)
or at 1 Sandy Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply