Talk:Lucky imaging

Comparison images

I don't know where this could be found, but if anyone is able to hunt them down, some comparisons of resolution with ordinary exposure and resolution with the lucky imaging technique would be educational in showing the improvement possible. -Kasreyn 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, indeeed, the article now contains a series showing 100%/50% down to 1% of the images chosen, however people will likely wonder how a single exposure looks like, and maybe also how 50 look compared to 500. maybe best would be a good one that is in the 1% and a bad one that gets discarded quickly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.83.52 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is missing an explanation of how the best images are chosen - there must be some criteria, but none is even hinted at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.149.103 (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All suggestions mentioned above have been added to the article. Ecodeluz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecodeluz (talk • contribs) 12:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost objects

The 50% and 10% demonstration images appear to contain two barely visible objects to the right of the brightest object. Presumably these arise because of wrongly shifted images (where the objects on the left were shifted to the center)? Might be nice if someone more knowledgeable could add a note about this to the article. 217.121.224.124 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How are the "best" images selected?

From this article, it's not immediately clear how the "best" images from a large set of exposures are selected. Can anyone add some information? Papa November (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

One method for selecting the "best" images from a series of short exposures is to calculate a pseudo Strehl number, i.e. divide the peak intensity by the total intensity. The larger this number the higher the image quality. Ecodeluz. Ecodeluz (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Tertiary component edit

@Ecodeluz: In this diff, [1], back in 2016, in the last paragraph of the Demonstration of the principle section, you changed “The weakest - tertiary - component a M7-M8 spectral type star”, which is what the ESA source says, to “The weakest - tertiary - component are M4.5 and M5.5 spectral type stars.” The new sentence does not make grammatical sense, since it starts by talking about a single star, and then apparently describes plural stars. I assume you had some basis for making the change. Could you clarify what is meant and supply a source for the change? Thanks for your work on this article.--agr (talk)

Thank you for this hint. The sentence you mention is indeed more than misleading. I did correct it and given a reference to the demonstration target in addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecodeluz (talk • contribs) 08:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again.--agr (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A newer whitepaper on lucky imaging that I just found

I haven't found any implementation of it through googling though: A novel hybrid algorithm for lucky imaging by Jin-Liang Wang (王おう锦 良りょう), Bin-Hua Li (李り彬あきら华) and Xi-Liang Zhang (张西亮あきら) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.192.139.52 (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)