2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11207-005-5782-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Solar Image Restoration By Use Of Multi-frame Blind De-convolution With Multiple Objects And Phase Diversity

Abstract: An extension of Joint Phase Diverse Speckle image restoration is presented. Multiple realizations of multiple objects having known wavefront relations with each other can now be restored jointly. As the alignment of the imaging setup does not change, near-perfect alignment can be achieved between different objects, thus greatly reducing false signals in the determination of derived quantities, such as magnetograms, Dopplergrams, etc. The method was implemented in C++ as an image restoration server, to which wo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
278
0
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 411 publications
(281 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
278
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…From the ground the situation becomes more complicated, as the time-varying seeing imposes strong limits as to how fast the observations must be carried out in order to be corrected. In this case P (x, y) must be determined empirically via reconstruction techniques such a Speckle-reconstruction (Keller & von der Luehe 1992), Multi-Object Multi-Frame Blind Deconvolution (Löfdahl 2002;van Noort et al 2005) or Phase Diversity (Paxman et al 1996). For these reasons, in ground-based observations, the aforementioned procedure has been limited to high-throughput filter-based spectropolarimeters (Scharmer et al 2008a;Bello González & Kneer 2008;Del Moro et al 2010;Martínez Pillet et al 2011).…”
Section: Spatial Point Spread Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the ground the situation becomes more complicated, as the time-varying seeing imposes strong limits as to how fast the observations must be carried out in order to be corrected. In this case P (x, y) must be determined empirically via reconstruction techniques such a Speckle-reconstruction (Keller & von der Luehe 1992), Multi-Object Multi-Frame Blind Deconvolution (Löfdahl 2002;van Noort et al 2005) or Phase Diversity (Paxman et al 1996). For these reasons, in ground-based observations, the aforementioned procedure has been limited to high-throughput filter-based spectropolarimeters (Scharmer et al 2008a;Bello González & Kneer 2008;Del Moro et al 2010;Martínez Pillet et al 2011).…”
Section: Spatial Point Spread Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…54 and a sampling of 0.034 /px. Image post-processing included the Multi-Object Multi-Frame Blind-Deconvolution (MOMFBD, Van Noort et al 2005) restoration technique to correct for atmospheric and instrumental aberrations. The final products were two time series of images (s1: 08:47−09:07 UT and s2: 09:14−09:46 UT) with a cadence of 15 s. Additional data postprocessing steps were: compensation for diurnal field rotation, rigid alignment of the images, correction for distortion, and subsonic filtering to eliminate residual jittering (Title et al 1986).…”
Section: Ground-based Observationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bello González & Kneer 2008) at the VTT on 07 June 2009, are described in detail in Puschmann & Beck (2011, PuB11). We use the same spectral scan as those authors, with data reduced on the one hand with the multi-object multi-frame blind deconvolution (MOMFBD; van Noort et al 2005) method, and on the other hand only destretched to a reference image that was speckle-reconstructed with the method of Puschmann & Sailer (2006). The spectral line was sampled on 28 wavelength steps.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%