![]() ![]() I suspect this is due to the limiting magnitude of reference catalog data, which appears to be somewhere are 11 or 12 for both Nova and PlateSolve 3. There also seems to be a point where taking longer exposures to bring out fainter stars does little to improve the odds of a successful solution. If you're using a planetary camera in long focal length optical path, plate solution may not be reliable, particularly where sparse fields are involved. I haven't used PlateSolve 2 so I don't know how it compares to PlateSolve 3. This typically occurs only when a very small (< 1 arcmin) field of view is involved or very few stars are present in the image. ![]() That said, there are some circumstances where PlateSolve fails to solve a field even given the exact center coordinates and image scale. Unless things have changed recently with Nova, Dave Rowe's plate solution algorithm is clearly better. PlateSolve is usually somewhat better at blind solving fields (no user-supplied detail regarding coordinates or image scale) and can often solve fields which Nova cannot even when very specific detail is provided. While I have no experience with SGP, I have solved a lot of images using both Nova ( web based tool) and PlateSolve 3. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |