Calibration Free Imaging
It gets better:
~~~~~~~~~~~
https://youtu.be/UGL_OL3OrCE?t=1177
19:37
What you can do is to use methods where you [have] do not need any calibration whatsoever and you can still can get pretty good results.
So here on the bottom at the top is the truth image, and this is simulated data, as we are increasing the amount of amplitude error and you can see here ... it's hard to see ... but it breaks down once you add too much gain here. But if we use just closure quantities - we are invariant to that.
So that really, actually, been a really huge step for the project, because we had such bad gains.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Вот тут мне карта и поперла".
==============
https://youtu.be/UGL_OL3OrCE?t=2242
37:22
And you can notice like at the bottom we get really terrible reconstruction, just cause if it fits the data very well, because you know it maybe wants to smooth out the flux as much as possible and we don't select things like that in the true data.
==============
I posted a comment below that video:
~~~~~~~~~
19:39 "Calibration Free Imaging"
Does it mean that you were using measurements tools (telescopes) without prior calibration?
~~~~~~~~~
but it got deleted... twice.
Update:
Discussing "not need any calibration whatsoever" on HN
"Calibration Free Imaging" (AKA scam)
Originally posted at: https://dennisgorelik.dreamwidth.org/170455.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
https://youtu.be/UGL_OL3OrCE?t=1177
19:37
What you can do is to use methods where you [have] do not need any calibration whatsoever and you can still can get pretty good results.
So here on the bottom at the top is the truth image, and this is simulated data, as we are increasing the amount of amplitude error and you can see here ... it's hard to see ... but it breaks down once you add too much gain here. But if we use just closure quantities - we are invariant to that.
So that really, actually, been a really huge step for the project, because we had such bad gains.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Вот тут мне карта и поперла".
==============
https://youtu.be/UGL_OL3OrCE?t=2242
37:22
And you can notice like at the bottom we get really terrible reconstruction, just cause if it fits the data very well, because you know it maybe wants to smooth out the flux as much as possible and we don't select things like that in the true data.
==============
I posted a comment below that video:
~~~~~~~~~
19:39 "Calibration Free Imaging"
Does it mean that you were using measurements tools (telescopes) without prior calibration?
~~~~~~~~~
but it got deleted... twice.
Update:
Discussing "not need any calibration whatsoever" on HN
"Calibration Free Imaging" (AKA scam)
Originally posted at: https://dennisgorelik.dreamwidth.org/170455.html