Paper detail

Application of speckle and (multi-object) multi-frame blind deconvolution techniques on imaging and imaging spectropolarimetric data

We test the effects of reconstruction techniques on 2D data to determine the best approach. We obtained a time-series of spectropolarimetric data in the Fe I line at 630.25 nm with the Goettingen Fabry-Perot Interferometer (FPI) that are accompanied by imaging data at 431.3 nm and Ca II H. We apply both speckle and (MO)MFBD techniques. We compare the spatial resolution and investigate the impact of the reconstruction on spectral characteristics. The speckle reconstruction and MFBD perform similar for our imaging data with nearly identical intensity contrasts. MFBD provides a better and more homogeneous resolution at the shortest wavelength. The MOMFBD and speckle deconvolution of the intensity spectra lead to similar results, but our choice of settings for the MOMFBD yields an intensity contrast smaller by about 2% at a comparable spatial resolution. None of the reconstruction techniques introduces artifacts in the intensity spectra. The speckle deconvolution (MOMFBD) has a rms noise in V/I of 0.32% (0.20%). The deconvolved spectra thus require a high significance threshold of about 1.0%. A comparison to spectra with a significantly higher S/N ratio and to spectra from a MHD simulation reveals that the Goettingen FPI can only detect about 30% of the polarization signal in quiet Sun. The distribution of NCP values for the speckle-deconvolved data matches that of observations with higher S/N better than MOMFBD, but shows seemingly artificially sharp boundaries and unexpected changes of the sign. For the spectropolarimetric data, the higher intensity contrast of the speckle deconvolution is balanced by the smaller amplification of the noise level in the MOMFBD at a comparable spatial resolution. The noise level prevents the detection of weak and diffuse magnetic fields.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.