Although I pretty much only lurk here and don't get to do much
if any sat observing of my own, I also agree with option 2 in
addition to David's suggestion.
I would go so far as to say it is a requirement to always provide
raw frames. That way, others can do their own processing. This
has multiple benefits.
1> Eliminates any argument of trickery or over-processing.
This will help establish good rapport amongst contributors.
2> Allows confirmation of suggested details through a peer-
review like process (always good science practice).
3> Permits individuals/groups to share, discuss, and improve
upon enhancement techniques.
4> By allowing all parties to use the same source data,
meaningful comparisons can be made of different processing
methods.
5> As processing techniques improve, it will be easier to go
back to previous raw data for the purpose of re-analysis.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
_______________________________________________
Seesat-l mailing list
http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 12 2010 - 03:41:54 UTC