"matt" wrote:
Mike Simmons wrote in message ...
[snip]
I can't explain the math, Pierre, but it makes sense to me in terms of the
amount of information collected. The mistake is in thinking that the
CCD's five available pixels will always record the same thing.
[snip]
the process of increasing spatial resolution of a CCD sensor beyond its
limit dictated by pixel size is called dithering . It implies moving the
image in sub-pixel steps and taking multiple exposures at these slitghly
changed positions .

For details see:
http://www.stsci.edu/instruments/wfpc2/drizzle.html

However the Drizzle algorithm was developed for use with
*under*-sampled images. I don't think it claims resolution of high
spatial frequency detail beyond the limitations imposed by the optics
of the instrument (Rayleigh criterion, Dawes limit or Sparrow limit -
but that's another argument).

The Titan image apparently shows spatial resolution at a frequency
higher than the Sparrow limit of the instrument. Show me a
peer-reviewed paper that says that is possible in the general case and
I might believe it's not noise.


Tim
--
Foo.