English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The new technique of Speckle Stabilization has great potential to provideoptical imaging data at the highest angular resolutions from the ground. WhileSpeckle Stabilization was initially conceived for integral field spectroscopicanalyses, the technique shares many similarities with speckle imaging(specifically shift-and-add and Lucky Imaging). Therefore, it is worthcomparing the two for imaging applications. We have modeled observations on a2.5-meter class telescope to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the twotechniques. While the differences are relatively minor, we find that SpeckleStabilization is a viable competitor to current Lucky Imaging systems.Specifically, we find that Speckle Stabilization is 3.35 times more efficient(where efficiency is defined as signal-to-noise per observing interval) thanshift-and-add and able to detect targets 1.42 magnitudes fainter when using astandard system. If we employ a high-speed shutter to compare to Lucky Imagingat 1% image selection, Speckle Stabilization is 1.28 times more efficient and0.31 magnitudes more sensitive. However, when we incorporate potentialmodifications to Lucky Imaging systems we find the advantages are significantlymitigated and even reversed in the 1% frame selection cases. In particular, wefind that in the limiting case of Optimal Lucky Imaging, that is zero readnoise {\it and} photon counting, we find Lucky Imaging is 1.80 times moreefficient and 0.96 magnitudes more sensitive than Speckle Stabilization. Forthe cases in between, we find there is a gradation in advantages to thedifferent techniques depending on target magnitude, fraction of frames used andsystem modifications.

A Comparison Between Lucky Imaging and Speckle Stabilization for Astronomical Imaging