| Absolutely 100% agree with you on how the calibration could be done and that the methods seems sloppy. There are lots of implicit assumptions (but maybe the paper is less lacking for those people doing similar jobs). The way I interpreted the pre-print: - They optimized the capture for very fast moving objects (and large FOVs? Maybe using a spectrophotometer is not as straightforward as it seems) - They are making estimates more than precise measurements, using error bars that are "good enough" for them, for the specific domain and taking into consideration the constraints given by the assumptions and the equipment. Not that I see those errors bars, though :D - Now that I'm re-reading: ...Frames were recorded using the ser format with 14 and 16 bits... (ser is an astronomical file format) - Paper's exposition could be better - They are not building the JWST. They are doing something like lambertian reflectance when you are asking for global illumination. Let's wait for (the negative results of) NASA's study. I share your skepticism btw, not a believer. Just saying that they are not using Photoshop. The paper is lacking in details though, that's uncontroversial. Been a pleasure talking with you, have a nice day! |