Boux wrote:Yes, it is tedious to say the less
Stronger words are coming to my mind.
Total accuracy would need a pixel row by pixel row work on
the transparency.
Even after corrective transformations of the Ciclops picture,
the transparency layer has to be adjusted row by row.
There are remaining perspective deformations.
The ideal shot would have to be taken from a distance,
perpendicularly to the middle of the rings plane.
Boux,
unfortunatleyl I don't understand at all what you are
describing.
Let me summarize a few issues:
In all cases the approximation is to assume that both the
ring albedo and the
ring transparency are
only functions of the /radial/ distance/, hence we have
effectively only 2
line profiles to map onto each
other! In practice, we took a 2 pixel height of each line. But
for working and inspecting one my temporarily scale it up
to 100 or 200 pixels height (cf the image below). The
transparency data from the given references may be
directly read into such a profile and displayed. I suppose
you did this, otherwise there would be no chance for you to
get the transparency right. I did not understand though why
your alpha channel disagrees with those data?
Here is the 1k version (scaled to 800 pix) but we do have
higher resolutions as well, of course.
As usual for alpha channel data, white is completely untransparent, while black corresponds to complete transparency.
So the main work consists in /distance/ normalizing the albedo profiles correctly to the transparency profile the
values of which are directly tabulated in [km]. Perhaps I
can understand better if you explain what your REALLY did...
Happy New Year!
Bye Fridger