Diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62
24.01.2018 – As the closest starburst galaxy to Earth, M82 is the prototypical example of this galaxy type. Imaged from Beckwith Township, Ontario, Canada. Adam Robichaud Nov 6,
Tele2 diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62 free download
1. 2The good news is that today’s CCD used by most astronomical imaging cameras, at least without clipping or working outside their linear range below the anti-blooming circuit threshold for those chips equipped with such protectionare pretty linear devices.
2. 1 It is with the original cdk20 prototype under fairly average skies. Currently I have a Cannon d.http://softik.org/aimp-3-00-build-934-beta-5-7/ http://softik.org/aimp-3-00-build-950-rc1-portable-rg-soft-7/That is an interline, so it doesn’t get the full well benefit of the KAF Comet Lovejoy Q2 on Jan 25,
3. 6 Avg Internet Security 8. Synapse Audio Orion Platinum 7. http://softik.org/zte-nubia-z11-dual-sim/If you get a view please just press Save Image and it will create an annotated image with lots of info I need – similar to the one above for cdk
4. 6 Slide 32’s advice to use sec guide corrections follows logically from the assumptions in the paper, that the mount only requires long-period corrections, and so you should use long exposures to average the guide star displacements due to seeing. Here is the capture you asked for:.Diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62Unlike the Nyquist’s case the involved transformation pair is not unique. I think that is being overly restrictive.
5. 5 But the AO-8 is driven by a proprietary cable from the primary camera, and to my knowledge it is therefore integrated into a system that requires me to use an older guide chip which is slow.
6. 4 I’d agree with Dennis, except to say that there is one other almost essential plugin, which is Gradient Xterminator.
7. 9 However, this particular offer lacks CCD and telescope control present in my V 4. Even panel 2 may not look too bad.
Black diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62 panel
Maybe some day if someone can update their AO products to support much higher sensitivity cameras operating at significantly higher frequencies, with a tilt-tip optic that can keep up, they might become more useful as a means of combatting bad seeing That really just leaves lower latency, diffraction responsive guiding.
The only thing I know that can really do that is MetaGuide. I end up with runaway oscillations every time I try. I have never really been able to resolve a proper airy pattern in the star profile view in MG.
I suspect that may be part of the problem, but it also seems to be more than just that. Anyway, I would like to do something to get more out of my equipment despite my skies. Hopefully MG will do that.
I agree that the mount, while obviously an important piece of the puzzle, is not necessarily the single most important thing. Personally, I find the camera to be more important.
I’ve seen too many people produce too many amazing images with nothing more than an Atlas most of the timeor even an AVX. I also want to get a higher end mount myself I am also plagued by a considerable amount of wind most of the time, which is undoubtedly playing a meaningful role in my average FWHM.
A more limited higher end mount wouldn’t have as ccd of the flexure problem, and at least I am hoping be capable of handling the wind better.
Maybe some day if someone can ccd their AO products to support much higher sensitivity cameras operating at significantly higher frequencies, with a tilt-tip optic that can keep up, they might become more useful as a means of combatting bad seeing.
You keep missing the point. Even if adaptive optics ran at 1GHz and cost million dollars it would still not help your pretty pictures. Do you know why? I diffraction always known that my seeing was less than good, often poor.
I’ve seen it in my subs, even when I do everything I can to maximize my systems potential, optimize focus and collimation, guiding, etc. I still see softness that I don’t believe should be there.
In my recent foray into planetary imaging, I did some fairly extensive imaging of stars at high frame rate, and made several attempts to identify the PSF with MetaGuide so I could optimize my collimation better.
That ended in total futility, and I’ve basically given up the idea of doing any planetary imaging from my back yard, or anywhere within the state of Colorado for that matter. After recording and examining videos of around a dozen different stars, some double stars, and fiddling with focus for several hours over several nights, I’ve begun to wonder about alternative options to get better results from my perpetually poor skies.
I am wondering how many people have used AO systems, and how effective they were. I’ve never been able to ideally collimate my scope, as never once have I ever seen an actual airy pattern.
I tend to see a multi-pointed flaring star that jumps and jostles around, at the very least. Sometimes I can see the concentric rings of an airy pattern, only for moments.
On particularly poor nights, the dslr will also appear as though they are at the bottom of a boiling vat of water, just a blurry mess that doesn’t resemble an diffraction pattern at all.
I gather that AO operates at a very high feedback frequency, on the order of gigahertz at the upper end? I’ve only recorded stars at a speed of around Hz. I’m curious if with skies as bad as mine if an AO unit would even work.
If it would, I’m wondering how effective it might be. Not really for planetary I would like to get better quality results with an 8″ or larger RC or SCT for higher resolution imaging, if at all possible.
AO are certainly good to correct for mount and setting problems if traditional guiding using the mount is not enough, or able to do. To fully benefice from an AO you would need to run it faster then the coherence time towhich is around 1ms for an average seeing.
A lower rate of correction will still improve the seeing but this decreases quite rapidly when increasing the guider exposure time decreasing the correction rate. One fundamental trade off limited AO is the seeing mitigation level versus the isoplanatic angle, which defines the distance for which the guide star seeing is similar to a the target seeing, usually a quite small angle few arc-seconds.
If you are involved in double star resolution it will certainly help, if you image dslr nebula this is much more changeling. This angle limitation is easier to understand if you consider that the starlight from two different stars travels along two different paths through the all atmosphere, and since the average eddy turbulence cell size of the seeing is only few inches the overlap between both paths is very small, if any.
One of the reason is the local conditions, nearby roof, tree lines, driveways, the observatory. When the atmospheric seeing is good the local effects may dominate more and an AO may improve the situation and it does.
Minimizing the guide star tracking error is not usually the final goal, unless you want to image it and its immediate surrounding see the Palomar AO example. Here is an nice video showing the typical guide star frames under an average seeing with an SCT.
We can clearly see the speckle structures, there is not such thing than a star profile nor a centroid, therefore in most of those frames a centroid estimation is very challenging:.
If one used an AO or fast correction rate in general it is important to understand the local seeing condition to decide what is the best setting. There is not one size fits all solution, you would have to experiemet and learn from here how to mange the seeing from a night to the next.
I would personally invest in an AO device just to combine it with MG and see how much it could help – but I’m just not expecting much improvement so there is less incentive. I have been guiding around the world and getting small fwhm comparable to high end results in each location – which is good evidence by itself.
It’s interesting that the main advice given to imagers is to spend a lot on a good mount. Not only because it makes things easier, but if you don’t have a high end mount you just won’t get sharp images.
But when I talk about sub 1. Well – if local seeing is all that matters – there is no need to get a high end mount and you should just make sure you’re in a location with good seeing.
But the AO-8 is driven by a proprietary cable from the primary camera, and to my knowledge it is therefore integrated into a system that requires me to use an older guide chip which is slow.
Jon, please post updates with your results – if you are successful I plan to shamelessly plagiarize. I have a lightweight moderate-cost mount Losmandy GM-8and I cannot afford a high end mount for the foreseeable future.
I would dearly love to improve the guiding performance of my existing mount including its stability in a breeze. I did try MG at one point but wasn’t able to make it work no doubt user error on my part.
I ended up getting Maxim DL because it allowed me to semi-automate imaging runs with dither, and it played nice with the SBIG AO which in turn improved the mount performance. Could you both please share that conversation publicly here?
It’s of wide interest, I’ve also wondered whether MG would work better in my similar seeing. I am wintering in Arizona this year. The seeing in Arizona and New Mexico is ideal and it’s not that far from Colorado.
I toured the Arizona University Mirror Lab, where they are currently making the 8 meter mirrors for the Giant Magellan telescope. One of the topics covered in the tour was adaptive and active optics.
My take away from that tour, as well as two tours at Kitt Peak, was that adaptive optics works on the secondary mirror and active optics works on the primary.
There are different implementations on different large telescopes, but what I got was this. Adaptive optics warps the secondary mirror to offset turbulence in the upper atmosphere. The beams guiding the warping are either lasers or, at least on one scope at Kitt Peak, an infrared device.
Active optics works on the primary to warp it largely to offset gravitational issues with the heavy mirrors involved. I believe I got this impression from information about the WIYN observatory and the Giant Magellan plans, discussed when touring the mirror lab.
These technologies, like many designed for maxim, are not standardized, rather custom designed for each application by the consortium members. It is my understanding that CalTech has one of the most advanced adaptive optics systems currently in operation.
BTW, adaptive optics warps the secondary so fast that damage to secondary mirrors is still common, requiring mirror replacement. Corsica Ccd Gaston Baudat: Thank you very much for this presentation.
I was unaware that scintillation only referred to limited variations, and that phase is the real culprit that degrades our seeing. I will change my nomenclature accordingly. Is this correct, or am I just making a wrongful inference because words tip-tilt are common to both?
This would answer a previous discussion point in this thread about how much of the improvement from lucky imaging comes from tip-tilt, and how much comes from throwing out poor frames dominated by higher-order distortions.
Am I understanding this correctly? An isoplanatic patch of only dslr arcsec diameter isn’t very interesting for me making pretty pictures, although I certainly understand why it would be of interest to a professional telescope, or for someone measuring double star separations.
Slide 32’s advice to use sec guide corrections follows logically from the assumptions in the paper, that the mount only requires long-period corrections, and so you should use long exposures to maxim the guide star displacements due to seeing.
I have presumed this is because most of us who cannot afford high-end expensive mounts have mounts with short-period errors which are larger than the errors caused by guide star displacements due to seeing.
Diffraction your comments in your post, you acknowledge FWHM improvement with 2 Hz corrections, and you suggest that it is due to local large turbulence cells close to the scope.
Have you measured the FWHM improvement across maxim images? If it is equal everywhere then it suggests that you are really correcting imperfections in the CGE mount, not correcting seeing due to large turbulence cells.
Maybe some day if someone can update their AO products to support much higher sensitivity cameras operating at significantly higher frequencies, with a tilt-tip optic that can keep up, they might become more useful as a means of combating bad seeing.
That does not mean you cannot create “pretty pictures” It would just be more work. I also completely disagree that if you throw millions of dollars at an adaptive optics solution, that you couldn’t find a design that would work.
Have a look at this page: It could help to mitigate mount tracking errors and wind buffeting.
Diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62 earth map satellite
I find that a little bit of clipping of the centroids of the brightest stars is acceptable if it nets me a stronger faint signal. Whether you are collecting and analyzing science data, or making beautiful portraits of the night sky, MaxIm DL includes everything you need. Its the first time making a LRGB on a galaxy for me. Just remember that if you use that same 4. Improved autoguider support with enhanced reliability and new guiding modes.
Diffraction limited maxim dl ccd dslr 4 62 days week
I have not tried using a red filter. I do have one. I have put it on the camera, so next time I am out I’ll see how it goes. Posted 12 April – Here is the capture you asked for:.
I can tell my scope is a little out of collimation, but it is not nearly as bad as I thought it was. It just oscillates up and down like that. I can never seem to get the RA graph to flatten out.
On a night like this, on the few rare occasions it’s happened, I’ve been able to get my RMS down into the 0. I would hope that MG should be even better with it’s more advanced centroiding However the first ring looks a bit “fat” to me.
If you have the opportunity to do so I would suggest to defocus the same amount intra and extra focal a star from its best focus position and compare the two images. I think you may have some spherical aberration.
Those are axis-symmetrical by nature leading to nice concentric rings unlike coma but “fatter”. This makes spherical aberration hard to spot when looking at the airy disk at best focus.
Such abbreviation will impact the MTF quite a bit, blurring your images low pass filter effect like seeing does on long exposures. One reason for me to post this comment is because my AT10RC came from factory with a tone of spherical aberration, for a while I thought that was my local seeing limit and I had to live with it.
However the spacing between the primary M1 and the secondary M2 mirrors was quite wrong and you do not need much with an RC to have aberrations. This resulted to nice round stars but too fat too big FWHM.
After proper collimation, using a wave front analyzer to spot the issue and to fix it, my FWHM when down from around 2. BillD17 – Mar 26 BenKolt – Mar 25 BillD17 – Mar 25 Taosmath – Mar 25 Community Forum Software by IP.
Adaptive Optics Options – Viable? Started by Jon Rista , Apr 08 Most users who try it get it working pretty quickly, so there is probably something simple that is set wrong. Part of the problem is that it’s different from other software – so it requires different thinking.
I have been meaning to do a session on the astro imaging channel but I have not had a chunk of time to prepare it. My time zone is also problematic for something live but I could prepare a tutorial.
Happy to help you get going with MG. Jon Rista and JamesSober like this. Neither technology sounded like something that was feasible for commercial production.
Again, thanks for presenting data which helps our discussion. Jon Rista likes this. I haven’t missed the point. What about a sensor with a deformable microlens layer that could operate at a high frequency?
What about combining such a sensor with multi-star measurements throughout the field i. Remove money as an object here, think outside the box, and I believe you could create an AO system that would work.
Edited by Jon Rista, 09 April – That would be quite an achievement to create a mosaic made of 2 arc-minute images. The OP can slew the thread. Here is my current configuration, as I guess there is no better place to start: Hi Jon- I’m happy to continue in this thread if you like.
There seems to be general interest. Of course – if anyone wants to try MG it is very well documented and includes an initial quickstart guide. The info entered appears to be correct – and my only concern is something special about how eqmod behaves.
I’m pretty sure I have eqmod users but there may be a setting somewhere to know about. The main points I would like to make clear: MG is designed to work with short exposure guidestars and has special centroid handling for it.
I don’t think anything else does. You can tell it works well because you can aim at a star in fairly turbulent skies and see a live view of the speckle pattern that is very dynamic – but the stacked version has the exact Airy pattern profile – though usually slightly swollen.
Since you know it can stack the speckle pattern properly even though those star images are very distorted, you know it can work well at determining the best value of the centroid. This just won’t be possible with typical center of gravity centroids.
If you don’t have low latency guide imaging and you don’t have good centroiding – then fast autoguiding with a typical mount will not work well. You will probably need to use longer guide exposures to get a rounder star – and correct less often.
But that does not mean there is a fundamental impossibility to do well with rapid corrections. In fact – the benefits of AO with a cge at 1 Hz are direct evidence it can work well.
MG has been around for many years and I have been doing video at high power and fast frame rates ever since I got my Lumenera over 10 years ago – which can go to about fps in cropped mode. I am very familiar with the literature on seeing and I take a scientific approach to demonstrate things work by experimental evidence.
And my goal is to help improve autoguided results for everyone using this scientific approach backed by evidence – and without requesting or even accepting payment from my many worldwide users of the software.
You are showing 3ms exposure and 0 gain. The star should never appear faint because you have full control with exposure and gain – particularly with a bright star. You can use any star you want.
To see the pattern better you can use a red or IR filter. This reduces the impact of dispersion and makes the Airy pattern much larger. This is the reason why IR has no particular guiding win – it may be slightly steadier but it also gets bigger.
But for the purpose of collimation and seeing speckles it has application because you are just trying to see it – not guide off it. Instead of just increasing gain, increase exposure.
You should be able to do that and still keep the exposure short if you have a bright guidestar. Your frame rate can be perhaps 30 instead of 10 – which means your exposure can go up to 30 ms.
But with a bright star it shouldn’t need to go that high. Then – set NFrames to about 20 – and it will use the best 20 frames out of the previous If you don’t see speckles at all then your seeing is very bad and it just won’t work to see the Airy pattern.
But it will still work to improve the centroiding since it is ignoring the outer fluctuations of the guidestar that would affect center of gravity centroids. It is with the original cdk20 prototype under fairly average skies.
The image in the upper right is a single frame showing the dynamic speckle pattern at very high power. The image at the lower right shows the stacked version with lucky culling and MG centroiding.
The profile on the lower left shows how the profile compares with the theoretical Airy pattern. Note that the first ring is evident and in about the right place. The largest aperture I tried with MG is a 32″ RC – but that was under very bad conditions and the speckle pattern was just a buzzing bees nest.
But the result for the 20″ is rare if not unprecedented – to show the first ring of the Airy pattern of a real star from ground level with 20″ aperture. Ron Oct 28, Maxim V6 will not install Dale Liebenberg , Oct 27, Dale Liebenberg Oct 28, Showing threads 1, to 1, of 1, Last message time Thread creation time Title alphabetical Number of replies Number of views First message likes.
Descending order Ascending order. Adam Robichaud Staff Assigned: Owen Lawrence Staff Assigned: Tim Puckett Staff Assigned: You must log in or sign up to post here. Your name or email address: Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now. Yes, my password is: With your latter statement. Are you referring to things like deconvolution, which if performed with an accurate PSF model, can recover a decent amount of information from a non-band limited signal?
Also, would drizzling also factor into recovering detail in a non-band limited signal? What about drizzling a band-limited signal? Is it possible to recover frequencies below the cutoff frequency with drizzling I thought it was, but I again my have been thinking about a seeing limited image.
Posted 24 March – My point was that the Nyquist’s limit is not the only condition for which a signal can be restored without any error. The attached picture shows a signal made of rectangular pulses of width Td with different amplitudes.
This signal belongs to the class of piecewise signals, the use of a rectangular pulse is a very simple example to illustrate the case here. IF YOU KNOW that your signal image is a piecewise signal built with, in this simple case, rectangular pulses the kernel you do not need to sample it at the Nyquist’s rate.
To fully reconstruct the signal we would only need at least one sample per pulse say at the middle, as shown in the figure. However the spectrum of such signal extends far above fs.
To give you an idea look in the figure at the spectrum of single pulse. But here we just do not care since we know this signal structure its class. We do not need any anti-aliasing filter either.
On the other hand if you would not know that is a piecewise signal then we would have to use a much higher sampling rate, with many more samples across each pulse such some would be close enough to any edge the step to allow for a good enough reconstruction based on the Nyquist’s limit only.
This is of course a very simple example. However such situations do exist, especially in the context of sparsity. Medical imaging and computed tomography have applied similar techniques since many years with great success, for instance in MRI scanners.
But this leads us quite outside the topic of this thread. Fundamentally astronomical images should be handled under the Nyquist’s framework those are usually not piecewise images, nor easily expressed with a simple kernel basis.
The imaging camera job is to sample the analog image at the scope focal plane without losing too much information there. So from the above discussions, and my previous post, I would assume that we would have sampled well enough indeed, say in a seeing limited condition, with at least 3 to 4, or more, pixel across the FWHM.
Under this condition we know that the samples stored in the memory of the computer do carry all the necessary information about the seeing limited analog image formed at the scope focal plane.
Sampling more will not add any information about the diffraction limited analog image for instance. The effect of the scope optics at the very least the diffraction limit and the Earth atmosphere happened before sampling, both will blur the image in an analog way.
The idea of de-convolution is to remove some of this “blur”, however it is usually a hard, and often ill posed problem, especially in the context of noise there is always noise in all practical physical systems.
To make this explanation simple I am going to assume that we are seeing limited, way above the diffraction limit. With scope apertures in 10″ range the diffraction limit is around 0.
I know it is not exactly true, but a Gaussian approximation is handy since the Fourier transform of a Gaussian function is also a Gaussian function. And for the sake of the argument here, using a Gaussian approximation does not matter, it is good enough.
To best understand the impact of the seeing and also the diffraction limited of the scope one could work in the frequency domain. This is a function of two spacial frequencies fx, and fy, it is also a complex function mathematically speaking.
Again for simplicity I am going to work with a signal 1D , but the all theory and results are the same with an image. I will also ignore, in purpose, in the following equations that H an others is a complex function to make the notation simpler, the goal is to understand the general idea anyway, not to do mathematics.
The image I of an object O seen with a optical transfer function H can be written in a simple way as:. A simple product in the frequency domain a convolution operation in the spacial domain.
Let’s forget the f in the notation every time there is no possible confusion, then:. Unfortunately this is not any easy task. First the image of a star far away in space a plane wave with a scope having very large aperture infinite is just a point in fact a Dirac function.
Its Fourier transform I f is a constant, not a function of f anymore, it has an infinite bandwidth, which is of course not realistic and a source of problem in the calculations.
If it becomes too small, or equals to zero, this is yet another source of difficulty in our calculations division by zero, or small numbers, is never good. In a noisy context always the case we may know the statistic of N but we cannot know its actual values for a given realization an image.
Therefore I and N spectral functions, for a given realization image , may exhibit a complex frequency behavior. So now we have several problems to deal with: Eventually very small denominator values and noise by nature random and unknown for each image.
Which basically means giving up any hope to find the exact solution O and aim for some sort approximation O’ in some sense. The classical approach is to minimize the squared error between the actual object O and its approximation O’ computed using H’ our best estimate of H , I the blurred image , and N’ our best estimate of N.
We usually sum of the squared errors across the all spacial frequency range to get one final number, a figure of merit, say e’, the smaller e’ the better. This is known as regularization process.
Those constraints are usually related to the continuity of the solution, its smoothness, the fact it must be bounded in some way, It is always useful to add any prior knowledge about the solution we may have to improve the de-convolution ease its task with some good guidance inputs.
Such algorithm usually requires at least a good guess of the PSF H’ and some information about the noise N’ for instance its standard deviation. But since part of the noise is a function of the signal amplitude shot noise from the light it will usually be an approximation too.
Minimizing e’ at any cost does not mean the reconstruction will be necessary good in term of the image quality at least from a human stand point. In short a smal e’ does not guaranty a good result.
Since e’ is never zero we should be careful not to be too aggressive with optimization, otherwise some artifacts will become visible, such as Gibbs’s effects ringings near fast signal transitions making stars hollow, or boosting the noise floor to an uncomfortable level.
Therefore one should manage expectations on the possible level of improvement using de-convolution. After all the low pass effect of the blurred PSF remember H is a Gaussian like function and the image of O is supposed to be a constant value across the ALL spacial frequencies to infinity has brought parts of the original image spectrum O at , or below, the noise floor and the de-convolution process has to feel the gaps with some “good” guesses.
However this is a powerful tool when used carefully, professional astronomers use it all the time. I know this probably takes the thread well out of the original context and beyond usefulness for most people, but I find it interesting.
I am aware that deconvolution has it’s limits. In practice that becomes quite obvious when you try to push it too hard. Noise is definitely a limiting factor when it comes to deconvolving an image.
I’ve encountered every kind with PixInsight. Either you enhance the noise and increase the standard deviation by a fairly significant amount, or you start introducing artifacts that shows up a bit like cobwebbing, etc.
If you misconfigure, ringing rapidly becomes a problem, and even if you configure ideally, ringing will still eventually become a problem if you push deconvolution far enough.
I read a really interesting article years ago about the exponential and often entirely random behavior of errors in functions like deconvolution. Where a very tiny yet unpredictable error can rapidly become a massive error as it accumulates.
It basically said that convolution is a non-reversible function, and we can only approximate it’s reversal because e’ can never actually be 0, and it cannot be predicted I wonder if I still have that bookmarked.
I was just curious how close the approximation could be As I wrote before without any regularization mechanism some kind of constraint the problem is usually ill posed. This means there is some information lost in the process direct model due to the low pass effect of the blur and the noise.
Therefore the reconstruction algorithm, which is basically dealing with an inverse problem, can never recover the actual signal. If the regularization constraint is strong the de-covonlution improvement is usually small, close to the blur image, which means far from the actual object to restore, there is a large bias, but a small variance.
If the regularization is weak the de-convolution improvement can be quite dramatic, but so the possible artifacts, the variance of the solution is large. To give you an idea if you have a good SNR in your final stacked image and say a 2.
There is an old joke in the signal processing community, “if you do not have any noise then you do not need any signal too”. Yeah, that right there is about the truest statement in AP: I tend to get great images in less than 8 hours at my dark site, often closer to hours.
You can do luminance imaging with a CCD, which gathers signal so much faster than anything else. Drizzling is an interpolation method. Unlike deconvolution, it cannot reconstruct the true image from an actual image.
The sampling rule of 2 pixels per FHWM is based on a model of MTF which describes the effects of astronomical seeing on a long exposure image. See Astronomical Optics by Daniel J.
Just remember that if you use that same 4. Let me ask, why we are not taking into account full well depth? Any camera with smaller pixel size will also have smaller well capacity. They both have almost equal dynamic range and nearly 4 times difference in well capacity.
Does not it mean that in case of smaller pixels, while detecting 4 times less photons, the well will be filled up in same time interval as of the larger pixel’s one?
So, finally we should get the same SNR from both pixels. Does this mean that we just gain in resolution while losing nothing? Knowing the analog signal or its sample is exactly the same thing in term of information the two sides of the same coin , nothing is lost in both representations.
For that matter it is similar to the Fourier transform of a signal image , one can always come back and forth, using the inverse transform, time domain and frequency domain are equivalent.
In short the analog and digital versions of a band limited signal sampled at least at the Nyquist rate are the same thing. In the transformation process some information has been lost for good.
The de-convolution seeks for some “good” estimation of the initial signal, the result can only be an approximation because, at the very least, some information has been lost.
Even if the transformation operator is known like the actual PSF the noise would have irremediably altered the observed signal, making any hope of an exact inverse transformation futile.
There is more than one estimations usually an infinity of the initial signal which explains the observed signal.