this is the best synopsis i have seen on this topic to date, even though it's 2 years later! thank you for making this available. it has already made a big difference in my results.i will be at aic this year, so looking forward to that. anyway, my question is regarding your definition of bad data. the galaxy image you presented with the fwhm of 2.7....i might accept that for the seeing i have in my area. what is the role then of seeing on what you can realistically expect to achieve in your opinion?
thanks again,
dave

Thank you for your kind comments.

On reflection, I would not call 2.7" bad data. My comparison was to prove the point that an arc-second FWHM improvement makes a tremendous differences in resolution.

The best possible FWHM is ultimately going to be limited by your seeing conditions.

My conditions vary from evening to evening based on the ever changing marine layer from the pacific.

On an excellent night (10 nights a year) I can achieve 1.5" FWHM.

On a good night (40 nights a year) I can achieve < 2".

Average evenings range from 2" - 3.5" peaking at 2-5 am in the morning.

Very poor evenings, I cant get under 3" all night long.

rb

ok.thanks again richard!
dave