Is it common in astronomy to blur images at the end of the process before being released to make them look more “realistic”?

I’m thinking specifically of the recent black hole images

>Because the data don’t paint a complete picture, a range of possible images could explain the measurements. The EHT team averaged these images together to reveal the most common features, which led to the conclusion that the image is likely dominated by a bright ring.


Is the word “convolve” here a synonym meaning more or less “blur”?

>Between imaging iterations, the image is convolved with a circular Gaussian with a FWHM corresponding to the nominal array resolution, [math formula]. This procedure aids convergence to a global minimum by moving intermediate images away from local minima. In each iteration, we increase the weight on data terms relative to the regularizers and reduce the systematic noise tolerance for amplitude calibration uncertainties. **The final reconstructed image is convolved with the same 5 μas Gaussian that was used for the inverse taper**, ensuring consistency with the original data while imposing a constraint that no features in the reconstructed image can be finer than 5 μas.

“Why is image blurring called convolution and not cross correlation?”


Another group has taken the blurry image and put it through an AI filter to sharpen it. How would this sharpened image compare to the EHT group’s higher-resolution intermediate images from before the blurring?