#1  
Old 07-05-2014, 05:32 PM
BlueAstra (Graham)
Registered User

BlueAstra is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 44
Imaging limits with Light Pollution

I remember reading somewhere that your CCD exposure times for DSOs are ultimately limited by your local light pollution levels. Is this right, and if so what method would you use to determine the maximum exposure time for your local light pollution level? Is it absolute, or can you recover the situation with software? Is it different for LRGB and NB?

Graham
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-05-2014, 07:59 PM
LightningNZ's Avatar
LightningNZ (Cam)
Registered User

LightningNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canberra
Posts: 951
In my experience there's only so much you can do about light pollution. It'll always create a background level in your images, which will often be an oddly shaped gradient and potentially a bugbear to remove. I suspect it's easier to remove in LRGB than single-shot colour, but I have no experience to back that up.

I've never done any narrow band imaging but it would seem that the narrower the band, the less likely light pollution will strongly affect your images (particularly in H-alpha - which doesn't match common artificial wavelength).

To determine how long you can image just image an emptyish patch of sky at different exposure lengths and check the histograms of these to see how much back contribution there will be to your images. That's the amount you'll be wanting to cut off your actual images.

I hope that's some help.
-Cam
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-05-2014, 08:37 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
The problem with sky glow is that it introduces additional shot noise. You can image in LRGB from a light polluted location but you need to do much longer total exposures to get the same SNR as you can get in a shorter time under dark skies. You may still be able to get decent results for bright objects in a reasonable time but you won't be imaging dim galaxies.

Imaging in narrowband works a lot better because the narrow bandwidth of the filters rejects most of the sky glow.

The gradients you get from light pollution are manageable using software, e.g. DynamicBackgroundExtraction in PixInsight or GradientXterminator for Photoshop.

Shiraz has a nice rule of thumb which you can use to determine an appropriate sub length: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=117010

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-05-2014, 11:33 PM
BlueAstra (Graham)
Registered User

BlueAstra is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 44
Thanks for the feedback. I've read the link, which I'm not entirely sure I understand. Is he saying that if the calculation indicates a TargetADU of 2150 I should choose an exposure time so that the background (area 'between' the stars) should have an ADU > 2150 ?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-05-2014, 02:45 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
?.. but you won't be imaging dim galaxies.


Cheers,
Rick.
Beg to differ.
Taken from Sydney (my heavily light polluted back yard)

All you need is a low noise camera ( ie cooled) good QE, reasonable aperture, accurate calibration frames
and the patience to take a lot of subs to cut through the glow.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-05-2014, 03:15 AM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
Moderator

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Beg to differ.
Taken from Sydney (my heavily light polluted back yard)

All you need is a low noise camera ( ie cooled) good QE, reasonable aperture, accurate calibration frames
and the patience to take a lot of subs to cut through the glow.

will that really help with this
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-05-2014, 08:09 AM
White Rabbit's Avatar
White Rabbit
Space Cadet

White Rabbit is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
You poor *******, I though my new light pollution was bad but thats beyond light pollution, thats an environmental hazard. Have you thought about suing them for lack of sleep due to the second Sun they just installed in the sky?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-05-2014, 10:15 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
Well, yes, it will.

My neighbour has a similar floodlight on the 2nd storey of his house...which illuminates my dome as well....

Stray reflections can indeed be a problem, but using the dome shutter as a big lens-hood helps.

You can also go narrow band. Running 3-5nm filters you can get great results even with a full moon.

That said, if. you are using a DSLR in that sort of environment.....you are doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-05-2014, 10:52 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
I have had pretty good results using light pollution filters. Yes, I need to take longer subs but I see an increase in the SNR. The two filters I've used are the Hutech IDAS and the AstronomiK CLS. The latter filter really needs longer subs than the Hutech but does a fine job in pretty heavy LP. All the photos on my PBase pages are from North Curl Curl. My most recent is here and used the CLS for luminance and no filter for colour: http://www.pbase.com/prejto/image/155539657

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-05-2014, 11:52 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAstra View Post
Thanks for the feedback. I've read the link, which I'm not entirely sure I understand. Is he saying that if the calculation indicates a TargetADU of 2150 I should choose an exposure time so that the background (area 'between' the stars) should have an ADU > 2150 ?
Hope you don't mine me dropping in Rick.

Hi Graham. If you get 2150 for the targetADU calculation, then that is what you should aim for in the sky background. You could use longer, but then you lose dynamic range and run the risk of saturating the sensor. You could use less, but then the read noise will become a more significant fraction of the total noise and the SNR decreases. The rule of thumb accounts for varying sky brightness and applies equally well when using filters.

As Peter has stated, you can get around the problem by increasing the total exposure time, but that will not be just a little bit extra. To put some numbers on it, if you have sky which is 10x as bright as true dark sky (eg bright suburban), you will have to expose dim targets for about 10x as long (in total, not sub length) to get the same result as you would from a dark sky - this is what Rick was getting at - you won't be imaging dim galaxies in any reasonable time unless you have a very big aperture. Apart from pollution reducing filters, there is no way around it - software can't help, since the noise is part of the background light and it cannot be separated from dim signals.

Last edited by Shiraz; 08-05-2014 at 12:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-05-2014, 12:08 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
Hope you don't mine me dropping in Rick.
Not at all, Ray. I've had a busy morning and haven't had time to reply. Good to get an answer straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-05-2014, 07:12 PM
kosh
Registered User

kosh is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
This might
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (image.jpg)
10.4 KB18 views
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-05-2014, 07:17 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
Moderator

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Well, yes, it will.

My neighbour has a similar floodlight on the 2nd storey of his house...which illuminates my dome as well....

Stray reflections can indeed be a problem, but using the dome shutter as a big lens-hood helps.

You can also go narrow band. Running 3-5nm filters you can get great results even with a full moon.

That said, if. you are using a DSLR in that sort of environment.....you are doomed.
no longer have a DSLR - have a moravian G2 with a 10 position filter wheel Peter
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-05-2014, 08:23 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
no longer have a DSLR - have a moravian G2 with a 10 position filter wheel Peter
Ah well , can't help bad luck.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement