ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Gibbous 89.5%
|
|
12-04-2015, 03:55 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dingley, Victoria
Posts: 132
|
|
A question about darks
Hi everyone,
I've seen some photos here where people have said that they have stacked photos of differing exposure times. My question is what length dark frames should be used: the shortest, longest, or a mixture of both?
Cheers, Michael.
|
12-04-2015, 06:29 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 331
|
|
Michael,
you would stack the subs of differing lengths separately, subtracting a dark of matching length. then you blend them in your processing software of choice like photoshop, PI etc.
Goran.
|
12-04-2015, 07:50 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Glanmire, NSW
Posts: 2,168
|
|
I agree with Goran, Michael. My preference is to match the darks to the lights. In Pixinsight it is possible to use a masterdark which is longer than the light subs as it will optimise the dark by scaling it to match. Having said that I admit that even though I am a PI user I still process by matching the darks to the lights.
|
12-04-2015, 09:07 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dingley, Victoria
Posts: 132
|
|
Hi Goran/Rodney,
Thanks to both of you for your thoughts! Much appreciated and will attempt this in future. Is blending a difficult and/or time consuming process?
Cheers, Michael.
|
12-04-2015, 09:14 PM
|
|
Thylacinus stargazoculus
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Judbury, Tasmania
Posts: 1,203
|
|
Michael, a more general tip - you should never need to have more than two different exposure lengths for your subs, and only then when you are seeking a balanced exposure across a HDR object (e.g. bright M42 trapezium and faint surrounding nebulosity). Anything more than a shorter and longer exposure stack is wasted effort.
|
12-04-2015, 09:17 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dingley, Victoria
Posts: 132
|
|
Thanks Barry!
|
12-04-2015, 11:53 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 331
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by guggle
Hi Goran/Rodney,
Thanks to both of you for your thoughts! Much appreciated and will attempt this in future. Is blending a difficult and/or time consuming process?
Cheers, Michael.
|
This might be a good place to start.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THlwDf4zDDo
I Dont know what you process with but it explains the concept well enough.
Goran.
|
13-04-2015, 01:23 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Saquarema, RJ , Brazil
Posts: 1,102
|
|
In DSS you can group differents sets of files and proccess them together.
Some times my master group has the main photos. And I use another group with very few photos with more ISO and/or time of exposition. Each group receive the appropriate dark, flat and bias.
And some times... this procedure result in better informations, mainly with nebulas or faint clouds. Others times... the result is worst.
|
13-04-2015, 05:07 AM
|
|
Lost in Space ....
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 4,949
|
|
I've normally used the longest darks for all exposures taken when processing with DSS. Once a dark is applied to kill the hot pixels or whatever it can't go any darker regardless.
|
13-04-2015, 06:15 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
|
|
If your willing, there are ways to virtually eliminate the need to stack darks, and this can make the workflow less hassle. How? Get a camera with deep cooling applied to the sensor. Most quality CCD cameras use snsor cooling, and a few DSLRs designed or modified for astrophotography also cool the sensor. You will still need offset/bias frames to map any hot pixels in the sensor but dark 'noise' drops off considerably when the sensor
temperture is held below zero.
|
13-04-2015, 09:38 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,950
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
If your willing, there are ways to virtually eliminate the need to stack darks, and this can make the workflow less hassle. How? Get a camera with deep cooling applied to the sensor. Most quality CCD cameras use snsor cooling, and a few DSLRs designed or modified for astrophotography also cool the sensor. You will still need offset/bias frames to map any hot pixels in the sensor but dark 'noise' drops off considerably when the sensor
temperture is held below zero.
|
yes, I've actually just started experimenting not using darks myself. I just use a DSLR that isn't cooled, as long as you dither between subs and get enough data and enough subs (I am aiming for a minimum 16) it seems to take care of noise.
Applying flats have been the most useful addition to my pics, they make the biggest difference to an astrophoto in my view. if you haven't much data though applying darks is a good option.
|
13-04-2015, 10:41 AM
|
|
Thylacinus stargazoculus
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Judbury, Tasmania
Posts: 1,203
|
|
Dithering will deal effectively with hot pixels, but not dark current (and the noise associated with this unwanted signal). As noted above, if you have a low-noise sensor coupled with deep cooling, then dark subtraction is probably not worth it. But for uncooled DSLRs, for instance, it's a vital calibration.
|
13-04-2015, 12:22 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,950
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Dithering will deal effectively with hot pixels, but not dark current (and the noise associated with this unwanted signal). As noted above, if you have a low-noise sensor coupled with deep cooling, then dark subtraction is probably not worth it. But for uncooled DSLRs, for instance, it's a vital calibration.
|
here are my recent efforts without darks.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/803366...ream/lightbox/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/803366...ream/lightbox/
while definitely not noise free, I wouldn't claim that missing out on doing darks was a vital error.
I would perhaps have a different view if I were in warmer weather or had evident sensor banding, used a higher ISO or had an object with less signal, or as I mentioned earlier had a lot less integration time or total sub numbers.
|
13-04-2015, 12:34 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 3,240
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustigsmed
Applying flats have been the most useful addition to my pics, they make the biggest difference to an astrophoto in my view.
|
I totally agree. From my limited experience, sufficient number of dithered subs treated with flats(*) and complemented with skilful processing will result in achieving quality images, of course given accurate guiding, sharp focus and good optical alignment of all components.
I feel that dark-subtraction is often overestimated in its impact on improving the final result. For this very reason I only subtract a master bias frame from my subs and I usually try to collect about 25-30 subs through each filter.
The best thing however is to personally and objectively investigate these matters, since there are so many different setups for astrophotography and thus there is no one definite answer regarding dark-subtraction.
(*)If using narrowband filters flats become pretty much unnecessary.
|
13-04-2015, 01:22 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
The best thing however is to personally and objectively investigate these matters, since there are so many different setups for astrophotography and thus there is no one definite answer regarding dark-subtraction.
|
Yes, indeed! If you're chasing faint data (e.g. narrowband) with a noisy sensor (e.g. TrueSense/Kodak) then you'll almost certainly benefit noticeably from full calibration even with dithering. With brighter targets and a low noise sensor (like many of the Sony chips) then darks may be optional.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
13-04-2015, 04:57 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Dingley, Victoria
Posts: 132
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Dithering will deal effectively with hot pixels, but not dark current (and the noise associated with this unwanted signal). As noted above, if you have a low-noise sensor coupled with deep cooling, then dark subtraction is probably not worth it. But for uncooled DSLRs, for instance, it's a vital calibration.
|
I'm not sure what dithering is. Is it moving the scope by small amounts every few frames?
My camera is an unmodified Nikon D3100, and chances are, I won't be modifying it anytime soon..
|
13-04-2015, 08:50 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 331
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by guggle
I'm not sure what dithering is. Is it moving the scope by small amounts every few frames?
My camera is an unmodified Nikon D3100, and chances are, I won't be modifying it anytime soon..
|
Correct. Dithering moves the mount my a few pixels ( give or take ) which then stops the same pixels being used all the time for the same part of the image, and also uncovers camera artefacts and noise because they will move with the dither, the image will not.
Or something like that
Goran.
|
Thread Tools |
|
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
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:11 AM.
|
|