#1  
Old 10-01-2014, 01:06 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Here is a test for all you 'experts'.

This image is the curvature output of CDDInspector for RGB and HA images taken sequentially with the RH200. Nothing else was changed apart from the filter. Tracking was better than one arc second.

Please give me you best evaluation or opinion. Remember neatest correct entry always wins!

Large image here 1MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co..._01/CCDI_F.jpg


Bert
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (CaptureFilterssm.jpg)
57.1 KB94 views

Last edited by avandonk; 10-01-2014 at 01:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2014, 01:56 PM
Geoff45's Avatar
Geoff45 (Geoff)
PI rules

Geoff45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,345
I await the results. I've always found the curvature analysis of CCDInspector to be highly variable, even with images taken directly after each other.
Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-01-2014, 02:30 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghsmith45 View Post
I've always found the curvature analysis of CCDInspector to be highly variable, even with images taken directly after each other.
That's been my experience as well, both with curvature and tilt measurements.

These days I prefer to check over my subs with PixInsight using the tools in Mschuster's Scriptbox.

Bert: do you want to leave copies of those subs somewhere? Could be interesting to see how they compare with different tools.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-01-2014, 02:42 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Does it help if my inspection of the corners as far as star distortion correlates perfectly with the curvature output of CCDI.

Why CCDI is all over the place is because our images are!

Whether this is due to flexure or any other contributing aberration is a matter for elimination.

This is effect is far more insidious than what I have presented here. You will be very surprised what the problem/solution really is!
Perfect hindsight is a wonderful thing.


bert
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2014, 03:05 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
Filters?

Edit:
haha, obviously it is the filters when you mention it's the only thing you had changed
One word answer when I couldn't think of the word I needed; 'perpendicular'

Anyway, here goes:
Is it due to the filters not sitting perfectly perpendicular to the optical axis in the filter wheel?
Or maybe the filter wheel is tilted?

A stab in the dark

Last edited by MrB; 10-01-2014 at 04:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2014, 10:46 AM
cfranks (Charles)
Registered User

cfranks is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tungkillo, South Australia
Posts: 599
My experience with exactly the same effect is that the CCDI results depend greatly on the density/brightness of the star field being imaged. Try a large image of Omega Cen. vs Crux for example. Possibly your different filters also effected the density/brightness sufficiently enough to give you the variation you see.

Charles
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2014, 11:07 AM
mill's Avatar
mill (Martin)
sword collector

mill is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mount Evelyn
Posts: 2,922
I am not a expert but i think the filters are not 100% parfocal and/or perfectly flat compared to each other (tilted).
Also the FWHM value between filters is different.
Also the refraction thru the filters might be different.
I might be totally wrong here
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2014, 12:49 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
I will state the evidence again. My Astrodon R,G,B and HA filters are parfocal. The HA is 8 micron different to the RGB which are identical.

I took four sequential images of a non descript area with no bright stars or nebulosity. NOTHING changed apart from the four filters. Here are the four unstretched fit images only corrected for flats and darks.

75MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co...RGBHA_TEST.zip

This data should give you the same numbers in CCDI.


It is a shock to the unprepared mind that the best filters on the planet also need to be very accurately orthogonal (better than one second of arc!) to the optic axis of a high quality fast astrograph such as the RH200 with the large chip on the PL16803 camera to get the 'best' stars in the corners.

Below is a small image of the test field.

I was hoping I was wrong! I just needed confirmation from others to see if I had made any logical errors. It is very difficult to change one's erroneous thinking when it is set like concrete.


Bert
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (FF_C_FOCOIII_P7_ 40200_-35C_-002G_240S.jpg)
69.3 KB52 views
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2014, 02:57 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
need to be very accurately orthogonal (better than one second of arc!) to the optic axis of a high quality fast astrograph such as the RH200
I'll take that as a yes
Two words for the same thing.

I'm no expert, was the only thing I could think of.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2014, 09:36 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,581
Bert,

Have you taken repeated images with the *same* filter and seen consistent results from CCDI? It never happens for me even with a refractor (FSQ-106ED) and a very solid imaging train.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a very slight tilt on the filters caused problems at f/3. I'm amazed your filters are parfocal at f/3. My Astrodons need significantly different focus offsets at f/5.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2014, 10:23 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,436
The shift of the center wavelength of a filter can be accurately quantified by a model of the center wavelength λ vs. angle of incidence θ .

With a steep F3 light cone, I suspect you are seeing an intensity transmission effect, which attenuates the light transmission the more you go off axis.

CCDI is probably interpreting these dimmer (hence smaller) stars off axis as some for of field curvature....which it isn't.

QED.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13-01-2014, 09:19 PM
Peter.M's Avatar
Peter.M
Registered User

Peter.M is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
The shift of the center wavelength of a filter can be accurately quantified by a model of the center wavelength λ vs. angle of incidence θ .

With a steep F3 light cone, I suspect you are seeing an intensity transmission effect, which attenuates the light transmission the more you go off axis.

CCDI is probably interpreting these dimmer (hence smaller) stars off axis as some for of field curvature....which it isn't.

QED.
I would have thought that this effect would only be justifiable with narrowband filters as with broadband colour the wavelength shift is such a tiny fraction of the light allowed to pass through the filter.

If curvature was measured by brightness then putting a star cluster off axis would manifest itself as curvature. (I don't know if this would happen but I assume it dosn't)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13-01-2014, 11:57 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.M View Post
I would have thought that this effect would only be justifiable with narrowband filters as with broadband colour the wavelength shift is such a tiny fraction of the light allowed to pass through the filter.

If curvature was measured by brightness then putting a star cluster off axis would manifest itself as curvature. (I don't know if this would happen but I assume it dosn't)
They are all multi-layer filters....interestingly the H-alpha has the most layers and throws up the odd result....and smaller stars....

Yes, putting a star cluster off axis shows up as curvature in CCDI. (trial copies are available as free downloads....good fun to play with)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 14-01-2014, 06:16 AM
Peter.M's Avatar
Peter.M
Registered User

Peter.M is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
They are all multi-layer filters....interestingly the H-alpha has the most layers and throws up the odd result....and smaller stars....

Yes, putting a star cluster off axis shows up as curvature in CCDI. (trial copies are available as free downloads....good fun to play with)
Hm interesting, I am happy to be proven wrong might give it a go for myself next time im out.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14-01-2014, 09:43 AM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hinchinbrook
Posts: 17,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Yes, putting a star cluster off axis shows up as curvature in CCDI. (trial copies are available as free downloads....good fun to play with)
Yes I have experienced that as well. For CCDIS to be effective you have to pick a homogeneous field devoid of any bright stars or nebulosity. A cluster for sure will bugger things up. I did such a field centered on NGC104 once and the field was bell shaped.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 14-01-2014, 02:32 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
Pardon my ignorance, I have never used CCDI, but I thought the idea was to use a light box or similar, like taking a flat field?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 14-01-2014, 04:19 PM
Geoff45's Avatar
Geoff45 (Geoff)
PI rules

Geoff45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrB View Post
Pardon my ignorance, I have never used CCDI, but I thought the idea was to use a light box or similar, like taking a flat field?
CCDI is used to measure stuff in a pic you've taken. It doesn't actually do anything except diagnose your pic. It is supposed to tell you things about how round your stars are, focal plane tilt, focal plane curvature, FWHM, vignetting and more.
Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 14-01-2014, 04:32 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
Thanks Geoff, I had thought it was only for tilt/vignetting/curvature etc which I figured only needed a light box.
Had no idea it was for star roundness etc too.
Always learning.
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 03:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement