#1  
Old 11-06-2012, 11:11 AM
Oscar in Bin's Avatar
Oscar in Bin (John)
Registered User

Oscar in Bin is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
Dark and Bias Values on STF8300

When I take a Dark Frame I would expect the mean ADU to be greater than that I measure on the Bias given the Dark includes the Bias. This is not the case. So when I subtract the Bias from the dark I end up with a negative value.
This all seems rather weird and I hate to think what it does later in the calibrations.
Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-06-2012, 11:16 AM
bert's Avatar
bert (Brett)
Automation nut

bert is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bathurst
Posts: 667
Question

Same temperatures?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Oscar in Bin's Avatar
Oscar in Bin (John)
Registered User

Oscar in Bin is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
Dark and Bias Values on STF8300

Yes. Both taken at minus 20
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-06-2012, 05:58 PM
cventer's Avatar
cventer
Registered User

cventer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 957
How many bias and dark frames did you take ?

You need at least 12 - 20 bias frames combined with median combine

And at least 12 - 20 darks combined with min max reject algorithym before any meaningfull analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-06-2012, 09:45 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,412
What do you need bias frames for?

Are you making adaptive darks?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-06-2012, 07:23 AM
Oscar in Bin's Avatar
Oscar in Bin (John)
Registered User

Oscar in Bin is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 48
Dark and Bias Values on STF8300

Greg, using them to scale the darks. However, because of this problem I am now matching dark exposure times to the actual imaging times.

In answer to the question about the number of frames I was taking 40 and doing a mean after a min/max reject of 2 each so data should have been pretty good.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-06-2012, 06:01 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar in Bin View Post
Greg, using them to scale the darks. However, because of this problem I am now matching dark exposure times to the actual imaging times.

In answer to the question about the number of frames I was taking 40 and doing a mean after a min/max reject of 2 each so data should have been pretty good.

Sounds good. I thought sigma reject was hard to beat but I suppose you are doing in 2 steps what sigma reject does in one. Both approaches get rid of outliers that are artifacts rather than repeating noise.

40 sounds a lot. I think I could probably upgrade my darks as my biggest dark is about 16 and many are only about 8. But then my FLI cameras have practically no noise so its far less important than for other cameras. Still I find even with such low noise my CDK17 has quite a hot spot due to its design and corrector. Without a decent dark I find the flats just don't work. Strange. Anyone know why that would be?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23-06-2012, 08:07 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,393
I'm with you Greg withh using Sigma reject and 16 darks, but I do use 16 biases too.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26-06-2012, 03:28 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,412
Yes mean is the average of a sequence. So its kind of a pretty rough approximation of what your average pixel should be. If you have lots of hot pixels it will throw the calculation off quite a bit. I suppose that is why you run min/max first so the mean becomes more accurate.

But min/max probably only throws out values above/below a certain range. Again that is crude as any image has bright and dark areas and they are not artifacts.

Sigma reject is more complex computation that is pinpointing more accurately the pixels that are quite clearly an artifact and outside what is statistically expected of pixel values taking into account the whole image.

An ideal computation would detect every artifact yet leave intact bright and dim areas without change. That is the problem the mathematicians are trying to solve with these various combine methods. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that sigma reject does this the best of the current methods. Although I see CCDstack defaults to min/max. I should look into how that is calculated.


Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29-06-2012, 09:59 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
While I can't speak to the specific methods used in astro software, I do have a basic understanding of mathematical statistics so I can make some theoretical guesses...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Without a decent dark I find the flats just don't work. Strange. Anyone know why that would be?
The raw image is effectively divided by the flat image on the individual pixel level (i.e. multiplying the dark/vignetted parts so that they are brighter), so without a dark frame you won't be subtracting away the bias and dark signals from your image first. This means that you're increasing the noise of the bias and dark signals - along with the true signal - when attempting to correct with flats.

With a dark frame, the bias and dark signals are subtracted - i.e. effectively become zero - so that only the true signal is being increased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
An ideal computation would detect every artifact yet leave intact bright and dim areas without change. That is the problem the mathematicians are trying to solve with these various combine methods.
I'm a bit surprised that compressed sensing methods haven't been used for image reduction yet (to my knowledge, anyway). That stuff is like voodoo magic - it can re-generate images from less than the theoretical minimum sampling than the Nyquist theorem predicts.

(It works because pixels in real world images aren't statistically random like we tend to think - adjacent pixels are actually highly correlated.)
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 03:53 PM.

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