ICEINSPACE
Most Read Articles
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON Waxing Crescent
1.3%
The Sun Now
Time Zones
Sydney*
12:33 pm
Perth
9:33 am
Auckland*
2:33 pm
New York*
9:33 pm
Paris*
3:33 am
GMT
1:33 am




Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Radio Astronomy and Spectroscopy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 15-03-2017, 10:25 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Gamma Velorum Drizzle vs Normal Combining

In the 3C-273 thread there was no difference in the quality of the spectra for drizzle and normally combined sub exposures.
This was due to the telescope/camera set up not resulting in undersampled images and a limited degree of dithering between exposures.

Instead of using my BRC-250 scope, I used a 300mm lens which gave a resolution of 4.7 arcseconds/pixel resulting in undersampled images.
Each exposure of Gamma Velorum (10 X 20 seconds) was dithered using a spiral routine and displacement of 4 pixels.
These exposures were drizzled combined.

As a comparison another set of 10X20 second exposures without dithering were normally combined.

Since the drizzling process resamples the combined image by 2X, the normally combined image was also resampled 2X.

The results speak for themselves.

Steven
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Gamma_Velorum_drizzle_normal_comparison.jpg)
65.8 KB23 views

Last edited by sjastro; 15-03-2017 at 11:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15-03-2017, 10:47 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Registered User

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,460
That's quite interesting Steven. It is in agreement with what I see when dealing with non-spectra images as well.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15-03-2017, 10:49 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Hmmm
One other option to consider is the dithered stack without the drizzle....

I'd also check the alignment and stacking technique....

This will allow a better analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-03-2017, 10:49 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Normal Integration Resampled 2X

For some reason the normally combined image didn't resample.
This has been fixed and there is now a more realistic comparison.

Steven
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Gamma_Velorum_drizzle_normal_comparison.jpg)
63.5 KB20 views
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15-03-2017, 11:02 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15-03-2017, 11:25 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Yes it seemed too good to be true, the 2:1 ratio in the peak heights in the original attachment was a dead give away that something went wrong with resampling.

The other issue is that the Gamma Velorum spectrum sticks out like a sore thumb, in fact the major emission line reached the saturation limit of the CCD.
I might try this again at much shorter exposures where a lower SNR might lead to a greater differentiation between the combining techniques.

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-03-2017, 12:04 AM
robin_astro
Registered User

robin_astro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Hi Steven,

The apparent difference in the continuum between the two techniques is also of concern. This suggests either a non linearity in the process or alternatively a difference in the binning region or background subtraction. (The binning region should include the full width of the spectrum, including all the rows with spectrum data, to avoid distortion of the continuum shape due to changing focus along the spectrum and the background region should completely exclude the spectrum to avoid cross contamination)

Cheers
Robin
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16-03-2017, 10:44 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Robin,

I think the main culprit is the overexposure.
My CCD does not use anti blooming gates.
The spectrum was not only saturated indicating the CCD response was no longer linear but the main C emission line was also exhibiting blooming.

The trouble is the CCD capture software automatically stretches the image and undesirable features such a blooming spikes are lost in the image.
What I need to do in the future is to take test images of spectra and measure the pixel count in the emission lines to ensure I am in the 30-50% operating range for the CCD.

It's all part of the learning experience for me.

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16-03-2017, 11:12 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Steven,
It should be possible to find a compromise - between sub exposures and full well depth.
I typically use 5 to 10 min subs with a C11 using an ATiK314L and AstroArt.
An average combined stack of 20 subs usually gives the SNR I need.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (hd102776_20170304_474_KenHarrison.jpg)
52.8 KB12 views
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16-03-2017, 11:48 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
I was re-reading the thread....
Why are you using Registax??
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16-03-2017, 02:56 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
That's an impressive spectrum Ken.
It will be my next step to make the transition to higher resolution spectroscopy.

Registax was only used to combine two separately PixInsight stacked images of 3C-273 spectra collected over different nights.
For what ever reason, there is not much latitude for alignment errors when aligning and stacking spectra when compared to deep sky images.

For Gamma Velorum keeping the alignment error to a minimum and tweaking the settings in PixInsight there was no need for Registax for stacking spectra images.
Since dithering was used, autoguiding was necessary to control the dithering.
The maximum alignment error in this case was 4 pixels which PixInsight was able to handle.

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16-03-2017, 03:18 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Steven,
That's where the custom designed spectroscopy software comes in....
Programs like ISIS or BASS Project will do all the stacking and alignment for you and provide a solid means of selecting and binning the target Spectral image as well as the necessary background sky removal.
I'd suggest running your data through one of these programs.
I use BASS Project for the processing of all my Spectral data.
Ken
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/astrobodger/info
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/isis/isis_en.htm

Last edited by Merlin66; 16-03-2017 at 03:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17-03-2017, 08:05 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
Steven,
That's where the custom designed spectroscopy software comes in....
Programs like ISIS or BASS Project will do all the stacking and alignment for you and provide a solid means of selecting and binning the target Spectral image as well as the necessary background sky removal.
I'd suggest running your data through one of these programs.
I use BASS Project for the processing of all my Spectral data.
Ken
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/astrobodger/info
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/isis/isis_en.htm
Ken,

I downloaded BASS and experienced the same registration problems on the 3C-273 spectra.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17-03-2017, 08:16 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Steven,
Hmmmm
Which alignment method did you use for the frames?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17-03-2017, 09:30 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
Steven,
Hmmmm
Which alignment method did you use for the frames?
Ken,

I used the align images option.
Like the other software packages I have tried for stacking and aligning spectra, if the imaging session is interrupted one needs to be careful in relocating the object in the same position on the chip, otherwise aligning images is not accurate.
The margin of error seems to be less for spectra than for deep sky objects.

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17-03-2017, 09:39 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Spectroscopy Wizard

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Leonards, Vic
Posts: 5,081
Steven,
Ok.
If you select sufficient alignment points BASS usually is smart enough to do a fair job with the stacking.....
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17-03-2017, 10:08 AM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,904
Drizzle vs Normal Integration at shorter exposures

Given the blooming issues the test was repeated using 30 X 2 sec sub-exposures.
This gave a pixel count of around 37,000 on the C emission line, well within the saturation limit.

The drizzle combined spectra being closer to the X-axis indicates dithering has reduced the background noise as expected.
On the negative side drizzling does introduce a small amount of noise which might explain the smaller peak heights in the drizzle combined image.

This is supported by SNR calculations.
The main C emission peak in the drizzle combined spectra has a maximum SNR of 195, in the normally combined spectra the maximum SNR is 228.

The conclusion is that there are no earth shattering improvements in using drizzle combined undersampled images.

Steven
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Gamma_Velorum_drizzle_normal_comparison.jpg)
68.0 KB10 views
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 11:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Star Discovery
Advertisement
Tasco Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Atik One
Advertisement
Astronomy Alive
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Meade Instruments
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
FLI Cameras and Imaging Accessories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement