ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waning Gibbous 71.5%
|
|
15-10-2014, 12:36 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Flats and mechanical shutters
I decided to run a new set of flats - high time since this is an entirely new scope combo - the only constant factor is the CCD. It's an Apogee Alta U8300 - a good camera without doubt.
But I'm seeing an odd artifact on the flats (and with plenty of pushing, it even comes out in stacked images) - it's a 5-point star-like shadow with somewhat curved and diffuse arms resembling a Japanese shuriken or something similar - occupying most of the image and centered in the middle.
These cameras have a mechanical shutter and it occurs to me that in short exposures, such as you do for flats and the like, there may be an artifact created by the opening (and closing I guess) of the shutter.
Anyone else experienced this?
Peter
|
15-10-2014, 01:04 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Peter,
That's typical for a camera with a mechanical shutter. You will need to make sure your flats are long enough that the artifacts disappear. I never do flats that are shorter than a couple of seconds.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
15-10-2014, 01:43 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Peter,
That's typical for a camera with a mechanical shutter. You will need to make sure your flats are long enough that the artifacts disappear. I never do flats that are shorter than a couple of seconds.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
G'day Rick.
Hmmm! That could be tricky. I try to keep the flats at about 25K on the histogram/Info window in Maxim. My light box doesn't have a rheosat to alter the intensity so I may have to fudge a solution. Any ideas.
Peter
|
15-10-2014, 02:01 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmrid
G'day Rick.
Hmmm! That could be tricky. I try to keep the flats at about 25K on the histogram/Info window in Maxim. My light box doesn't have a rheosat to alter the intensity so I may have to fudge a solution. Any ideas.
Peter
|
Peter,
A couple of sheets of paper or a cheap PWM dimmer from ebay? These days I nearly always do sky flats.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
15-10-2014, 02:02 PM
|
|
Lost in Space ....
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 4,949
|
|
Cover the light box with a sheet. Stay defocussed.
|
15-10-2014, 02:05 PM
|
|
Astro Noob
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,982
|
|
I was going to look for something to darken my lightbox down a bit too, I was thinking of something like this and using a few layers if nessesary:
http://www.polyfilm.com.au/window-ti...ffice-diy-roll
|
15-10-2014, 04:03 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroID
Cover the light box with a sheet. Stay defocussed.
|
Hey Brent, that sounds like a bit of Zen philosophy - stay defocussed, man!
I have found that alcohol defocuses me very nicely.
Peter
|
15-10-2014, 04:06 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto
|
Speaking entirely from a lay perspective, I would say that adding a filter-layer such as that window film would have a negative effect on your flats which would no longer be ambient light as seen through a LRGB etc filter but as seen through that filter and that film so your flat represents only that bandwidth which they both allow to pass. Can that be good?
Peter
|
15-10-2014, 05:22 PM
|
|
Astro Noob
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,982
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmrid
Speaking entirely from a lay perspective, I would say that adding a filter-layer such as that window film would have a negative effect on your flats which would no longer be ambient light as seen through a LRGB etc filter but as seen through that filter and that film so your flat represents only that bandwidth which they both allow to pass. Can that be good?
Peter
|
The short answer is I don't think it matters, but I'm very open to being corrected on this.
My "lightbox' is made from an electroluminescent panel in a cardboard box. It's kind of blueish anyway and when I do my narrowband flats my Ha and SII exposures are about 5 times longer than my OIII images to get a fairly consistent white level.
Certainly when taking flats through LRGB filters the exposures will be very different lengths to get images with a count around 25k but I'm not using the flats to calibrate colour but just to eliminate gradients and dust etc.
However after seeing Ricks post I think I'll just chuck some sheets of paper over the panel and see how how much light they absorb.
|
15-10-2014, 05:39 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluto
The short answer is I don't think it matters, but I'm very open to being corrected on this.
My "lightbox' is made from an electroluminescent panel in a cardboard box. It's kind of blueish anyway and when I do my narrowband flats my Ha and SII exposures are about 5 times longer than my OIII images to get a fairly consistent white level.
Certainly when taking flats through LRGB filters the exposures will be very different lengths to get images with a count around 25k but I'm not using the flats to calibrate colour but just to eliminate gradients and dust etc.
However after seeing Ricks post I think I'll just chuck some sheets of paper over the panel and see how how much light they absorb.
|
I don't think a bit of a colour cast would make much difference unless you had a scope with bad CA. As Hugh said it's common for flats with different filters to take substantially different exposure times. Even illumination is the important thing.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
15-10-2014, 05:56 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Thanks Rick and Hugh. I am certainly a little older. I may not be any wiser but, as the saying goes - I am now better informed. I prostrate myself at the altar of your greater knowledge.
Peter
|
15-10-2014, 06:44 PM
|
|
Galaxy hitchhiking guide
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,143
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmrid
These cameras have a mechanical shutter and it occurs to me that in short exposures, such as you do for flats and the like, there may be an artifact created by the opening (and closing I guess) of the shutter.
Anyone else experienced this?
Peter
|
Yes!
I owned a U47 for time. Apogee use Melles-Griot shutters with an iris closure.
They cause non-linear flat field exposures that has a measurable effect up to about 10 seconds.
I found this made taking sky-flats (read most accurate) nearly impossible.
The only fix was to take dome flats, and adjust the field illumination source to allow 15-20 second exposures with 30% full well capacity.
P.S.
I ended up returning the camera due a plethora of (other) problems.
|
15-10-2014, 08:12 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
My experience with the Apogee U16M is that flats are fine so long as they aren't sub-second. That was also my experience with a Starlight Xpress H-18 with a mechanical shutter.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
20-10-2014, 07:01 PM
|
|
Novichok test rabbit
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
|
|
Could you not delay the exposure until after the iris is open and stabilised? MaxIM has this feature in one of the side menu's, and I do this ALL the time with the FLI with a similar iris - I give it a 2 second delay between opening the iris before the exposure begins.
This would seem to circumvent the problem entirely - I also found short exposures BEFORE I used this technique showing the shadow of the iris.
|
20-10-2014, 08:43 PM
|
|
Ageing badly.
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,684
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
Could you not delay the exposure until after the iris is open and stabilised? MaxIM has this feature in one of the side menu's, and I do this ALL the time with the FLI with a similar iris - I give it a 2 second delay between opening the iris before the exposure begins.
This would seem to circumvent the problem entirely - I also found short exposures BEFORE I used this technique showing the shadow of the iris.
|
I employed a more basic solution. A Chesty Bond special across the objective before mounting light box.
P
|
20-10-2014, 09:20 PM
|
|
PI rules
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,631
|
|
The simple solutions are the best.
|
20-10-2014, 09:49 PM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
Could you not delay the exposure until after the iris is open and stabilised? MaxIM has this feature in one of the side menu's, and I do this ALL the time with the FLI with a similar iris - I give it a 2 second delay between opening the iris before the exposure begins.
This would seem to circumvent the problem entirely - I also found short exposures BEFORE I used this technique showing the shadow of the iris.
|
A KAF sensor will start counting photo electrons as soon it sees them, i.e. as soon as the shutter opens. I don't see how this could work?
OTOH, a Chesty Bond sounds good.
|
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 09:43 AM.
|
|