Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep8_banner.thumb.jpg.7fc4114c7705b14c0786cf342cea1f9c.jpg

swag72

Should flats TOTALLY elimate all gradients in an image?

Recommended Posts

Last night for the first time I took flats, having remembered that I already had a light panel in the back of my wardrobe that I'd bought years ago for another purpose. Strange thing to have hanging around in your wardrobe I know!!

So, the flats were taken for the 2 filters I bagged yesterday. They were around 28K ADU and showed gradients. Today I did a quick stack of red data, one with flats and one without. There was a definite improvement in the gradient, but there was still a little there. This was easily sorted out with DBE in PI, normally the gradient removal takes super human effort!

My question is whether correct flats should eliminate ALL gradients, or does it just make them easy to deal with? If the gradient isn't totally removed does that mean that my flats are not quite right? Perhaps my ADU is a little high?

Would welcome your thoughts on this, as I would say I have achieved a high percentage improvement, but not 100% which is what I would have expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gradients caused by outside influences - light pollution or the moon for example will not be corrected by flats.

Flats will only compensate for the differences in illumination in the optical path and remove imperfections such as dust bunnies.

Flats do much good, but for everything else there's DBE!!

Edited by johnrt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that some of the gradient could be caused by light pollution (particularly wide-field). Or, in the flats, possibly the shutter if the exposure time is too short? (not sure about this one).

Can't say I've ever had a flat deal with all the gradient perfectly myself.

Edited by Shibby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the fact that I have some gradient left shouldn't be a worry then - Thanks for that, the flats have obviously worked!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the fact that I have some gradient left shouldn't be a worry then - Thanks for that, the flats have obviously worked!!!

It is a good idea to use a bias control frame to remove the bias from all your flat subs before stacking and making your flat control frame. That way, any gradient caused by the camera bias will be eliminated from the flat. My Canon 1000D shows a gradient across the ccd in a bias frame.

Edited by FrankieValley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't subtract a bias at the time, just flats - But I have a bias I can throw into the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't subtract a bias at the time, just flats - But I have a bias I can throw into the mix.

Yes, subtract flats, bias and darks from your light frames, but also subtract the bias when you make up the flat.

Edited by FrankieValley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting complicated now!! I just chuck it all into DSS and tell it what the files are, lights, flats or bias!! Just had a quick run through and the bias took out a little more of the gradient that I tend to get along the bottom (like a bright line) - Definitely looks better using calibration frames than not!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how DSS works in practice, but essentially, subtract bias from darks and flats to make master dark and master flat. Then subtract bias, master dark and master flat from your lights.

It can be even more complicated..... but I tend to leave it there!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure how DSS works in practice, but essentially, subtract bias from darks and flats to make master dark and master flat. Then subtract bias, master dark and master flat from your lights.

It can be even more complicated..... but I tend to leave it there!!

I'm sure you mean 'Then subtract de-biased master dark and DIVIDE BY master flat on your lights.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure you mean 'Then subtract de-biased master dark and DIVIDE BY master flat on your lights.

Mike

Oh, absolutely. Forgive me for typing so fast as to be inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure how DSS works in practice, but essentially, subtract bias from darks and flats to make master dark and master flat. Then subtract bias, master dark and master flat from your lights.

It can be even more complicated..... but I tend to leave it there!!

This is not correct.

Darks contain bias information, so you don't subtract bias from darks, nor do you subtract bias from lights if you are dark subtracting them.

If you do so, you are performing a double subtraction.

Subtract bias from your flats only.

DSS has you throw everything in, but this isn't required....I had a long conversation with the chap who designed DSS about this as we had a thread going about a year ago to get to the bottom of all of this.

In all other programs apart from DSS, tcalibration is done as I describe, and it works that way in DSS too....you just uncheck some boxes I believe.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob, that is not correct either

For full wack, darks should have bias removed before use otherwise any scaling applied for temperature or exposure variation also scales the bias pedestal as well.

Application of the bias to the light is a straight subtraction. Application of the bias-subtracted darks to the light is a second subtraction.

Division by the flat field which has itself been bias and dark-subtracted is the last operation to the light frame.

however if the bias and dark are taken close together in time, you can ignore bias-subtracting the darks since you won't be doing any scaling

Cheers

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask that you stop picking holes (or not), in people's understanding and help Sara overcome the problem she posted. Thanks.

Correcting something that is incorrect is not picking holes. Your advice was wrong. If she'd gone by that, her calibration would be messed up and she would not overcome the problem.

@Skybadger. What you say is correct if you are using darks that are not temperature matched to your lights. What I said was correct if one is doing what should be done and using temperature matched darks, which should not be bias subtracted, as you pointed out.

Rob

Edited by RobH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correcting something that is incorrect is not picking holes. Your advice was wrong. If she'd gone by that, her calibration would be messed up and she would not overcome the problem.

@Skybadger. What you say is correct if you are using darks that are not temperature matched to your lights. What I said was correct if one is doing what should be done and using temperature matched darks, which should not be bias subtracted, as you pointed out.

Rob

whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sara....You've already had the correct answer to your question....don't let yourself get sidetracked by esoteric discussions about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin :D.....even with flats applied, there can still sometimes be a bit of gradient left, and also LP gradients will still be there....DBE in Pixinsight makes short work of these (can't figure the rest of PI out though!!)

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone's had a bad day... I found the discussion useful since currently battling to get my flats to work correctly. They over correct in AA5 and under correct in PI. But that's for a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Rob and since Sara is using a set point camera she'll be fine with his advice.

DSS is very worthy but I feel out of control with it, though I suppose I could do the reading. Personally I'd rather make a master flat first along with a master dark. Stack the flats using a bias master as the dark frame. This means you can chuck the gazillions of subframes involved off your computer, for one thing. It also makes it easier to find out what is wrong if something IS wrong.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks folks! It all went above my head a little way in! Didn't realise that flats won't cure LP - That must be what I have along the bottom of my subs then. Damn the streetlight!!!

Edited by swag72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.