Jump to content


Flats problem or something else


Recommended Posts

Well I tried to test my first hypothesis (whether there is any stray light in the subs) but didn't end up showing anything useful. I have since been exploring ways of creating a synthetic flat which should at least remove the dust shadows. Still a work in progress.

It shows promise (the dust shadows appear quite well) but it is a pain getting rid of the stars. I'm trying various techniques out but would be interested in others techniques for synthetic flats.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I just wanted to close this topic off, in case anyone is desperate enough to read to the end!

I have spent nearly two months trying to sort the problem out, and was starting to question my sanity, but in the end the camera supplier (FLO) were good enough to provide me with a replacement camera to test. I'm pleased to report that the inverse vingetting and curvy lines that were visible in the 'background' of the stacked images have all gone, so I am concluding that there was some kind of problem with the camera (I have been careful to change nothing else in the imaging train or software settings, so I'm 99% sure that this is the case, although I don't know enough about the camera to work out what kind of fault could have caused it).

To be more accurate there remains a little inverse vignetting, but ABE / DBE in PixInsight deals with it pretty well. In the end it was the curvy lines in the background that couldn't be dealt with through any ABE/DBE or alternatives that convinced me that the camera was to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Hi Phil, this is an old and closed off thread, but it was really helpful to me. Something is not quite right with my LRGB shots on the mono version of the ASI1600 - essentially the backgrounds are brighter than they should be...I think I'm getting the inverse vignetting you were talking about here.

Scouring SGL and CN for a solution, I found comments on CN saying that the bias frames are inconsistent for this camera below exposures of 0.2s...that rings true to me as it has been in my Lum and B integrations where what I thought was light pollution was appearing in the corners - the dark flats I was using for those were really short as in 0.04s...

...my trail of thought is to try to dim the light panel to get flats of more than 0.2s in length or to go back to using bias frames, but which are more than 0.2s in length.

I'll report back if this makes a difference as it may be helpful to you or others, or i will make a new thread if you've moved on from this.


Link to comment
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.
  • Similar Content

    • By Richard_
      Hi all,
      I've run into a bit of a strange instance when calibrating my OSC subs using my master flat generated from a white tablet screen, especially with my L-eXtreme filter. One corner seems to overcorrect using these flats, however, when I use skyflats I don't see this overcorrection and the end result looks pretty good. Whilst the answer is clearly "take skyflats", I'm not always fortunate enough to take flats first thing in the morning (weather wise, it is the UK!) so it would be great to understand what's going on with my tablet and how to avoid this issue. Details are below, but my questions are:
      How can I prevent over-correction with tablet flats? Am I over-exposing them? If I change my light source, will I see this same issue if using an EL panel (e.g. like this one )or a bespoke flat field generator (like those provided by Geoptik, Pegasus Astro etc.) Is there anything in the PI WBPP 2.0 script which can help identify overcorrection and adjust the amount of correction applied?  
      For the tablet method, I capture my flats using the auto-exposure tool in my ASI Air Pro (it calculates the optimum exposure time based on the light source presented). The light source is my tablet display at 100% brightness, no blue-light/night time filter, and displaying this blank, white page provided by Covington on the screen. The display is large enough to cover the entirey of my Redcat 51. I attach 2 layers of t-shirt to the front of the telescope and the camera used is an ASI533. It's a small sensor, so I wouldn't expect to see a significant amount of vignetting compared to a full frame camera. For the skyflats, I used the same approach but used 4 layers of t-shirt isntead of 2 to ensure I don't end up with too short of an exposure time.
      The exposure time has been adjusted to ensure the average value of the individual frame is ~30,000 ADU for a 14-bit image. For the tablet flats, this results in a 7 second exposure using 2 layers of t-shirt. For sky flats (overcast day), this results in 180ms flats using 4 layers of t-shirt to ensure the exposure time wasn't too low. The optical train had not been disturbed in this time, and both approximate exposures were determined by the ASI Air Pro auto-expose feature (I rounded them up when shooting). There were 30 x flats for each case. The tablet flats were taken at midnight, the skyflats were taken in the morning. Other than this, there was no difference in imaging conditions.
      All stacking is performed in PixInsight using the WBPP 2.0 script. All settings under flat are left at default settings. The script was executed twice: the first was using tablet flats, the second was using skyflats. No other changes were made in the stacking process.
      Flat Images and MasterLights
      Below are four screenshot images. The top row shows debayered master flats (purely for illlustration purposes), the bottom row shows the final stack. The left side shows the tablet flats, the right side shows the skyflats. The statistics are from the master flat, pre-debayered, and show there there is a small sifference in mean values. However, the images show much brighter corners for the tablet flats, especially in the lower left where I see over-correction. You can see this clearly in the master light images. Looking at the master light which was calibrated using tablet flats, you can see a red cast over the lower left corner which I suspect is overcorrection from the flat. However, you do not see this on the master light which was calibrated using skyflats, the background looks fairly uniform.

    • By TakMan
      Still sorting the (new to me), Atik 16200 imaging train as I try to shift from my trusty SBIG 8300, Mac to PC for mount control/capture and from a separate guide scope to the Atik OAG....
      The camera needs to go back to Atik (awaiting the email from Vince) as there is dust inside the chamber, so this is a good time to get everything checked - ready for the autumn season.
      After some imaging/testing time at the rear of Leo in the last week, I noticed on my flat frames a strange half moon light - by the dust mote (that was over-correcting the lights).

      Eventually I worked out it was the screws surrounding the sensor cover window (or the 3x rounded cap screws that attach the EFW3), bouncing the light onto the back of the filter (Baader L in this example) and I suppose onto the cover window and onto the sensor. To test the theory, I opened the imaging train up and added a Sharpie pen to them. Couldn't get into the cross-heads with the pen, but with re-testing, the reflection had gone! Perhaps it would never be an issue with the actual light frames, but you never know with a bright star in the frame of a future target...?
      So today, after shifting slightly outwards the OAG stalk, I addressed the stainless steel screws 'properly', by (again), taking everything apart and lightly painting a cover of matt black acrylic paint over them and into the x-heads (a bit of overspill), nothing too heavy-handed as I didn't want to glue the things in with paint! The finished effect is duller than the pic here and the reflection has gone after another round of testing.

      Always something to catch us out, hey!? Why Atik can't use black screws is another matter.....
      Perhaps this may help others out at some stage....
    • By astrobena
      Hey everyone,
      Over the past few days i've been gathering data on M31 due to the battery not lasting long and andomeda dissapearing behind a tree, therefore the mulitple imaging sessions. So far i've been out and me being me, only took dark, bias and light frames for the first 2 sessions but for the last one i also included flats... (The lights all have very slightly different settings cause i have been experimenting slightly... that being 45sec @ ISO 400, 45sec @ ISO 200 and 50sec @ ISO 100) Now DSS assinged all the correct bias and dark frames to the corresponding light frames but because i only have flats for my last imaging session it applied those to all the different light frames and not just to the last set...(and due to me moving the telescope / taking the camera off, the dust spots have obviously been moving around and that therefor dont work at all for the other light frames...) So my question: Is there any way in DSS to apply flats to only one set of light frames and if not are there any other apps with which i can do this with?
      Many Thanks!
    • By AstroRookie
      when applying the flats taken in my last session (to find out what is causing the strange diffraction spikes) with Siril, the final stacked result still shows the vignetting and the dust spots. I also did the whole preprocessing with Nebulosity, same result.
      I took the flats as follows:
      same iso as my subs camera and focus not touched I use a homemade flatbox combined with the a white t-shirt with Ekos took test shots till the histogram was half-way to the left checked all my flats, they all show vignetting and the same dust spots as in my subs I tried using them with and without using a bias frame, same result, the final result looks as if no flats were used.
      Anybody any idea what is going on? An other question I have, will the vignetting and dust spots also show in the master flat (flats stacked)?
      Thanks for your help,
    • By Jammy
      Hi all.
      I've created my own darks library for my ASI1600mm Pro.  Various gains and various exposure times all at -10 Celsius.
      I'm just wondering what people do with them?  Once you've taken darks and processed an image you get your master darks.
      Do you guys just keep the master dark, in a master darks library, or do you process your darks again each time you stack a new image?
      I'm just thinking to save storage, could I discard the dark sub frames and just keep the masters?  I don't want to throw them away if that is wrong though.
      Also, with this camera I take dark flats rather than bias frames.  Because the scope is covered, do I need to do dark flats each time I take flats?
      I have an even illuminated flat box which I always use at the same exposure lengths.  I guess the only thing that could vary is the gain value.
      I understand the need for flats every time you change focus, for each filter etc., but if I'm using the same exposure time can I just use a previous set of dark flats as long as the camera settings are the same?
      If this is possible, can I then create a dark flats library for any difference in gain values?  Not sure if I gain values affect dark flats though.
      I've read that back, and that's a lot of questions!  All help greatly received.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.