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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, james_screech said:

The images don't need rotating as CMuniWin matches stars without it. So the only thing must be something is moving. As I never had this problem with my refractor I think I will just use the newtonian for visual work and go back to the refractor for photometry.

That's the point if it matches without rotating then the flat could be being applied in a different orientation with the before and after flip images.

Regards  Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andrew s said:

That's the point if it matches without rotating then the flat could be being applied in a different orientation with the before and after flip images.

Regards  Andrew 

The flat is applied to the image files without any rotation as the image train has not changed, just the orientation of the train with respect to the stars. The star matching is done in software which can compensate for the flip, the flats are applied before this so should work, unless the image train changes (movement somewhere).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, james_screech said:

The flat is applied to the image files without any rotation as the image train has not changed, just the orientation of the train with respect to the stars. The star matching is done in software which can compensate for the flip, the flats are applied before this so should work, unless the image train changes (movement somewhere).

Exactly, so if there were a gradient on the flat then as the stars are in different positions relative to the gradient they will have different "flat" values subtracted before and after the flip and before any photometey processing.

It could in principle explain what you are finding.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your master flat. It seems to me that stars placed differently on it will have the apparent magnitude changed as it should. So the question is does it accurately  reflect the response of your system both side of the flip. Movement could be shifting the collimation and thus invalidating the flat.  Can you take flats on either side of the meridian and compare them? Regards Andrew

FLat.png.d1ce71e93e8a7d9128d124cba06087cc.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Exactly, so if there were a gradient on the flat then as the stars are in different positions relative to the gradient they will have different "flat" values subtracted before and after the flip and before any photometey processing.

It could in principle explain what you are finding.

Regards Andrew 

If the image train was stable that would be fine as it would be correct, however if there has been movement the flat will no longer "match" the image and so produce the problem. In fact the flats both side of the meridian will probably be incorrect as movement will have occurred between the flats (tube pointing vertically up) and the first side of the meridian images. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andrew s said:

This is your master flat. It seems to me that stars placed differently on it will have the apparent magnitude changed as it should. So the question is does it accurately  reflect the response of your system both side of the flip. Movement could be shifting the collimation and thus invalidating the flat.  Can you take flats on either side of the meridian and compare them? Regards Andrew

FLat.png.d1ce71e93e8a7d9128d124cba06087cc.png

To take flats I need the tube to be vertical, so unfortunately no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flat does have a gradient (well, asymmetry at least, especially towards the bottom right) - how are you making the flat? I mean, this could be fine if this is indeed how the optical train behaves, but, if it's not truly representative, then it may well be the issue (despite my earlier thoughts!). 

Can you take one set of flats on one side of the pier, and then another the other side?

EDIT: Beaten to it 😉

 

image.thumb.png.7b5ba019e28606dfda5a89fdfee35241.png

Edited by coatesg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried flats with both an LED panel and an EL panel, both show a similar pattern, so it's likely to be real.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.