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.

BrendanC

Calibration darks, flats and biases - the very basics

Recommended Posts

I know, I know, this has been discussed endlessly here and elsewhere, but I've read lots and watched lots and some of it I understood and some of it I didn't. A lot of it I didn't, actually, mainly because every time I think I get it, someone else contradicts what I think I've 'got'.

I've reduced it all to this, regardless of the number of lights I take, assuming I'm using a DSLR, with all the below steps at the same ISO value as the shoot:

ANY TIME
Bias - 50 frames with the cap on, exposure time=shortest

DURING SHOOT
Darks - 50 with the cap on, exposure=as per shoot
Dark Flats - 25 with the cap on, exposure=AV mode
Flats - 25 with the cap off, diffuse white frames eg t-shirt with light behind it or morning sun, exposure=AV mode

I know everyone has their own take on this (which is kind of my problem understanding it) but, reducing this to the very, very, very basics, as a starting point for a total noob with calibration... would this work?

Edited by BrendanC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • I've asked about this myself, and got lots of different answers,, it would be good to have a defacto guide
Edited by Frank the Troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of links out there, all of which claim to be 'the definitive guide' but every time I read one, I notice that they've said something that makes no sense, or they're unclear about a certain specific part of it, or there's a huge debate that ensues around very obscure technicalities.

I just want to know whether this extraordinarily basic 'recipe' I've come up with, for my specific situation of having a DSLR, could work, as very, very, very, very basic starting point, as a general rule. without going into any specifics whatsoever.

Edited by BrendanC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a dslr:

  • Bias frames with the lens covered (a plastic lens cap is not enough), same iso as lights. Shortest exposure time possible. The more the merrier, but at least 50.
  • Darks with the lens covered (a plastic lens cap is not enough), same iso and exposure time as lights, and as close to the same temperature as possible. As many as possible, at least 20.
  • Flats, at the same aperture as the lights, if you use a lens. Preferably also the same iso, but not necessarily. Note the iso and exposure time. 
  • Flat darks, at the same settings as flat frames (iso, time) with the optics covered.

Bias and dark frames correct electronics in the camera, so they need the same electronics settings: exposure time, iso and temperature, as the light frames.

Flats correct optical issues (shadows from edges and dust), so they need to be taken at the same optical settings as the light frames, same aperture, camera orientation, etc.

Flat darks correct the electronical issues of flat frames, so need the same camera settings as flats, iso, temperature, exposure time.

If you use darks and flat darks at the very same settings as lights and flats, you don't need bias frames. Otoh, darks don't always work with non-cooled dslrs, and you replace them with bias frames. You can also replace flat darks with bias frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, really appreciate the feedback - and here we go again...

When you say "Otoh, darks don't always work with non-cooled dslrs, and you replace them with bias frames."

Does this mean that, given I'm using a non-cooled DSLR, I should forget about darks and use bias frames instead?

"You can also replace flat darks with bias frames."

Does this mean I can, or I should? And if I replace dark flats with bias too, then does this mean I don't need to bother with darks at all?

In which case 'the recipe' becomes:

ANY TIME
Bias - 50 frames, optics covered, exposure time=shortest

DURING SHOOT
Flats - 25 with the cap off, diffuse white frames eg t-shirt with light behind it or morning sun, exposure=AV mode

Yes? No? Somewhere in between?

 

Edited by BrendanC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BrendanC said:

When you say "Otoh, darks don't always work with non-cooled dslrs, and you replace them with bias frames."

 For darks to work, their temperature needs to match the temperature of the light frames. Since you can't control that temperature, darks may not work. Some astrophotographers get good results using darks. Others, including me when I used a dslr, don't see any benefit with darks, and don't use them. There's only one way to find out: experiment. Integrate a stack with, and the same stack without darks. Then compare the result. If the image is the same or better without darks, you don't need them and you can leave them out of your workflow. Since flat darks have a shorter exposure time than ordinary darks, usually you don't need them. You can then just replace them with bias. The frame types you need are then: lights, bias and flats.

16 minutes ago, BrendanC said:

In which case 'the recipe' becomes:

ANY TIME
Bias - 50 frames, optics covered, exposure time=shortest

DURING SHOOT
Flats - 25 with the cap off, diffuse white frames eg t-shirt with light behind it or morning sun

Correct

16 minutes ago, BrendanC said:

exposure=AV mode

I always use manual settings for AP. That way I know the settings will be the same. In any case, make sure that iso is the same. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrendanC said:

 

DURING SHOOT
Flats - 25 with the cap off, diffuse white frames eg t-shirt with light behind it or morning sun, exposure=AV mode

 

Note: you do not need to take your flat exposures during the shoot (ie. the night of the light frame exposures).  After shooting a sequence of light frames, and at end of a session - you can simply carry in your telescope / lens with camera still attached, and ensure that you do not move the camera from it's orientation, and do not change the focus of the telescope / lens.  Then you can eg. go to bed, and return to shooting flat frames the following day (or even a eg. few days later) when you have time.

Edited by feilimb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bias:   Yes

Flats:  Yes

For a non-cooled DSLR, darks and dark flats are pretty much the proverbial "urinating into the prevailing airflow" for reducing noise. and can actually make things worse.

If you are guiding, then implement an aggressive dithering plan (min 12 pixels between subs) and use sigma pixel rejection in the stacking process.

If you are not dithering, then you really should. This is the most effective noise reduction method for DSLR imaging.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant, thanks all. It's very much clearer now. I actually tried using darks in DSS and it really didn't work out. I think this could be why - it's just not suitable for my situation. I might try again sometime, but I'll also experiment with just flats.

Nice to know that I can do the flats after the shoot too rather than sticking around in the cold and dark, Gollum-like.

I'll also think about whether or not to use AV focus. I just did it because I read somewhere that you should, but I can see it introduces something random into the process that should be under control.

Finally, @Pompey Monkey I'm not guiding, but when you say I should be dithering, do you mean I should be whether or not I'm guiding? In which case, is this something I should be looking at my camera to control (Canon EOS1000D), or software? I thought DSS could handle this sort of thing? I realise this isn't strictly related to calibration but I'd like to tie this final one off, now I'm a bit clearer on the other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guiding is required if you wish to shoot 'long' light frame exposures, and do not wish to have either star trails or egg shaped stars in the lights.  Guiding refers to the use of a smaller telescope of short focal length (eg. 100-200mm) mounted on the main telescope (although there are other ways to achieve it - via the use of an 'off axis guider').  With such a setup, the main telescope is mounted on an equatorial mount, and is 'tracking' the stars - but such tracking is never perfect, and it is the job of the guide scope (and associated software - which is not DSS) to 'nudge' the mount 'a little this way, and a little that way' when it needs to keep a star in the same location on the image frame.

If you shoot very short exposures, it is sometimes possible to avoid the need for guiding altogether.

I am assuming you are or will be using a telescope for imaging, but perhaps you are just using a camera with a lens of relatively short focal length (50-150mm) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dithering, in case the term isn't clear, is displacing the optical train by a few pixels' worth every so often, so the same pattern of photons isn't falling on exactly the same spots on the sensor for frame after frame. That can lead to noise artifacts ("walking noise" is commonly called out).

It's frequently and conveniently used in conjunction with autoguiding because this is exactly what an autoguider does -- repoint the optics by a tiny bit (a fraction of a pixel) to compensate for mount imperfections or whatever during the exposure. The same software and hardware can be used between exposures to repoint by some number of pixels in a random direction, so that the resulting frames don't quite all line up and the noise artifacts are vanquished. Stacking software has to be able to align images anyway (frame-to-frame pointing is never perfect to begin with), so it's easy for it to deal with dithered images.

It can be done manually by changing where the optics are pointing by a little bit between frames, whether that be via a mount's hand controller (mildly tedious) or by changing a ballhead's position by a fraction (SUPER tedious).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all. :)

I was just wondering whether dithering - as in, changing the optical train, as you say - was something I should be doing given I'm not guiding and if so, whether that would be a hardware (camera/scope/mount) or software setting.

I'm going to leave dithering for another time. This was really about calibration and I'm happier with that now.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By ACross
      Hi All, I am posting what I suspect is a newbie mistake question but hoping that someone can assist with the issue of flats.
      Although I have been fumbling around the sky, taking snaps at leisure, recently I became serious.  I have read up about the different calibration files (flats, darks, bias) and they seemed to make sense; different ways to capture the image defects and extract those from the image of the sky. After a few weeks (months) of further fumbling I went back to the very first target to receive my attention, M42 Orion Nebula.
      In short, I took 20x 30s exposures in LRGB  and ran these along with 20x LRGB each of darks, bias and flats. To obtain the flats I used a diffuse sheet of perspex (lightbox material) and an LED video lamp that has 180 white LEDs, turned to its lowest setting. Attached below is the stacked Luminance flat and the light image. In the lights I am getting very strong marks from dust and I had thought that the flats would subtract this but looking at the flats the marks are completely different shapes and do nothing to remove them from the lights.
      The attached has been further stretched to show the issue. Now, I am obviously doing something wrong but I have no idea what, any pointers from the vast pool of knowledge will be much appreciated.
      Thanks, Anthony
       


    • By stevebeukema
      Hi all,
      First post here, and I'm pretty new to AP, just picked up a Star Adventurer mount a couple months ago and have been happily playing around with it with DSLR and various lenses and a 72mm Sky-Watcher refractor.  I'm new to the whole setup process, and I'm trying to do a decent job of leveling the tripod/mount, polar alignment, and I should probably think more about balancing the weight of things.  I've gotten some decent shots, like 60-120 second subs with up to 300mm lens.  My last time out I was getting star trails at 200mm and 15 second exposures, which could have been just a sloppy polar alignment, but today out of curiosity I looked through the polar scope and rotated the RA axis 360 degrees, and I saw that the target circle jumped a few times.  I'm guessing that the target circle should appear not to move while the numbers 3, 6, 9, 12 would rotate around as I rotate the RA axis.  So my guess is that the polar scope would need to be calibrated?
    • By MeyGray3833
      Hello.
      I have an unusual problem with my AZ-EQ6.
      I decided that I wanted to try pulse guiding rather than ST4, to get rid of a cable.
      I use MaxIm for all my controls, capture, guiding, pointing etc. and I use the EQMod ASCOM scope driver.
      My initial pulse guiding efforts worked ok, the mount would move and guide etc, no worries. I was not pleased with the pulse guiding results after some fluffing around so I moved back to ST4 and this seems to be where my issues started. 
      Now, whether I choose ST4 or pulse guiding, my mount will no longer calibrate in the Y axis (Dec, I believe), or for that matter, guide. I have tried the move commands from inside MaxIm guide tab and X responds to a 10 pixel move but not Y.
      I tested with both PHD 1 & 2 with the same results. 
      If it were a hardware issue, as in the mount has a Dec problem, would I be able unable to operate the mount with the hand controller or on screen motion buttons, both of which slew the mount fine? I could understand if the guide port were malfunctioning that ST4 would possibly have an issue but not when the mount slews as directed, so pulse guiding should work.
      Could it simply be that my EQMod driver has got confused and needs to be re-set, or am I looking down the barrel of sending my mount back to the dealer?
      Does any of this make sense?
      Thoughts and feedback most welcome. 
    • By sza85
      Hi!
      Yesterday I was reading about dark frames vs in camera long exposure noise reduction, and something caught my attention. As far as my (so far little but growing) knowledge goes, the best you can do is to take the calibration frames right after the imaging session. This can be a pain in the A, and as I read yesterday, many takes these frames separately, when there is nothing better to do, like on a cloudy afternoon. This is allright, it's a good idea, you can create different master darks and other master calibration frames on different temperatures (room temp, cold, hot etc), and use these when stacking images from your light sessions according to the temperatures the lights frames were capured at.
      But. As far as I know, my darks should have the exact same settings and focus that my lights have. If I know I use for an example a prime wide angle lens at F2.8 all the time, with ISO 1600 to capture the milky way, that's okay. But what if something changes? What if I use ISO 3200 for some reason? What about the focus (okay, inifinity, but not exactly the same all the time when manual focusing)? What if I use a zoom lens on different focal lenghts? What about the other calibration frames?
      It's definitely not impossible to be prepared for every scenario, but when you use lenses instead of telescopes, there are more variations.
      Extra info, if that matters: I'm using a Nikon D5500, which is "ISO invariant".
      I'm really curious about your replies, as this could greatly improve my image's quality, if It's possible to take calibration frames this way.
      Thanks in advance!

      Árpád
    • By gerardsheldon
      When I look through my polarscope and rotate the RA arm, the cross hairs stay in the same place but the image itself moves.  Is this a problem? 
      I have tightened everything. 
      Can you explain why the image moves?  Is there another adjustment I need to do?
      Thank you,
      Gerard
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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