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.

edjrgibbs

Is this level of noise normal?

Recommended Posts

Both these photos were taken at -20 on a QHY163c and QHY183c respectively. Stacked with darks. Is the level of noise normal?

20671970_IrisQHY183cSript.thumb.jpg.a53ce7c8a56a0474b027c2045457ff9d.jpg

Details - QHY183c @ -20 degrees, 20 lights at 300s each, 44 darks 300s each, stacked

 

1277222602_IrisNebula-QHY163c-10102020-1hr40m-Ciril_CC.thumb.jpg.2fa6df0362f2b2be3480c1491979ee6e.jpg

Details - QHY163c @ -20 degrees, 10 lights at 300s each, 20 darks 300s each, stacked in Siril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 163 image looks too grainy. Looks like a DSLR image when it's too warm. You sure the cooler was running? What does the FITS header say for the individual subs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reply from my meagre store of experience.  I have over 3 hours of M31 lights using a QHY10 OSC  (-25c) which have similar noise and from seeing others unprocessed images I'd say yours were quite typical.  A lot of the skill in processing seems to be in reducing noise while retaining faint detail.

I'm surprised that you have spent twice the time taking darks as lights - more data is always going to improve an image.

Hope that helps

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no real answer to that question.

I'm going to say - yes, that is rather normal under some circumstances.

In any case, there are some other things that can be said - for example QHY183c is vastly over sampled.

Both images are processed / stretched more than the data allows. Both have very high background levels.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much depends also on the sky background. Where I image the sky background is a worse source of noise than dark current even in an uncooled camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I'll reply from my meagre store of experience.  I have over 3 hours of M31 lights using a QHY10 OSC  (-25c) which have similar noise and from seeing others unprocessed images I'd say yours were quite typical.  A lot of the skill in processing seems to be in reducing noise while retaining faint detail.

I'm surprised that you have spent twice the time taking darks as lights - more data is always going to improve an image.

Hope that helps

Michael

Thats what I thought. Cooler was definitely running. Fits header says

 

Image #1
    SIMPLE  =                    T / file does conform to FITS standard
    BITPIX  =                   16 / number of bits per data pixel
    NAXIS   =                    2 / number of data axes
    NAXIS1  =                 4656 / length of data axis 1
    NAXIS2  =                 3522 / length of data axis 2
    EXTEND  =                    T / FITS dataset may contain extensions
    COMMENT   FITS (Flexible Image Transport System) format is defined in 'Astronomy
    COMMENT   and Astrophysics', volume 376, page 359; bibcode: 2001A&A...376..359H
    BZERO   =                32768 / offset data range to that of unsigned short
    BSCALE  =                    1 / default scaling factor
    OBJECT  = 'M82     '           / The name of Object Imaged
    INSTRUME= 'QHYCCDCameras'      / The model Camera used
    DATE-OBS= '2020-10-09T20:18:27' / The UTC date and time at the start of the expo
    EXPTIME =                 300. / The total exposure time in seconds
    XPIXSZ  =                  3.8 / Pixel width in microns (after binning)
    YPIXSZ  =                  3.8 / Pixel height in microns (after binning)
    XBINNING=                    1 / Binning factor in width
    YBINNING=                    1 / Binning factor in height
    XORGSUBF=                    0 / Sub frame X position
    YORGSUBF=                    0 / Sub frame Y position
    EGAIN   =                   1. / Electronic gain in e-/ADU
    FOCALLEN=                 1000 / Focal Length of the Telescope in mm
    JD      =     2459132.34966435 / Julian Date
    SWCREATE= 'Astro Photography Tool - APT v.3.33' / Imaging software
    SBSTDVER= 'SBFITSEXT Version 1.0' / Standard version
    SNAPSHOT=                    1 / Number of images combined
    SET-TEMP=                 -20. / The setpoint of the cooling in C
    IMAGETYP= 'Light Frame'        / The type of image
    GAIN    =                  120 / The gain set (if supported)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

I'm surprised that you have spent twice the time taking darks as lights - more data is always going to improve an image.

Unfortunately due to limited imaging time. I took the darks the following day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case I'd say more subs. Lots of subs. Do you have much LP? This target is a no go for me at Bortle 6. Tried a few times and its just too faint to bring out the dusty stuff without messing it up. Tried mono with an ASI1600 and also with a 6D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

In that case I'd say more subs. Lots of subs. Do you have much LP? This target is a no go for me at Bortle 6. Tried a few times and its just too faint to bring out the dusty stuff without messing it up. Tried mono with an ASI1600 and also with a 6D.

Probably bortle 5. Sounds like the conditions weren't the best... Just need some clear skies to retry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are dusty targets which always need very substantial integration in order to come out looking smooth. In fact they never really do because I suspect the dust is naturally grainy. The Iris shows that the second image has had a harder stretch which goes with its higher noise. I think you just need much longer integration on this kind of target.

Olly

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.