Canon 6d Does not need darks - discuss

[jetstream]

12 minutes ago, alacant said:

If we're interested in theory, then please let's check it's correct.

Unfortunately, sometimes it isn't. 

Such as?

Excluding opinion on Clark.

[Seelive]

Their's theory and theirs's opinion and I suppose their lies the problem 

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, alacant said:

If we're interested in theory, then please let's check it's correct.

Unfortunately, sometimes it isn't. 

The clarkvision article linked herein, is a prime example.

Thanks

I don't think that we should refer to theory as incorrect. If theory is incorrect and proven so - then it stops being current theory on that particular topic and is replaced with more correct / current theory (or we accept that we don't have a working theory of something for the time being).

What can be incorrect about theory is:

- Ones interpretation / understanding of the theory

- application of the theory - trying to apply theory in the wrong domain or in the wrong way

I don't dispute that clarkvision article is wrong. I did not read the article itself, so I won't reference it. I did read first post in the forum you provided a link to and did not find any evidence for accusations stated (maybe evidence was presented further down in discussion - I did not read all of it, so I can't tell).

What I can tell is that if clarkvision article is properly quoted, then it is indeed wrong. As long as sensor has any level of dark current (and having sensor with dark current equal to zero would indeed have far reaching consequences) - then we can't assert that dark removal is not needed. Best we can do is to explore under which circumstances omitting dark current removal won't affect results to the level that is significant to us.

When I quoted you about your remark that theory is not as important in the real world - I specifically meant above. I think that people would benefit much more from understanding in what circumstances they can skip dark calibration and what is the consequence of doing so rather than just telling them "it is OK to skip darks - they are not needed". Sometimes skipping darks makes such a small difference that result is the same for all intents and purposes, but other times - it can lead to quite different result.

[jetstream]

13 minutes ago, Seelive said:

Their's theory and theirs's opinion and I suppose their lies the problem 

And then theirs facts...

one fact is light hitting sensor can cause noise- and it is sure nice to have understanding of what specific causes are and how to deal with it.

[Seelive]

2 minutes ago, jetstream said:

And then theirs facts...

I don't disagree.  If observable or measurable facts do not form any part of a theory, then I would guess that the theory is suspect.

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Seelive said:

then I would guess that the theory is suspect.

Can you post that over in the "space/physics" forum too? 😀

Yes, for me facts are a very good starting point to learn from.

[Seelive]

2 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Can you post that over in the "space/physics" forum too? 😀

Yes, for me facts are a very good starting point to learn from.

Definitely not! I want to enjoy my time on this forum 😊

[alacant]

48 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

What can be incorrect about theory is:

- Ones interpretation / understanding of the theory

Exactly. 

Unfortunately, some of what is written is just plain wrong. Some understand the theory. Others just don't. It is those in the latter category who should perhaps refrain. 

Cheers

[alacant]

14 minutes ago, Seelive said:

I want to enjoy my time on this forum

LOL. We'll Said.

Let's go out and do it rather than talk about it. Especially if it's wrong.

Too much talking. Not enough doing!

Cheers

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, alacant said:

. Especially if it's wrong.

Ya but how do we know?

[jetstream]

6 minutes ago, alacant said:

Others just don't.

where are you with respect to this?

[vlaiv]

38 minutes ago, alacant said:

Exactly. 

Unfortunately, some of what is written is just plain wrong. Some understand the theory. Others just don't. It is those in the latter category who should perhaps refrain. 

Cheers

Problem with people that don't understand the theory yet believe they do is that they will not refrain themselves from stating their version.

Best course of action in these cases is to point out flaws in their reasoning, present them with evidence to contrary and offer accurate version of theory.

Sometimes that does not help either, but at least others will follow presented correct interpretation and evidence and draw their own conclusion.

[alacant]

41 minutes ago, jetstream said:

how do we know?

Have a look through the forum. You'll soon see that some are corrected on a regular basis;)

 

[powerlord]

Pfft - you can prove anything with facts*

Seriously all good - thanks vlaiv, thanks alacant et al.

As a beginner, it's not immediately obvious which are facts, which are theories, which are opinions. There is a vast range of experience here, and I'm using it as a 'validation' really of stuff I find on the internet - like any involved hobby it's not black and white. For example, I recently got back into Vinyl a bit, and you read some articles - and unless you spend 1000 quid on a turntable, and store your records in a humidity controlled safe, it will sound rubbish and you wasting your time. Clearly that may be true for that poor unfortunate individual who can tell the minute (arguably imaginary.. cough... my electronics degree raising it's head there) difference between 2 types of speaker wire... For the rest of us, we compromise - I got a 1990s sony deck and a new decent stylus, 1980 sony amp, and a pair of wharfdale speakers, and some second hand records off ebay - and it sounds pretty decent to me. and guess what - I'm the only one that matters.

Another example is when I took up paramotoring. I had no interest at the time in paragliding (I do now and fly unpowered often), I just wanted to go straight into powered flight. Some experts would swear blind you should not do that without the grounding of unpowered flight. Others were fine with it. That's still the case today.

With astro it seems similar, some will want to delve deep into the theory - that's the bit they enjoy. Others will get their kicks in other areas I suppose. I agree to a level, I want to understand what I'm doing (that's why I'm here, asking questions to learn), but also.. to use a physics analogy - sometimes the statement  'light travels in straight lines' suffices. Sometimes 'light is a wave' is all you need to tell kids. Later, they can learn about curving spacetime, and the duality of light.

Vlaiv offers his vast depth of knowledge on here, and I'm very grateful for him answering many of my numpty questions - and some of it I understood, and some went in one ear and out the rest - as it's (apologies Vlaiv) definately often in the spacetime/duality league**. As a beginner, and I fully accept everyone is different, sometimes I just want to know enough to be dangerous. Once I get more experience I learn more about why what I was doing worked and what it was for. That way, at least for me, I keep learning with what is interesting to me, and don't get bogged down with deep theory - I am interested in that.. eventually.. but tell me 'light is a wave' for now.

🙂

 

*stewart lee

**I'm actually re-reading some of his responses to my early questions back in Jan/Feb for example and they make much more sense to me now, with a few months more experience and reading under my belt - again, thanks Vlaiv.

[alacant]

4 hours ago, jetstream said:

Such as?

Excluding opinion on Clark

I do not wish to quote from this forum. However, you can find the answer to your query in the thread on clarkvision I quoted earlier. 

Cheers