Bad Flats or LP?
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Bad Flats or LP?
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Since your using Pixinsight I suggest learning about background extraction
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
- Mac
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2770
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:07 pm
- 4
- Location: Akron OH
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
I use Photoshop to finish with Dodge and burn to bring down what PixInsight won't correct.
Scopes : Explore Scientific ED102 Triplet APO - Radian Raptor Triplet APO - Orion 50mm
Mount : AVX EQ | Software : KStars - EKOS - Stellar OS | Cameras : ZWO ASI533MC ASI1600MM ASI120MM-mini
CPU : Mac Studio, iMac - Kstars-Ekos on Raspberry Rpi4/RPi5 | Misc : Thousand Oaks dew controller - DewNot straps - Optolong L-enhance - ZWO EAF
Image Processing : PixInsight - LightRoom - Photoshop - macOS 14 - Windows 11
- yobbo89
- Moderator
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2605
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 7:44 pm
- 5
- Location: australia qld brisbane
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
cameras : asi 1600mm-c/asi1600mm-c,asi120mc,prostar lp guidecam, nikkon d60, sony a7,asi 290 mm
mounts : eq6 pro/eq8/mesu 200 v2
filters : 2'' astronomik lp/badder lrgb h-a,sII,oIII,h-b,Baader Solar Continuum, chroma 3nm ha,sii,oiii,nii,rgb,lowglow,uv/ir,Thousand Oaks Solar Filter,1.25'' #47 violet,pro planet 742 ir,pro planet 807 ir,pro planet 642 bp ir.
extras : skywatcher f4 aplanatic cc, Baader MPCC MKIII Coma Corrector,Orion Field Flattener,zwo 1.25''adc.starlight maxi 2" 9x filter wheel,tele vue 2x barlow .
- STEVE333
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 5:01 pm
- 5
- Location: Santa Cruz, Ca, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
I'm assuming these are the images after correction with the Flats?
What you are seeing is vignetting which produces an image that is brighter in the center and darker towards the edges. Of course there is probably some
If the Flats are correcting the vignetting properly, then, after calibrating the images you will be left with only the
Steve
Telescope + Mount + Guiding: W.O. Star71-ii + iOptron CEM40 EC + Orion Magnificent Mini AutoGuider
Camera: ASI 1600MM Pro + EFW Filter Wheel + Chroma 3nm Siii, Ha, Oiii + ZWO LRGB Filters
Software: PHD2; APT; PixInsight ***** My AP website: www.steveking.pictures
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Totally true... There is always something!!STEVE333 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 5:10 pm Nasty problem.
I'm assuming these are the images after correction with the Flats?
LP will generally show up as a gradient being brighter on one side (or top or bottom) than the other.
What you are seeing is vignetting which produces an image that is brighter in the center and darker towards the edges. Of course there is probably some LP mixed in too.
If the Flats are correcting the vignetting properly, then, after calibrating the images you will be left with only the LP gradient. In your case there is still a strong amount of the vignetting present (over or under corrected) even after correction with the flats. I'm having some problems with this too, but, mostly with the Red filter!! Not sure why one filter would have more problems than another. Still learning about this with my new ASI1600MM setup. Always something.
Steve
I think I'm going to play with the data a little bit, because I have one set of frames with 20k mean ADU values, but the other sets have 32k, and this is a mix. I think the 32k was overcorrecting, so I'm going to try to stack just the 20k frames and see what happens... I will share my findings here!
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Test 1: Blue filter
Here is the original blue master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed: Here is the Blue filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only: Here is the blue filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only: Test 2: Green Filter
Original Green master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed: Here is the Green filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only: Here is the Green filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only: My thoughts:
It appears that the 20k flats have a lot less of the bright vignetting than the 32k flats, but on the Green filter it appears that there are still some irregularities in the 20k stacks (that spot in the bottom left corner), even though it is less pronounced. That spot appears in my light subs, but not in my flat frames... I'm not sure what I could do about that, because I would think that you would INCREASE the brightness of the flats to bring out that spot so it is removed in calibration...
Maybe it would be beneficial to go even lower with the flats, maybe around 15k...
What do you guys think? Do you all see what I'm seeing, or have I been looking at this for too long? lol
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
lol no it's the mean ADU valueUlteriorModem wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:22 am When you say 32K flats, are you applying 32 thousand flats?
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- STEVE333
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 5:01 pm
- 5
- Location: Santa Cruz, Ca, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
That is a great test James! The fact that the 32K and 20K Flats produce different results is a real surprise to me. If the sensor/ADconverter combination was truly linear the two flats would have produced nearly identical results. The fact that the 20K flats produce the better results (at least to my eyes) implies that there may be an optimum ADU level for the flats. Whether it is higher or lower than 20K I don't know. I have seen several individuals using 12K flats for this sensor.Baskevo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:01 am Okay so I ran a few tests... Tell me if you guys see a noticeable difference:
Test 1: Blue filter
Here is the original blue master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.51.41 PM.png
Here is the Blue filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.20.36 PM.png
Here is the blue filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.20.28 PM.png
Test 2: Green Filter
Original Green master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.55.32 PM.png
Here is the Green filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only:
G20k.png
Here is the Green filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only:
G32k.png
My thoughts:
It appears that the 20k flats have a lot less of the bright vignetting than the 32k flats, but on the Green filter it appears that there are still some irregularities in the 20k stacks (that spot in the bottom left corner), even though it is less pronounced. That spot appears in my light subs, but not in my flat frames... I'm not sure what I could do about that, because I would think that you would INCREASE the brightness of the flats to bring out that spot so it is removed in calibration...
Maybe it would be beneficial to go even lower with the flats, maybe around 15k...
What do you guys think? Do you all see what I'm seeing, or have I been looking at this for too long? lol
As a result of your tests i'm going to be doing some testing of my own if the clouds ever leave. Hopefully both of us can find the ADU level that produces good Flats corrections.
Thanks for sharing your efforts.
Steve
Telescope + Mount + Guiding: W.O. Star71-ii + iOptron CEM40 EC + Orion Magnificent Mini AutoGuider
Camera: ASI 1600MM Pro + EFW Filter Wheel + Chroma 3nm Siii, Ha, Oiii + ZWO LRGB Filters
Software: PHD2; APT; PixInsight ***** My AP website: www.steveking.pictures
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Steve,STEVE333 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:35 amThat is a great test James! The fact that the 32K and 20K Flats produce different results is a real surprise to me. If the sensor/ADconverter combination was truly linear the two flats would have produced nearly identical results. The fact that the 20K flats produce the better results (at least to my eyes) implies that there may be an optimum ADU level for the flats. Whether it is higher or lower than 20K I don't know. I have seen several individuals using 12K flats for this sensor.Baskevo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:01 am Okay so I ran a few tests... Tell me if you guys see a noticeable difference:
Test 1: Blue filter
Here is the original blue master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.51.41 PM.png
Here is the Blue filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.20.36 PM.png
Here is the blue filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.20.28 PM.png
Test 2: Green Filter
Original Green master, with both 32k and 20k flats applied to different nights, fully calibrated and pre-processed:
Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 4.55.32 PM.png
Here is the Green filter with only the 20k flats applied from one night only:
G20k.png
Here is the Green filter with only the 32k flats applied from one night only:
G32k.png
My thoughts:
It appears that the 20k flats have a lot less of the bright vignetting than the 32k flats, but on the Green filter it appears that there are still some irregularities in the 20k stacks (that spot in the bottom left corner), even though it is less pronounced. That spot appears in my light subs, but not in my flat frames... I'm not sure what I could do about that, because I would think that you would INCREASE the brightness of the flats to bring out that spot so it is removed in calibration...
Maybe it would be beneficial to go even lower with the flats, maybe around 15k...
What do you guys think? Do you all see what I'm seeing, or have I been looking at this for too long? lol
As a result of your tests i'm going to be doing some testing of my own if the clouds ever leave. Hopefully both of us can find the ADU level that produces good Flats corrections.
Thanks for sharing your efforts.
Steve
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the difference! and that I can help fellow APers! Please keep me posted on your testing, if you get around to it! I think I'm going to continue with 20k for this next object, and see if it makes a difference, then I will try 15k, and see how that goes!
What is the most difficult part is if knowing whether or not you stacks could be better if you had better calibration... For example, my narrowband filters are clean, so I don't get a lot of dust motes to tell me whether I have calibrated correctly or not. I have to rely on the vignetting, which even then I don't see a lot of. But my Oiii frames are still very hazy and has a lot of noise and gradients, and it is hard to tell if it can get fixed from better flats.
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Baskeyo, could you describe to us the process you are using to calibrate? Are you using darks and bias as well? Are you scaling the darks?
I typically use Master flats that are already calibrated.
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
I spent about a month last fall reading and learning everything I possibly could about flats... From my understanding, the ADU value is a better indication of how good your flats are than the histogram is, and the profile is not the only thing that matters. I thought I was taking good flats for a while but they just would not help with myUlteriorModem wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:47 pm I am also surprised that flats of different adu values would have different results. I believed that the adu number of the individual flats was not really of great siginifigance. As long as they showed a good 'profile' of your optical train and were not saturated they should still be good!?
Baskeyo, could you describe to us the process you are using to calibrate? Are you using darks and bias as well? Are you scaling the darks?
I typically use Master flats that are already calibrated.
They have worked for me for the most part, just not on LRGB filters, at least not at the higher mean ADU value. I do not use bias, because they do not work well with the ASI1600mm, so I use flats, darks, and dark flats. I run the Weighted BPP script in
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Might try calibrating the flats outside of the scripts with the calibration routine, then stacking manually creating a 'Master Flat" and see if you get any different results.
If you have Kellner's book he describes the manual calibration and integration of calibration files in great detail.
One thing about calibration of files outside of the script you can set things like "Weight=0 Dont care" etc.
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
- STEVE333
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 5:01 pm
- 5
- Location: Santa Cruz, Ca, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
I agree - how well are the Flats working??Baskevo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 7:09 am
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the difference! and that I can help fellow APers! Please keep me posted on your testing, if you get around to it! I think I'm going to continue with 20k for this next object, and see if it makes a difference, then I will try 15k, and see how that goes!
What is the most difficult part is if knowing whether or not you stacks could be better if you had better calibration... For example, my narrowband filters are clean, so I don't get a lot of dust motes to tell me whether I have calibrated correctly or not. I have to rely on the vignetting, which even then I don't see a lot of. But my Oiii frames are still very hazy and has a lot of noise and gradients, and it is hard to tell if it can get fixed from better flats.
I realized there was a problem with the flats when the corners of my image turned "greenish" when stretched. Clearly the green was over-corrected, or, the red was under-corrected. The Green and Blue "corrected" images looked to be uniform from center to edged, but, the Red image appeared to be dimmer in the corners. That is what makes me think the Red channel is the culprit.
To make matters worse, I'm just in the learning phase of determining the proper exposure time for each filter. I'm hoping that the graph I posted recently showing the proper mean ADU target will help to standardize my exposures. Then, hopefully, I can find the proper ADU target for the Flats. My God this is a real learning process!! I never realized how much work it would be to switch from the
Steve
Telescope + Mount + Guiding: W.O. Star71-ii + iOptron CEM40 EC + Orion Magnificent Mini AutoGuider
Camera: ASI 1600MM Pro + EFW Filter Wheel + Chroma 3nm Siii, Ha, Oiii + ZWO LRGB Filters
Software: PHD2; APT; PixInsight ***** My AP website: www.steveking.pictures
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Why 0 gain? That may be more of the issue than anything else. Unity gain is 139 with an offset of 21.
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
- Baskevo
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
- 4
- Location: Orange County, California
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
I was experimenting with different gain values as recommended by otherUlteriorModem wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:03 pm I dont know for sure if that would be your issue. But they should match in gain, offset, etc.
Why 0 gain? That may be more of the issue than anything else. Unity gain is 139 with an offset of 21.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5738 ... be-qhy163/
Telescope: Explore Scientific 80mm FCD100 Triplet APO Refractor
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Cameras: ZWO ASI1600mm Pro (Cooled) | Canon DSLR EOS T7i
Auto-guiding: ZWO ASI120mm-Mini + Astromania 50mm Guidescope
Filters: ZWO 31mm Ha/Oiii/Sii 7nm + LRGB | Orion 2" Skyglow Filter
Accessories: Explore Scientific 2" Field Flattener, ZWO EFW 8 Position
Software: APT, SharpCap Pro, PHD2, CPWI | PixInsight, DeepSkyStacker, Photoshop
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/gp/186194203@N06/18B629
- UlteriorModem
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 1:32 am
- 5
- Location: Florida
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: Bad Flats or LP?
Filters already attenuate the signal, and they say to use lower gain?
Yes I have read that thread and frankly I used to putz around with gain and offset settings.
But finally decided to just set it at unity and go with that. Besides it makes (as you have learned) the calibration files just another level of difficulty.
But that is just my opinion.
Current Equipment:
Mount: Celestron CGX-L
Scope: 130mm f7 APO
Cam: ASI071mc-pro
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute