![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've been quite impressed by the results of simply pointing my Olympus
E10 at the sky and opening the shutter for eight seconds; it's got a good f/2.4 lens, and I get images down to about magnitude 8.5 through dire suburban skies. On the other hand, it seems to have hot pixels. I thought hot pixels were essentially a *manufacturing* fault in the CCD, and so a single dark frame (leave aperture and speed settings fixed, just also leave the lens-cap on) would characterise them adequately for all time. But in a set of 100 photos taken last Tuesday, I'm still seeing hot pixels after subtracting a dark-frame taken two weeks ago. My temptation is to compute a minimum for each pixel position across all the photos and use that as a dark frame; the photometry is dreadful in any case, even after I've summed across 2x2 pixel groups - not sure if that's a matter of the CCD response and the V filter being vastly different, I should probably plot brightness-residual against spectral type and see if there's a correlation. Is this a sensible way to proceed, given that most of the photos are star fields? Should I in fact be taking a dark frame for each observing session, and if so does this indicate there's something wrong with the camera? Tom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark Matter and Dark Energy: One and the Same? | LenderBroker | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | July 14th 04 01:45 AM |
Dark Frames | Stuart M | UK Astronomy | 5 | March 16th 04 04:18 PM |
"Dark matter" forms dense clumps in ghost universe (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 21st 03 04:41 PM |
Hubble tracks down a galaxy cluster's dark matter (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 17th 03 01:42 PM |