<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thanks Robert,</p>
<p>The process that Dr Glover presented for optimal exposure time
considers both camera read-noise for a given gain setting, and the
sky quality for light pollution, (I've also experimented with a
simple adjustment for filters band-pass but that has a long way to
go before it's accurate). So if we only consider the read-noise
vs light pollution issues, it's sort of a balancing act. An
exposure needs to be long enough to overwhelm the read noise, but
not so long that light pollution starts overwhelming the target
signal. So the optimal sub exposure time is basically an
intersection of two curves. Maybe that would be a good way to
graphically present the calculation in KStars. <br>
</p>
<p>The points you raise for other factors are very good,
interestingly the exposures I now tend to use in my fairly light
polluted backyard are so short that guiding is generally not an
issue. But when I'm able get to the darker site, I can use longer
exposures, and then guiding accuracy, (and aircraft traffic), both
become a limiting factors for my exposures. My guiding accuracy
usually varies in a sine wave that spans a few minutes. I
sometimes manually trigger my exposures to avoid running exposures
at the extremes of the accuracy issues.<br>
</p>
<p>But I think for the short term I should work to revise my current
code to improve it before I try to integrate it into KStars. I
just added data for a couple of other cameras. But I also want to
work on the process that Warren suggested for using bias frames to
determine read noise.</p>
<p>Also, it would be helpful for me to have a reality check on this
calculation with input from you more experienced folks. If anyone
wants to send me a few details, I can run calculations and send
them back for review. For this I would need your camera model
(preferably a ZWO or QHY camera), the focal ratio of the scope,
and the SQM of the site.</p>
<p>Thanks<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/5/23 10:18, Robert Lancaster
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F7B30993-F760-405F-B381-2AB4C0A93F1B@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hey, so maybe this is more to the point. The person taking the
photos may not know how all of this stuff factors into the optimal
exposure time.
<div>There are quite a lot of factors that would affect the best
length of an exposure and often times a number of us just take a
guess.</div>
<div>For example, I often will try for 5 minute exposures as a
default, but sometimes I am at a different location or using a
different camera and that doesn’t work.</div>
<div>Or maybe I have a guiding issue and have to just take a guess
at what might work.<br>
<div>I think if this tool only looks at the read noise, then
that is not as useful, but if you could make it take into
account a number of factors and then just make a
recommendation, that might be extremely valuable.</div>
<div>KStars knows your geographic coordinates. It knows the
camera model that is connected. It knows the filter you have
selected. It knows the brightness of the target you have
selected.</div>
<div>If you are guiding, it might also have a sense for how much
guiding error there is. It can get the temperature from the
sensor and other connected devices.</div>
<div>Since all of these things will affect the optimal exposure
time, I think it would be really cool if KStars could just
make a recommendation for the time.</div>
<div>I don’t think we would need a separate module for it, just
a box right next to the exposure time for the recommendation.</div>
<div>You could have a button next to it where you could edit
parameters that affect the calculation of optimal exposure as
well, but it could just use some defaults to start.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>KStars could also use side panel of the FITSViewer to
display estimated noise levels in addition to the statistics
info that is currently displayed there. I think this is a
separate idea, but the current noise levels could be used in
the calculation above as well.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just some thoughts,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rob</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Mar 5, 2023, at 11:50 AM, Warren
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:warren.craddock@gmail.com"><warren.craddock@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hey Joseph, you may inadvertently be
getting some light into your bias frames. Make sure
you cap the camera like you’d do for dark frames.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Here’s a more explicit, complete process
for measuring read noise from bias images. I don’t
have access to an astro camera at the moment (I’m
snowed in at Lake Tahoe, boo hoo) to verify this
process, but I can try it myself in a couple days.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div><a
href="http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~kaaret/2013f_29c137/Lab03_noise.html#:~:text=The%20read%20noise%20of%20the,removing%20hot%20and%20dead%20pixels"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~kaaret/2013f_29c137/Lab03_noise.html#:~:text=The%20read%20noise%20of%20the,removing%20hot%20and%20dead%20pixels</a>).</div>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In regards to subexposure length, I’m
not personally against the calculator, but maybe it
should have a disclaimer. I think it’s true that
almost everyone using recent CMOS cameras should just
use, say, two minutes by default. This consistency
really simplifies workflow.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If you have trouble with tracking,
periodic error, tracking, fast high clouds, wind
gusts, polar alignment, etc. then you can switch to
30- or 60-second subs with almost no effect other than
using more disk space and more CPU time.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">There may be people using older CCD
cameras with KStars / Ekos though!</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- W</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 4,
2023 at 10:38 PM Wolfgang Reissenberger <<a
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div style="line-break:after-white-space">Joseph,
<div>I’m not sure what type of function we are
talking here. Is your intention to calculate
the optimal exposure time for a single frame
or for the target? If its the first one, I
have the same questions as Hy. For the latter,
I’m happy to learn more about it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Wolfgang<br>
<div>
<div dir="auto" style="letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px;
text-decoration: none; line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; word-spacing: 0px;
text-decoration: none; line-break:
after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto" style="letter-spacing:
normal; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration:
none; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div dir="auto"
style="line-break:after-white-space">
<div style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing:
0px; text-decoration: none;">—</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing:
0px; text-decoration: none;">Wolfgang
Reissenberger<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing:
0px; text-decoration: none;"><a
href="http://www.sterne-jaeger.de/"
target="_blank"
style="font-family:Helvetica"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.sterne-jaeger.de</a><br>
TSA-120 + FSQ-85 + epsilon-160 |
Avalon Linear + M-zero | ASI
1600mm pro + 6200mm pro</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Am 05.03.2023 um 06:06 schrieb <a
href="mailto:joseph.mcgee@sbcglobal.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">joseph.mcgee@sbcglobal.net</a>:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Hi All,<br>
<br>
Let me explain my reasoning for
developing the optimal exposure
calculator and noise calculator. I
started fairly recently in this A.P.
hobby (mid 2019), and had no mentor.
Most of the online resources seemed to
provide information and suggestions
that were geared toward imaging in
very dark skies with more advanced
equipment than a beginner would own.
The typical recommended exposure times
I read about were on the order of a
many minutes.<br>
<br>
But when I was experimenting with and
learning to use my gear, I typically
did so in my own backyard (SQM
19.63). I initially spent quite a few
frustrating nights trying to find
exposure settings that would produce a
decent image. As I acquired filters,
I had to repeat the learning process.
Then when I had the opportunity to
travel to a darker site 90 miles from
my home, (SQM 21.65), I again had to
repeat the learning process. The
difference in the exposure times at
these two sites was pretty shocking to
me.<br>
<br>
I fully grasp that you all have
considerable experience with A.P. but
this tool is really not intended to
provide benefit to folks that have
such experience. The target audience
for this tool is the newcomer to this
hobby (like me three years ago). I
would have been thrilled to have tool
that says when I'm in my backyard
shooting with gain at 100, and no
filter, that my exposure time should
only be around 45 seconds.<br>
<br>
Now, back to the topic...<br>
<br>
Warren,<br>
<br>
You raised a suggestion that bias
frames could be used to determine
sensor read noise. I must be missing
some knowledge in this area. I just
ran a test with my planetary camera
(ASI-178), where I captured a set of
bias frames incrementing the gain from
0 to 400 in steps of 50, with an
exposure time 32us, (I believe that is
the lower limit for the ASI-178). I
then used a tool that can assess noise
in the image. The noise measured in
each image increased as the gain
increased; so this did not match the
downward trend I expected from the ZWO
read-noise graph.<br>
<br>
Perhaps the tool I used for noise
assessment was not the best choice.<br>
<br>
Can you explain further how I might be
able to analyze bias frames to
determine read noise?<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>