Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Fuzz

Thread: Flats at low and high ISO - a comparison

  1. #1
    Fuzz's Avatar
    Fuzz is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 11,818, Level: 75
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 232
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10 Days registered200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Silverthorne, CO
    Posts
    469
    Points
    11,818
    Level
    75
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 450x 165 Posts

    Default Flats at low and high ISO - a comparison



    Most of the directions on taking flats state that flats should be taken at the lowest ISO. alsetalokin raised questions about WHY flats should be taken at the lowest ISO when lights were taken at high ISO. I'd never read a reason why, so at Al's urging, I decided to do a test.

    Shot 4.5 hours of NGC 891. In the morning, right before sunrise, I shot flats at low and high ISO. Flats were taken with the OTA pointing high in the northern sky. The sun was still below the horizon, and with a 6" ~1500mm FL scope (i.e. narrow FOV), it was pointing at a pretty evenly illuminated sky. I stretched a white t-shirt over the OTA (and held it stretched to avoid any wrinkles or folds).

    Shot 50 flats at ISO100 and 50 flats at ISO1600. The ISO1600 flats were shot first (camera had been turned off for about 3 hours until then). Ambient temperature was 36F.

    Stacked all in DSS in two batches, using the same lights, darks, and offsets (i.e. only difference were the flats).

    I then brought both images into Photoshop and applied 2 levels and 3 curves adjustments (up through the 6th screenshot in this workflow). The exact same adjustments were applied to both images (I actually applied the adjustments to one image and then copied all the adjustment layers over to the other one).

    Both flats corrected overall vignetting to the same level. The difference was in noise.

    I took a crop of the center of each image, converted into GIF to create an animated comparison. The image below is a 100% crop of the full frame:



    To me, this test suggests that with everything else being equal, using ISO1600 flats produce more noise than using ISO100 flats.
    Last edited by Fuzz; 09-18-2010 at 04:57 AM.
    spectre and frazzles114 like this.
    Visual: Celestron NexStar 8SE
    Imaging: Astro-Tech AT6RC, Sirius EQ-G mount, Orion autoguider, Canon 40D
    Location: Colorado Rockies

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:

    admin (09-18-2010),alsetalokin (09-18-2010),BritAngler (11-11-2013),CoryB (11-21-2013),dynamo (04-09-2012),LeFanch (09-11-2011),neek (08-10-2013),ozzmozizz (11-26-2010),scott-fl (09-18-2010),Skytopher (01-08-2016)

  3. #2
    alsetalokin's Avatar
    alsetalokin is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 36,116, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience PointsGhost Achievement! Averaging 5+ posts a day!Got three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,506
    Points
    36,116
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 633x 441 Posts

    Default

    Fuzz, that's great work, well done, a true experiment from which conclusions may be drawn. It certainly looks like the ISO 1600 flats introduced more noise, or the ISO100 flats removed more, or something. You can really tell the difference in the background noise.

    But...I actually think the galaxy itself looks better _with_ the noise.

    I know sometimes one adds noise deliberately during processing; is this a case where the noise in the subject itself actually improves the view? Or is it just my imagination?

    Fuzz, the Master of Layers... it possible to make an image using the ISO100 flats for the background and the ISO1600 flats for the galaxy, and then do the blink-compare with that? I mean, if you aren't doing something more important, like sleeping or eating, that is...


    Thanks for your hard work, I am convinced and will be shooting a new set of flats as soon as I am able.

    Cheers--
    --Al

    (I don't see a "Thanks" button on Fuzz's post !! )

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

    ETX125AT guiding WO Megrez 90 Apo/CGEM mount w/ polar scope
    WO Multiple Reticle Red Dot finder, Celestron SkyMaster 8x56 binos
    26mm SP, 12.4 mm SP, 8.8 mm UWA, 12 mm MA illuminated reticle, 2x Barlow, 3.5mm and 31mm Hyperions, TV 2008
    Meade DSI Pro II monochrome CCD; Meade LPI; Celestron NexImage; Canon EOS RebelXTi
    EQ-1 mount (emergency use only!)

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to alsetalokin For This Useful Post:

    BBillyC (12-08-2010)

  5. #3
    condensermike's Avatar
    condensermike is offline Bright Giants
    Points: 7,873, Level: 62
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 277
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!5 Threads Achievement!Gallery Achievement!50 Posts Achievement!
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Esmont, VA
    Posts
    285
    Points
    7,873
    Level
    62
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 57x 48 Posts

    Default Re: Flats at low and high ISO - a comparison

    Thanks for this!
    Thanks!, Condensermike
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    Homemade 6" F8 Newtonian on a Dob mount, Celestron 76mm F9 Newtonian, 114 Orion Starblast, EQ1 mount, Celestron Plossl EP (6mm, 8mm, 13mm, 17mm, 32mm and 2xBarlow lens), Jason Comet Chaser, Canon SD450 with CHDK hack, Canon T3, EFS 18-55mm lens, Canon EF 75mm - 300mm lens .

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Are my flats messed because of filter? processing help m42
    By corpusse in forum Astrophotography Image Processing Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 11:45 PM
  2. Flats
    By namregd in forum Astronomy Digital Cameras Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 07:41 PM
  3. m42 with flats!
    By corpusse in forum Astrophotography Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2010, 08:41 AM
  4. Shooting flats in broad daylight
    By Richard Crisp in forum Astrophotography Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-26-2009, 12:04 AM
  5. Comparison on C5
    By Rod Mollise in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-19-2003, 04:36 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.