Q: Lenght of sub-exposures
Posted 15 December 2013 - 08:43 PM
Posted 15 December 2013 - 08:47 PM
Advantage wise, the short exposure is much much less demanding on the mount.
Posted 15 December 2013 - 10:22 PM
Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:33 AM
Are there any advantages or disadvantages to using 6 10-sec sub-exposures as opposed to a single 60-sec exposure?
Under almost any sky conditions with almost any current camera, the 60-sec exposure is going to give better results. With short exposures like these unless you are shooting during the day read noise is the dominant source of noise in your image. Lots of short exposures have more read noise than fewer long exposures. Once your exposures are long enough that light pollution noise dominates over read noise, the situation reverses and you are better off keeping the exposures shorter. There are calculators available to let you know how long an exposure you need for this to happen--check the Starizona website for one of them.
My answer assumes that your tracking is good enough to provide round stars on a sixty second exposure. If that's not the case, then you are better off shortening your exposure times until you most of your subexposures produce good tracking. It's fine if you are throwing out the occasional outlier.
Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:40 AM
Part of it all too is what your are imaging. Point sources (stars) expose quickly, so if you were going for open cluster like the Beehive or coat hanger or double cluster you don't really need a long exposure. Objects with faint nebulosity like exposure time with the caveats mentioned in the above posts.
In the last several months a new technique has been mentioned / suggested / shown / demonstrated that sort of affects it all as well, called 'massive dithering' which shows a lot of promise and changes a little about what I think considered basics. It requires moving the mount between exposures and some interaction between the imaging software and the mount control / auto-guiding. I know BackyardEOS has PHD (a popular free auto guiding platform) dithering integrated into the program / package. Dithering helps the post processing software remove pattern noise, hot pixels, ?
Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:29 PM
I can easily understand what you're saying about the 6' X 10 vs. 60' X 1 example. Does the answer remain the same, however, if we're talking about, say, 600' X 6 vs. 1200' X 3 in a red zone. Also, how much of a role do bias frames play in controlling read noise?
I ask because I do a fair amount of imaging under truly ugly skies in terms of light pollution, and I've always been a bit foggy about bias frames.
Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:10 AM
Here's a stack of 10 3 minute subs:
Here's a stack of 6 5 minute subs:
Here's a stack of 3 10 minute subs:
Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:22 AM
There have been theses written about this question of image SNR. The best answer that I have seen in these forums and that I can offer you is: just test it for yourself. Take 20 min and 10min and 5 min frames of an object on the same night and process them with and without calibration frames. That will show you exactly what the difference are for your equipment and with your skies. No approximations needed.
As far as Bias frames go, I don't use them and I know a lot of people don't use them. That's appropriate if you are using a temperature regulated CCD and if your darks match your lights exactly (exposure time and temperature). The only time bias frames are required is if you are doing dark frame scaling (i.e. your darks don't match your lights but you want to use them anyway). Then the darks are bias-subtracted and the remaining signal is scaled linearly until the residual of its subtraction from the lights is minimized.
Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:31 PM
Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:40 PM
Posted 17 December 2013 - 08:27 PM
they believe Bias frames matter even with pretty closely matched darks and lights. I have collected the bias frames to give it a try. I have to admit, I don't see a lot of difference in their examples.