Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Observing >> Solar Observing and Imaging

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
drksky
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/01/09

Loc: Bloomington, IL
Single Vs. Double Stack
      #5587193 - 12/24/12 12:57 PM

I was curious to see the difference between a single and double stack configuration, so I did a little experiment with our SolarMax II 90. Here are the results:


I think the tuning of the DS image was slightly off, but you can see the marked difference between the two.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
*skyguy*
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/31/08

Loc: Western New York
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: drksky]
      #5587298 - 12/24/12 02:15 PM

I actually find the surface detail more interesting in the single filter image.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drksky
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/01/09

Loc: Bloomington, IL
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: *skyguy*]
      #5587472 - 12/24/12 04:22 PM

In this one, yes, I think so, too. But as I said, I think the DS tuning was off. But other DS images I've taken have looked much better. I think I pushed the etalon too far in this one and killed the detail in the active areas.

On the other hand, though, I do think that active areas can be more interesting through a SS as the spot detail shows better.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rigel123
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/29/09

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: drksky]
      #5587501 - 12/24/12 04:45 PM

I would definitely want to "Try Before I Buy" due to the cost of a DS. It would have to be a huge improvement for me to spend that kind of $$$$. Evidently it must due to the number that have them!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pawel
super member
*****

Reged: 10/27/08

Loc: Tczew, Poland
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: rigel123]
      #5587653 - 12/24/12 07:14 PM

I own two SM90 front etalons and I see biiiig differnce between single and double stack. Belive me, it's worth

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
marktownley
Postmaster


Reged: 08/19/08

Loc: West Midlands, UK
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: Pawel]
      #5587668 - 12/24/12 07:24 PM

I think a narrower bandpass is the way forward - trouble is its the $$$

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BYoesle
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/12/04

Loc: Goldendale, Washington USA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: marktownley]
      #5587714 - 12/24/12 08:14 PM Attachment (96 downloads)

Double stacking air spaced etalons reduces the FWHM bandpass from 0.7 angstroms for the single etalon to less than 0.5 angstroms for the pair. This is a very significant benefit, as at 0.7 A FWHM, “parasitic” light form the photosphere is passed through, obscuring chromospheric detail.

I used Coronado SM 90's, and a single Baader D-ERF for each configuration. The images were processed identically, and demonstrate the single SM90 on the left vs. double stacked SM90's on the right. The added brightness of the disk on the right is due to photospheric light leaking through, significantly reducing the contrast of the chromospheric details. Also note that prominences are as easily visible at < 0.5 A. Indeed, due to the reduction of photospheric contamination, prominences generally appear equally if not more “prominent” at < 0.5 angstrom bandpass:


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BYoesle
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/12/04

Loc: Goldendale, Washington USA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: BYoesle]
      #5587715 - 12/24/12 08:15 PM Attachment (79 downloads)

The image on the left clearly shows the “double limb” artifact - the disk of the photosphere leaking through at 0.7 A - rendering a translucent appearance to the chromosphere, and again reducing the contrast of chromospheric detail. Chromospheric detail is much more easily seen and imaged with the DS <0.5 A bandpass on the right. Both images again are identically processed.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dbowlin
sage
*****

Reged: 09/03/09

Loc: Littleton, Colorado
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: BYoesle]
      #5588147 - 12/25/12 07:05 AM

Great prensentation, BYoesie. Thanks, now I want to DS my SM 60. Will I get similar results? With what little viewing oppritunity I have had this year I don't know if it will be worth it?
Dale


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BYoesle
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/12/04

Loc: Goldendale, Washington USA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: dbowlin]
      #5588263 - 12/25/12 09:58 AM

Hi Dale,

You will get identical results with regard to contrast improvement and detail visability. I don't know of anyone who properly double stacks who doesn't see a tremendous improvement. There is an "old-wives" tail about it reducing the brightness of prominences, but as you can see this is false, for obvious reasons. The image will be dimmer overall - however there are measures you can take to improve this, mainly removing one (or more) of the ERF's:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=solar&...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dbowlin
sage
*****

Reged: 09/03/09

Loc: Littleton, Colorado
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: BYoesle]
      #5588738 - 12/25/12 06:02 PM

Thanks BYoesle, I enjoyed your older post. Great food for thought. Half the fun is deciding what to do and how best to do it.
Dale


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: BYoesle]
      #5588961 - 12/25/12 10:05 PM

Quote:

The image on the left clearly shows the “double limb” artifact - the disk of the photosphere leaking through at 0.7 A, rendering a translucent appearance to the chromosphere, and again reducing the contrast of chromospheric detail. Chromospheric detail is much more easily seen and imaged with the DS <0.5 A bandpass on the right. Both images again are identically processed.




Well, not quite. What the left image is showing on the limb is the Chromospheric "fringe"; the mass of fine spicules that, depending on how the filter is tuned, can show up as a thick band (sometimes called "the Spicule Forest"). Detuning the filter slightly can let the individual spicules show up in the filter, but the presence of the band on the limb does not necessarily mean that photospheric energy is leaking through. Zirin's book ASTROPHYSICS OF THE SUN on page 161 shows the effect of tuning a very narrow H-alpha filter on the spicule forest. A narrower bandpass filter set to the centerline of H-alpha will tend to screen out some of the slightly Doppler shifted detail (including some of the spicules), so the spicule forest band may begin to break down somewhat and be less prominent (or may show individual spicules that happen to be emitting in the passband of the filter). A broader filter will show less contrast for chromospheric disk detail but by its broadness, let in a little more off-band energy and may make the prominences a little easier to see than in a narrower filter. Thus, double stacking will show better disk detail contrast with a slight loss in the brightness and visible extent of some of the prominences. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
George9
sage


Reged: 12/11/04

Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5589003 - 12/25/12 10:39 PM

David, I don't doubt that a broader filter can pull in some more energy from spicules or prominences that are slightly off band, but I still assume that the reason for the presence of a dimmer spicule band above a brighter disk in Bob's left photo is photospheric leakage (i.e.,the brighter disk is leaked photosphere), no? In the Zirin p. 161 figure caption, Zirin seems to claim it is actually "the general chromosphere" instead, not the photosphere.

In that same p. 161 figure, I cannot find a citation to the bandwidth. Are you sure it is very narrow?

Also, even if it is nominally narrow, say 0.4 A, what if it is a Gaussian filter with relatively high tails. Couldn't it still be photospheric leakage?

Versus say a double-stacked filter with sharper shoulders and lower tails and therefore less photospheric leakage (i.e., Bob's right photo).

Which actually brings up a separate question about double stacking. Is the improved contrast from double stacking really due to the bandwidth going from 0.7 to 0.5 (the half-height width), or is it really due to changing the shape of the transmission curve from Gaussian to something with squarer shoulders and therefore lower tails? (That is, is most of the leaked energy right near the centerline, or is it spread further away in the tails?) I remember going over this with David Lunt in 1999 or 2000, and we did the math and it seemed to be the tails, not the nominal bandwidth. So a 0.7 A filter with sharp shoulders would also have noticeably better contrast than a regular 0.7 A filter.

George


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: George9]
      #5589038 - 12/25/12 11:12 PM

George9 wrote:

Quote:

David, I don't doubt that a broader filter can pull in some more energy from spicules or prominences that are slightly off band, but I still assume that the reason for the presence of a dimmer spicule band above a brighter disk in Bob's left photo is photospheric leakage (i.e.,the brighter disk is leaked photosphere), no?




I am more concerned with his choice of words here. That band is indeed the chromosphere seen in profile (ie: from the side). It is composed mainly of spicules and short fibrils or filaments and is not an "artifact" of the photosphere but a very real feature. In a narrower filter when tuned correctly, you can still see that fringe, although it will be notably less easy to see in a distinct way from the limb in the narrower filter, especially if the filter is tuned to the very centerline wavelength. The photospheric "leakage" is really continuum leakage and visually is better expressed by the lower contrast of the disk detail rather than the presence or absence of the fringe on the edge of the limb. Thus, calling it an "artifact" isn't really correct. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Spectral Joe
super member


Reged: 02/28/11

Loc: Livermore CA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5589120 - 12/26/12 12:53 AM

A thread from nearly a year ago that discusses the issue, with some references: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5057295/page...
The "band" is indeed the chromosphere, the "artifact" is the smaller disk, which is continuum light leaking through. It's hard for people to accept that their $6000 solar telescope doesn't "pass only the light of hydrogen alpha" like the advertisements say, but that's the way it is. A single etalon system, unless a much better (and more expensive) blocking filter is used, will pass enough contimuum to be noticed. Lunt, Coronado, and others know this. These instruments are marketed to the amateur community, who for the most part can't afford the equipment that has the top performance in this regard. The cost differential is large. When these etalon based systems were conceived I don't think anyone thought about high dynamic range CCD cameras and powerful image processing software being applied to them. Once these techniques are applied the faults become apparent. Never fear, you can always double stack. For more money, of course.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
George9
sage


Reged: 12/11/04

Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: Spectral Joe]
      #5589278 - 12/26/12 08:00 AM

That is a great thread. And yes that's what I meant by artifact. Thanks so much. George

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: Spectral Joe]
      #5589371 - 12/26/12 09:42 AM

Quote:

A thread from nearly a year ago that discusses the issue, with some references: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5057295/page...
The "band" is indeed the chromosphere, the "artifact" is the smaller disk, which is continuum light leaking through. It's hard for people to accept that their $6000 solar telescope doesn't "pass only the light of hydrogen alpha" like the advertisements say, but that's the way it is. A single etalon system, unless a much better (and more expensive) blocking filter is used, will pass enough contimuum to be noticed. Lunt, Coronado, and others know this. These instruments are marketed to the amateur community, who for the most part can't afford the equipment that has the top performance in this regard. The cost differential is large. When these etalon based systems were conceived I don't think anyone thought about high dynamic range CCD cameras and powerful image processing software being applied to them. Once these techniques are applied the faults become apparent. Never fear, you can always double stack. For more money, of course.




I so dislike the use of the terms "artifact" and "leaking through", as they imply that the filtering system isn't working properly when, in fact, it is. The passband shape of an etalon-based filtering system isn't infinitely sharp and the H-alpha line isn't square-wave sharp either. In fact, there is even just a little continuum energy from the sun at 6562.8 angstroms that is not being filtered out. What is happening here is purely a function of the passband width of the filter. The narrower the bandwidth, the greater the contrast of the disk detail tends to be. This is a combination of letting less continuum light in as well as screening out some of the slight Doppler shifted light detail. The fibril and filament disk structure tends to seem darker and a little sharper in narrower filters than in broader ones. It's just that simple. If you have a "leak", this implies that something well-off the primary passband's location is being let through, such as the unintended "leaks" found in some of the common nebula filters. This isn't the case in H-alpha solar filters. The primary passband is not leaking anything (it is just wider or narrower depending on the system's specifications or cost). As those with the old Daystar filters have sometimes found out, once the blocking or trimming filters start breaking down and actually "leaking" some of the other passbands of the "comb" created by the etalon, the H-alpha detail just goes away, so even a slight "leak" will kill the view and make it into just a very red version of the white light view. If you are seeing any chromospheric disk detail, the filter isn't really leaking anything. The same goes with calling some feature an "artifact", which in imaging and optical circles tends to mean something induced by the system that is not really there. This is not the case for the view of the spicule forest. It is a very real feature. Slight tuning variances can make it appear more distinct even in rather narrow filtering systems, so just because it is seen does not mean that this is some "artifact". If you want greater contrast, a double-stacked etalon can sometimes provide that, which is the plain and simple truth. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
marktownley
Postmaster


Reged: 08/19/08

Loc: West Midlands, UK
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: David Knisely]
      #5589828 - 12/26/12 02:19 PM

An interesting read indeed chaps, thanks!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BYoesle
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/12/04

Loc: Goldendale, Washington USA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack new [Re: marktownley]
      #5589937 - 12/26/12 04:13 PM Attachment (37 downloads)

Quote:

Which actually brings up a separate question about double stacking. Is the improved contrast from double stacking really due to the bandwidth going from 0.7 to 0.5 (the half-height width), or is it really due to changing the shape of the transmission curve from Gaussian to something with squarer shoulders and therefore lower tails? (That is, is most of the leaked energy right near the centerline, or is it spread further away in the tails?) I remember going over this with David Lunt in 1999 or 2000, and we did the math and it seemed to be the tails, not the nominal bandwidth. So a 0.7 A filter with sharp shoulders would also have noticeably better contrast than a regular 0.7 A filter.




For reference, I thought I'd post an explanation on how double-stacking reduces bandwidth from David Lunt, original founder of Coronado Filters:

The result of two identical etalon filters in series is a convolution of the transmission bands of each. The single etalon has a passband shape which is Gaussian. If the bandwidth at 50% of maximum transmittance is w, then that at 10% of Tmax is 3.5w and that at 1% Tmax is 10w. The transmittance at any point in the spectrum of the stacked pair is T squared, where T is the transmittance of the single filter. The most important characteristic is that the bandwidth is reduced by the square root of 2. Given two etalons with bandwidths of 0.7A, the combined bandwidth becomes 0.5A, and the 1% bandwidth (or the "tails" of the passband) are reduced from 7A wide to ~1.8A. Thus the effect is to narrow the actual bandwidth and increase the visibility of chromospheric detail, while the steeper shape of the passband reduces the out of band transmission, thus significantly improving contrast. Empahsis added.

Also see this discussion:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3435927/page...


Quote:

I so dislike the use of the terms "artifact" and "leaking through", as they imply that the filtering system isn't working properly when, in fact, it is.



Sorry if I have offended anyone. I did not mean to imply that by use of the terms “leaking through” or “artifact” that a 0.7 FWHM filter is not working properly. Rather only that the filter system is indeed letting more off-band photospheric energy through, degrading contrast, and showing features that are not really a property or part of the chromosphere – such as more “spot detail,” as well as the “double limb” of the photosphere.

In the 50’s and 60’s there was some scientific debate as to whether or not the “double limb” was a true feature of the chromosphere (see the link in Spectral Joe's post). The “double limb” phenomena was determined to be an “artifact” of “parasitic” photospheric light contamination by blocking filters with insufficient narrowness to block side band harmonics. The double limb was determined in reality to be the border of the photosphere’s disk, and not a property or phenomena of the chromosphere. The double limb also appears identical with bandpasses over 0.5 A.

Quote:

In a narrower filter when tuned correctly, you can still see that fringe, although it will be notably less easy to see in a distinct way from the limb in the narrower filter, especially if the filter is tuned to the very centerline wavelength... This is not the case for the view of the spicule forest. It is a very real feature. Slight tuning variances can make it appear more distinct even in rather narrow filtering systems, so just because it is seen does not mean that this is some "artifact".




I think this may be an issue of semantics - a narrow band filter eliminates the light from the wavelengths adjacent to the H alpha emission line, and therefore the boundary between the photoshpere and chomosphere disappears. Contrast is improved, and non-doppler shifted prominences are unaffected and as easily visible as at a wider bandpass.

There is no hint of the double limb, "fringe," or a separate “spicule forest” in my system when properly tuned and optimized at < 0.5 A . Of course if it is tuned off-band, more light form the photosphere will appear, showing the double limb artifact, or 'effect' if you prefer. By tuning a narrow band filter off band, one will of course introduce more continuum light, revealing the edge of the photosphere, and thereby producing the "spicule layer," or "fringe." However, in reality it is still the entire chromosphere (including spicules) on edge delineated by the now revealed photospheric boundary.

That the area of the chromosphere shown between the inner "double limb" shown at 0.7 A – the limb of the photosphere – and the remainder of the chromosphere lying beyond it, is sometimes mistakenly referred to by some as the "spicule layer/fringe" is understandable, but incorrect. It more accurately represents the entirety of the chromosphere lying above the photosphere (see diagram in the following post). Spicules themselves – features of the chromosphere - rise from the base of the chromosphere and penetrate the transition layer into the corona. These can be seen in the < 0.5 A double stacked animation link below just to the left of the surge prominence.

Again note there is no hint of the double limb from on-band light from the photosphere - or off-band light adjacent to the H alpha line - coming through, as it is far below the threshold (S/N ratio) needed for detection. Remember cooler Hydrogen in the photosphere is absorbing this wavelength far in excess of what the chromosphere is emitting, so with a sufficiently narrow bandpass the signal to noise ratio has rendered any off-band photospheric contibution invisible, and any on-band contibution from the photosphere is so weak as to also be invisible.

GIF https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31679363/June%2020%2C%202012%20Animation2%20gif.gif

AVI https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31679363/June%2020%2C%202012%20Animation1.avi


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BYoesle
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 06/12/04

Loc: Goldendale, Washington USA
Re: Single Vs. Double Stack [Re: BYoesle]
      #5590005 - 12/26/12 05:10 PM Attachment (40 downloads)

Another recent CN post concerning double stacking with good representations of the effects of narrower bandpasses can be found here:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=solar&...

Note particularly the single, double, and triple stacking comparison images by Jesus...


Representation of the chromosphere and spicules courtesy of NASA:


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
7 registered and 13 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Scott in NC, Phillip Creed 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 7138

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics