[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Machholz, Cassiopeia, and Double Cluster
Hi Andy
Do you have any details/routines that you use with Matlab for processing
images? The last time I used Matlab was ten years ago and I am curious
on how you read the files for processing.
I have access to Matlab on one of the PC's at work and am curious.
George Anderson
Montreal Canada
Clear skies and good health
Andrew Clegg wrote:
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> Thanks! Your questions about flat-fielding are right on, and they are
> questions that I wonder about as well. The flat fielding does seem to
> subtract at least some component of the Milky Way, unfortunately, but
> exactly how much (i.e., what would my final shot look like if the Milky Way
> hadn't been partially subtracted) is not easy to say. I apply a 100-pixel
> median filter to the original big scan (the 2410x3212 version). That seems
> to be the largest radius that PS allows, although if I'm wrong, let me know!
> That still leaves some visible components, like some of the nebula and the
> overall effect of the Milky Way, so I then apply a large gaussian blur (100
> pixel radius I think; I'd have to check my notes). This leaves basically a
> version of the original scan devoid of all stars and features other than the
> apparent vignetting. Although as you suspect, some component of that
> "vignetting" is surely the Milky Way running through the middle.
>
> I do the subtraction in Matlab instead of PS just because I get better
> results. I am a novice with both programs, but using subtraction in PS
> leaves me with residual field fall-off, plus it can only be done on an 8-bit
> image. In Matlab, I can read in as a 16-bit image, then convert up to a 24
> bit/pixel image, do the subtraction, then convert back down to 16-bit per
> pixel, and write back out as a 16 bit/pixel TIFF file for further processing
> in PS. The result seems to be an absolutely flat field, although perhaps
> with some of the Milky Way subtracted as well!
>
> As you point out, there are multiple models of field illumination to deal
> with. Theoretically, I should be doing a division to get rid of vignetting
> and a subtraction to deal with gradients. I haven't gotten that far yet. I
> wondered if it would be reasonable to build an empirical model of the
> vignetting of my lenses at various aperture settings, and then divide my
> shots by the appropriate model to compensate for the vignetting. One of
> these days I'll try to take some "flat field" images of an illuminated card
> or the open daytime sky, and see if I can build a set of models.
>
> I have used IRAF in years past (and AIPS--the radio astronomy package, not
> the commercial amateur astronomy package), but that was for radio astronomy
> data. How are you finding IRAF for processing astrophotos?
>
> Hope your skies clear soon. Machholz is fading!
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: astro-photo-bounces@seds.org
> [mailto:astro-photo-bounces@seds.org]On Behalf Of Ray Butler
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:44 AM
> To: Discussion of Film Astrophotography
> Subject: Re: [APML] Machholz, Cassiopeia, and Double Cluster
>
> Andy, that is sweet! How I wish I could get the skies to clear here -
> I'd be doing exactly the same with my 645 and 6x6 cameras + E200...
>
> I note that you flatfielded by subtracting the median/blur. Does this
> partially (undesirably) flatten out the Milky Way as well? Do you find
> it hard to adequately flatfield when the Milky Way runs through the
> image, and/or there is a gradient in the sky background due to
> increasing skyglow in one direction? A true flatfield should be able to
> disentangle these two additive effects from the multiplicative effects
> of the system vignetting.
>
> This is a problem I'm tackling at the moment with my own processing
> algorithms in IRAF. I think I've developed a good iterative approach to
> tackle this sort of scenario, but I haven't had a chance to hone it
> fully yet, thanks in part to some computer troubles.
>
> Ray "nursing a very sick laptop back to health at the moment" Butler
>
> Andrew Clegg wrote:
>
> > Good weather in the Shenandoah Valley this weekend. I shot Machholz
> > piggyback with the 6x7 on Saturday night, and developed the film while
> > watching the Super bowl last night. Scanned the film this morning (using
> the
> > new Microtek ScanMaker i900) and did some processing in Matlab and
> Photoshop
> > at lunchtime. The results are at www.w4je.com/machholz.htm. Comments
> > welcome!
> >
> > Clear skies,
> > Andy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
> --
> Dr. Ray Butler (ray.butler@nuigalway.ie || ray@physics.nuigalway.ie)
> Lecturer, Dept. of Physics || Computational Astrophysics Laboratory
> National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
> Tel: +353-91-524411 ext. 3788 FAX: +353-91-525700
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo