[AZ-Observing] Re: Flats and Bias
- From: Stan Gorodenski <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:54:18 -0700
Brian,
It appears from what you said that one obtains flats over a number of
days which will make getting them more doable because of the short time
to take them during twilight.
You said "The problem with twilight flats is that the spectrum of the
twilight sky does not resemble the (dark) night sky; the former is a
very blue continuum like that of the Sun (unsurprisingly), whereas the
night sky is rather red and has emission lines, something like the
spectrum of a planetary nebula (the 'nebula' being the glowing ions in
Earth's atmosphere)." If twilight has a blue continuum like the sun, why
is a flat taken during twilight not suitable during a significant moon
night?
Also, if a twilight flat is not a good match for the night sky because
the night sky is 'rather red', would placing a sheet of red cellophane
over the objective end of the telescope work to make a twilight flat
more like a dark sky flat? If the red cellophane is too red, maybe there
are some available that are not so red.
Finally, since there is always the danger of still imaging stars during
the twilight, what about slow slewing the telescope in random directions
as it is integrating? Am I correct that your reference to dithering is
probably doing the same thing?
Stan
Brian Skiff wrote:
> Jeff and Mike have mentioned most of the various trade-offs
>with regard to flat-field calibration images. The usual procedure
>at most observatories is to take twilight flats with the telescope
>either not tracking or commanded to dither some small amount between
>each exposure, the former being lots easier. - etc.
>
>
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
