zoom_avg_dark.gif
Figure 1. Zoom of NEAR MSI dark frame showing the column-to-column 5-6 dn offsets.
2) Many of the BK series images are contaminated with noise, most likely from an electronics source in the test setup (hopefully its not the camera). This results in a "rolling" diagonal bar pattern. The magnitude varies from image to image, but can be greater than 10 dn. This effect is not greatly reduced in the single frames vs. the averaged frames. This noise is also apparent in the monochrometer images (good examples to look at: owv3_138.001, owv6_138.200). I also have examined the tv_test images taken in a different test setup and saw a different noise pattern that occurred much less frequently than in the "main" dataset. This lends credence to the idea that the noise is not in the camera. However, this should be investigated further ASAP. Scott is working on 1) removing the noise and 2) checking into the possibility that the camera is the culprit.
Figure 2. Example of the noise observed in most of the calibration data (file cbk1_143.021)
diagonal_roll_plot.gif
Figure 3. Plot of dn showing noise, note the amplitude is about 10 dn in this example.
C - Bright circle in middle of frame
DB - Diagonal bars across image
TB - Top (bright) to Bottom (dark) gradient
F - right or left (l) leaning "finger streaks"
BL - apparent corrupted line?
FS - Flying Saucer
f - modifier meaning faint (fF would mean faint streaks)
r - right
l - left
file Mean Stan. Dev. Temp Notes wbk0_145.065 84.2423 2.49456 -20.2 TB, F wbk0_145.066 84.8493 2.54428 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk0_145.067 86.1787 2.88466 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk0_145.068 84.1862 2.49380 -20.1 TB, F wbk0_145.069 84.7269 2.50661 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk1_145.070 88.1509 2.57725 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk2_145.071 88.0212 2.56861 -20.1 TB, F wbk3_145.072 90.1956 859.155 -20.1 TB, F, C, BL wbk4_145.073 88.3602 2.64206 -20.1 TB, F, C, DB wbk5_145.074 88.3490 2.66107 -20.1 TB, F, C, DB wbk5_145.075 87.1570 2.59471 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk5_145.076 85.5768 2.51249 -20.1 TB, F, C, DB wbk5_145.077 84.6501 2.49279 -20.1 TB, F, DB wbk5_145.078 84.3212 2.48717 -20.1 TB, F wbk5_145.079 84.2105 2.48974 -20.1 TB, F wbk6_145.080 88.1677 2.58456 -20.1 TB, F, C wbk7_145.081 88.1299 2.64140 -20.1 TB, F, C
file Mean Stan. Dev. Temp Notes wbk0_145.102 84.4134 2.49033 -19.9 TB, F wbk0_145.103 84.2680 2.49089 -19.9 TB, F wbk1_145.104 84.2438 2.49183 -19.9 TB, F wbk1_145.105 84.2642 2.49045 -19.9 TB, F wbk2_145.106 84.2420 2.48848 -19.9 TB, F wbk2_145.107 87.4731 2.55395 -19.9 TB, F wbk3_145.108 84.1853 2.48861 -19.9 TB, F wbk3_145.109 84.2240 2.48863 -19.9 TB, F wbk3_145.110 84.2652 2.48625 -19.9 TB, F wbk4_145.111 84.2303 2.49263 -19.9 TB, F wbk4_145.112 84.2695 2.48789 -19.9 TB, F wbk4_145.113 84.1866 2.49107 -19.9 TB, F wbk5_145.114 84.1771 2.48693 -19.9 TB, F wbk5_145.115 84.2249 2.48630 -19.9 TB, F wbk6_145.116 84.2353 2.49192 -19.9 TB, F wbk6_145.117 84.3299 2.49147 -19.9 TB, F wbk6_145.118 84.1971 2.48949 -19.9 TB, F wbk7_145.119 84.2305 2.48956 -19.8 TB, F
file Mean Stan. Dev. Temp Notes obk1_144.247 83.5900 2.75163 -30.9 lF, fDB obk1_144.248 83.5197 2.74980 -30.9 lF, fDB obk1_144.249 83.5296 2.75960 -30.9 lF, fDB obk1_144.250 83.6233 2.75344 -30.9 lF, fDB obk1_144.251 *** file is missing *** ??????????I made an average and std image of these 4 darks just for grins...
(dark_mean.gif, dark_std.gif)
MEAN and STD of STD image (of the 4 darks): 0.5079 0.2933 MEAN and STD of MEAN image (of the 4 darks): 83.3941 6.0474The standard deviation of the MEAN image seems a bit higher than I would have expected. Perhaps this is due to the "diagonal bars" rolling across the images?
cbk1_143.021_roll.gif
DN listing of samples 10-40 from line 100 of Mean image.
81.7500 86.7500 80.5000 85.7500 80.7500 86.5000
80.7500 86.5000 81.0000 86.2500 81.0000 86.0000
81.0000 86.0000 80.7500 86.2500 81.0000 87.0000
80.7500 86.0000 81.0000 86.2500 80.7500 86.2500
81.0000 86.5000 81.0000 86.2500 80.5000 86.0000
81.0000
DN listing of samples 10-40 from line 100 of Std image.
0.500000 0.500000 0.577350 0.500000 0.500000 0.577350
0.500000 0.577350 0.00000 0.500000 0.00000 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.500000 0.500000 0.816497 0.00000
0.500000 0.00000 0.816497 0.500000 0.500000 0.500000
0.816497 1.00000 0.816497 0.957427 0.577350 0.816497
0.816497
Look at the average DN vs Exposure time for this set of 5-1 images.
file Mean Stan. Dev. Exp obk1_144.247 83.5900 2.75163 50 obk1_144.248 83.5197 2.74980 1 obk1_144.249 83.5296 2.75960 10 obk1_144.250 83.6233 2.75344 100 obk1_144.251 *** file is missing *** 917 ??????????
file Mean Stan. Dev. Temp Notes cbk0_143.019 84.1262 3.09956 -34.6 DB cbk0_143.020 83.6736 2.92292 -34.6 DB cbk1_143.021 84.8642 3.42341 -34.6 DB cbk1_143.022 84.4219 2.87901 -34.6 DB cbk2_143.023 84.7710 4.34435 -34.6 DB cbk2_143.024 84.3527 2.89028 -34.6 DB cbk3_143.025 84.6646 5.42540 -34.5 DB cbk3_143.026 84.2350 2.85478 -34.5 DB cbk4_143.027 84.9331 6.12024 -34.5 DB cbk4_143.028 84.4974 2.93839 -34.5 DB cbk5_143.029 84.6543 6.87414 -34.5 DB cbk5_143.030 84.2058 2.96209 -34.5 DB cbk6_143.031 84.7559 3.13367 -34.5 DB cbk6_143.032 84.3362 2.88532 -34.5 DB cbk7_143.017 84.8332 6.01399 -34.6 DB cbk7_143.018 84.4182 3.16816 -34.6 DBI looked at the single frames vs the averaged frames, odd numbered vs even numbered respectively, and saw DB in both.
sl,ss,nlx,nsx 10 10 224 550
file Mean Stan. Dev. Temp Notes cbk0_143.153 84.0370 3.12260 -34.2 FS cbk0_143.154 83.5975 2.90001 -34.2 FS cbk0_143.155 85.2724 5.16600 -34.2 FS cbk0_143.156 84.8183 5.00635 -34.2 FS cbk1_143.157 84.0009 3.17461 -34.2 FS cbk1_143.158 84.2528 3.27150 -34.2 FS cbk1_143.159 83.8143 2.98178 -34.2 FS cbk2_143.160 84.7814 3.25826 -34.2 FS cbk2_143.161 84.3447 2.95538 -34.2 FS cbk3_143.162 84.1070 3.27487 -34.2 FS cbk3_143.163 83.6632 2.98848 -34.2 FS cbk4_143.164 84.0645 3.26722 -34.2 FS cbk4_143.165 83.6183 3.01203 -34.2 FS cbk5_143.166 84.0491 3.30315 -34.2 FS cbk5_143.167 83.5912 2.88346 -34.2 FS cbk6_143.168 84.1284 3.48208 -34.2 FS cbk6_143.169 83.6957 2.88954 -34.2 FS cbk7_143.170 84.3918 3.12974 -34.2 FS cbk7_143.171 83.9499 2.90093 -34.2 FS