CCD image processing - Astronomy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around processing CCD image data for astronomy, specifically regarding the calculation of true counts from raw image data using a provided equation. The user is confused about applying matrix operations, as the equation involves division by matrices that are not square and thus not directly invertible. They question whether to use right or left inverses or if they can ignore certain terms like non-linear gain correction and gain correction, which are not provided. The user expresses frustration over classmates seemingly simplifying the process by treating the matrices as individual cells rather than adhering to matrix operations. The conversation highlights the complexities of CCD image processing and the challenges of interpreting mathematical equations in this context.
big man
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi I've just got a small problem that needs to be cleared here to allow me to do the other questions.

Statement:
Two objects were detected in a 100-sec exposure with 3x4 CCD camera

Now you are given 3 by 4 matrices for the raw image data, bias, dark count and flat field. I've provided a link to a screen shot of the excel spreadsheet of the data so you can actually see it clearly.

LINK: http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/4324/ccddata7ev.jpg

Anyway I found an expression in the lecturer's notes that says true count is given by [(raw image_m/NLG_m)-bias_m-dark_m]/(FF_m*G)

Where the subscript m means matrix. Dark is the dark count matrix and FF is the flat field matrix and NLG and G are the non-linear gain correction and gain correction respectively. NLG and G aren't given though.

Anyway the thing that confuses me is that you can't do that operation with matrices. Unless the division of the matrix is referring to the inverse. However, since the matrices aren't square they aren't invertible. I know you do have the right inverse and left inverse of a non-square matrix, so am I meant to calculate that and apply it to the above expression?? Or have I misinterpreted the equation here?

Cheers for any help

P.S. This is just an exercise, and it does violate Rayleigh's criterion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Also if the equation I've given is the one that you're meant to use, then can you ignore the NLG and G terms since they aren't given?
 
Well I was talking to one of the people in my class and he said that he didn't know, but that he was just dividing the individual cells of the numerator term by their respective values in the denominator term.
I mean the lecturer specifically had in his lecture notes that these were matrix representations, so I don't see how you can just do that. It's annoying me 'cause I'm still wasting my time on this when other people are happy just to ignore the fact that they are a matrices...The thing is I'm probably the idiot for wasting my time on it and they are probably right doing it their way.

Sorry, haha that's my rant over...just glad the unit finishes this week.
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top