Manual dithering [Deep Sky] Acquisition techniques · Luc Aubut · ... · 10 · 355 · 0

Lucas 0.00
...
Hi! I'm an astrophotographer from northern of Quebec, Canada. Is it possible to make manual dithering with my Skywatcher EQ6R in winter because it's too cold?

I will use a DSLR without computer. I'm a nomad astrophotographer.  How can I make that? Thank you!
Like
andreatax 7.22
...
·  1 like
Probably you won't need to, just pause between captures and the natural drift of the mount+scope will take care of that as long as the focal length/image scale is high enough (> 3"/px).
Like
carastro 8.04
...
·  1 like
I do manual dithering, mostly as suggested, stopping the guiding for a short period 2 or 3 times during an imaging run.  (My favourite capture software doesn't support dithering).

Also a Meridian flip will bring about a natural "dither".

Carole
Like
BastiH 0.00
...
·  1 like
Hi Luc,

as Andrea and Carole wrote, the mounts built-in imperfections and some pauses between exposures will usually make for a sufficient dithering if you use a telescope. If you use short focal lenghts (camera lenses) though, it will probabely be necessary to alter the object's position on the sensor between exposures manually in both axes to avoid the remaining of artifacts after stacking.
I experienced that when I used a 200mm lens on a Star Adventurer. I carefully aligned the SA and used a Lacerta MGen for guiding in RA because I expected the SA to be to imprecise due to overload. Also I wanted to use dithering so I would not have to make dark frames. But it turned out the setup ran very well and the perfectly repeated offsets in only one axis were insufficient for stacking algorithms to separate object signal from sensor characteristics. When I only stacked the subframes from one run, I got very disturbing stripe artifacts. The effect disappeared when I mixed subframes from 3 imaging sessions (=3 times different offset in RA and DEC), each contributing approximately one third to the final result.
So if you use very short focal lenghts, be shure to manually alter the object's position on your sensor in RA and DEC for each ~quarter of the number of frames you inted to stack. Otherwise image processing can be quite frustrating, especially if you have spent lots of time and money to go to a dark place to find out later that you can't get rid of those stripes.

CS

Basti
Like
MarcusJungwirth 3.01
...
I would recommend the Lacerta MGEN.
Like
MarcusJungwirth 3.01
...
I would recommend the Lacerta MGEN.
Like
physiks_guy22 0.00
...
andrea tasselli:
Probably you won't need to, just pause between captures and the natural drift of the mount+scope will take care of that as long as the focal length/image scale is high enough (> 3"/px).

Unfortunately, that may not work. The dithering has to be randomized or else the pixel rejection algorithms during registering/stacking won't work. If you pause between exposures your drift will continue along the same trajectory. The drift is typically very slow and so adjacent frames will have errant pixels line up. I would recommend slewing the scope on the slowest setting in the most minimal amount every other frame and along both RA and DEC axes.
Like
andreatax 7.22
...
Begging your pardon, it does. I never ever dithered the way suggested by you (possibly because my mounts aren't that good) and have never had an issue during post-processing hot-pixels. Besides, whether the pixel line up or not isn't an issue if the rejection criteria is based on position and you have enough instances to create a robust statistics. Certainly the way you suggest is even better, no doubt about it, but is tedious is you take a lot frames.
Like
SBRMichigan 0.00
...
Hi Luc

I've had good success manually dithering my unguided rig that is controlled by iOptron's Commander software but I don't see why it wouldn't work with other applications. I simply "goose" the  directional buttons once in a random direction every 5 60sec sub or so using the 1x or slowest manual slew speed. SharpCap shows that the movement is only a very few pixels and although it's just enough to attenuate the walking noise, it's not enough to cause me to throw out the sub that has the dither.

Craig
Edited ...
Like
AwesomeAstro 2.39
...
·  1 like
andrea tasselli:
Begging your pardon, it does. I never ever dithered the way suggested by you (possibly because my mounts aren't that good) and have never had an issue during post-processing hot-pixels. Besides, whether the pixel line up or not isn't an issue if the rejection criteria is based on position and you have enough instances to create a robust statistics. Certainly the way you suggest is even better, no doubt about it, but is tedious is you take a lot frames.

Actually John Kroon is correct, dithering serves more purpose than just to remove hot pixels; more important is fixed-pattern camera noise/artifacts. If you're using your processing software correctly, hot pixels shouldn't even survive to the stacking phase, given cosmetic correction options which can occur beforehand.

Therefore, a randomized dither is "technically" required, in order to properly handle fixed pattern camera noise. I say technically, because plenty of setups don't have enough integration time, or have adequate drift, to function "well enough" this way. Most images don't have enough integration time to really show this fixed-pattern noise, and most cameras have noise low enough to prevent this problem.

However, on my setup, I've had fixed-pattern noise persist in my final stacks (DSLR, 10+ hours integration time), even with computerized dithering after every frame, if I don't dither by great enough amounts. Pixel rejection cannot function properly without adequately-sized, truly randomized dithering, mathematically speaking. Hot pixels will definitely be handled fine by any type of dithering, but fixed-pattern noise will not. In fact, I read a mathematical analysis that showed dithering by drift leads to even worse fixed-pattern noise than not dithering at all! It's likely you don't have such severe fixed-pattern noise, which is fine. I'm not saying one absolutely must dither in this way, however it is objectively better, when possible.

To Luc Aubut, you can absolutely dither manually! Many setups don't require it, however, so I recommend comparing a stack from a dithered night, to one without, and see if it matters. If it doesn't, you could save some valuable effort and time!
Like
whwang 11.48
...
It's fine if you don't use a computer.  The key question here is how do you guide?  If you use some stand-alone guider, like MGEN, it may have dither-related functions.

Letting it naturally drift may work, or may not.  It can sometimes lead to "walking noise."  Randomizing the dither offsets can greatly reduce the possibility of walking noise.

If you don't guide at all, I suppose you can use the hand controller of your mount with the slowest speed to shift the pointing by a few to 20 arcsec in random directions every few exposures.  You don't need to do it between every exposure, as this will be too tiring, especially in winter.  Just collect exposures of at least five different dithered positions, and let the tracking errors (if you don't guide) do the rests of the job.  This should give you some semi-random dithering without a high risk of walking noise.
Like
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.