Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- From: RichA <rander3127@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:19:05 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 20, 7:01 am, Scott W <biph...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:50 pm, RichA <rander3...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not referring to it as NR or noise reduction because it isn't the
same thing. NR is "dark frame subtraction" and is used when exposure
times are longer than 1 second and heat build-up in the sensor creates
noise.
There is no heat build up for a long exposures, the noise is from dark
current.
Yes, there is, which is why scientific users either use Pelltier
coolers or dry ice, or liquid nitrogen to cool the sensors for long
exposure work (or IR work).
http://www.regulusastro.com/regulus/papers/ccdfaq/index.html
"Thermal control of an imager's chip allows one to significantly
reduce the amount of dark signal (thermal signal) produced within the
CCD chip itself. In the chip the actual substrate materials actually
vibrate due to heat, and create electrons in the photosites."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- From: Scott W
- Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - Digital Binoculars
- Next by Date: Re: memory card..
- Previous by thread: Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- Next by thread: Re: In-camera noise FILTERING is a disaster, in most cases
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|