New static DQ masks for NICMOS

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A NEW CTE PHOTOMETRIC CORRECTION FORMULA FOR ACS Marco Chiaberge TIPS meeting 05/16/2012.
Advertisements

Optical Astronomy Imaging Chain: Telescopes & CCDs.
Image Processing IB Paper 8 – Part A Ognjen Arandjelović Ognjen Arandjelović
Discussion of CalWebb contents M. Robberto (facilitator)
Astronomical Detectors
RHESSI/GOES Observations of the Non-flaring Sun from 2002 to J. McTiernan SSL/UCB.
CCDs. CCDs—the good (+)  Linear response  photometry is “simple” +High efficiency, compared to other detectors +Sensitive to many wavelengths +2-D arrays.
Image Forgery Detection by Gamma Correction Differences.
Object Detection and Tracking Mike Knowles 11 th January 2005
CCD Image Processing: Issues & Solutions. Correction of Raw Image with Bias, Dark, Flat Images Flat Field Image Bias Image Output Image Dark Frame Raw.
Signal vs Noise: Image Calibration First… some terminology:  Light Frame: The individual pictures you take of your target.  Dark Frame: An image taken.
Detecting Electrons: CCD vs Film Practical CryoEM Course July 26, 2005 Christopher Booth.
NICMOS IntraPixel Sensitivity Chun Xu and Bahram Mobasher Space Telescope Science Institute Abstract We present here the new measurements of the NICMOS.
1 TIPS 2011 May Persistence in the WFC3 IR detector Knox S. Long.
Sensitivity System sensitivity is defined as the available input signal level Si for a given (SNR)O Si is called the minimum detectable signal An expression.
TIPS presentation 19 July 2007Charles Proffitt COS-STIS TeamPage 1 STIS FUV MAMA Dark Current Charles Proffitt COS-STIS Team.
Blue: Histogram of normalised deviation from “true” value; Red: Gaussian fit to histogram Presented at ESA Hyperspectral Workshop 2010, March 16-19, Frascati,
High-Resolution Interactive Panoramas with MPEG-4 발표자 : 김영백 임베디드시스템연구실.
NIRSpec Operations Concept Michael Regan(STScI), Jeff Valenti (STScI) Wolfram Freduling(ECF), Harald Kuntschner(ECF), Robert Fosbury (ECF)
ACS Drizzling Overview J. Mack; DA Training 10/5/07 Distortion Dither Strategies MultiDrizzle ‘Fine-tuning’ Data Quality Photometry.
Polariametry with NICMOS Dean C. Hines & Glenn Schneider Space Science Institute & Steward Observatory.
JWST Calibration Error Budget Jerry Kriss. 15 March 20072/14 JWST Flux & Wavelength Calibration Requirements SR-20: JWST shall be capable of achieving.
Section 2.4 Working with Summary Statistics.  What were the main concepts of Section 2.4  When removing an outlier from a data set, which measure of.
WFPC2 UPDATE TIPS : August 15, 2002 L.M. Lubin New WFPC2 Documentation 1.Cycle 12 Instrument Handbook (V7.0, Biretta et al.)  Updated information on the.
NICMOS Status Roelof de Jong (STScI) and the NICMOS team: Santiago Arribas, Elizabeth Barker, Eddie Bergeron, Ilana Dashevsky, Anton Koekemoer, Sangeeta.
March 2004 Charles A. DiMarzio, Northeastern University ECEG287 Optical Detection Course Notes Part 15: Introduction to Array Detectors Profs.
ACS/WFC CTE correction for point source photometry Marco Chiaberge ACS Team STScI.
UPDATED CTE CORRECTION FORMULAE FOR ACS Marco Chiaberge Pey Lian Lim, Vera Kozhurina-Platais, Marco Sirianni Ron Gilliland, Jennifer Mack.
Tests of AWAKE spectrometer screen and camera at PHIN Introduction Layout Procedure Setup, results (runs 1 – 5) Conclusions L. Deacon, S. Mazzoni, B. Biskup.
Torsten Böker TIPS May 2, 2002 NICMOS post-cooldown detector performance 1) SMOV status 2) Dark current 3) Quantum efficiency 4) “First light”, focus and.
TIPS - Oct 13, 2005 M. Sirianni Temperature change for ACS CCDs: initial study on scientific performance M. Sirianni, T. Wheeler, C.Cox, M. Mutchler, A.
NICMOS Calibration Challenges in the Ultra Deep Field Rodger Thompson Steward Observatory University of Arizona.
Physics 114: Lecture 8 Measuring Noise in Real Data Dale E. Gary NJIT Physics Department.
Basic Detector Measurements: Photon Transfer Curve, Read Noise, Dark Current, Intrapixel Capacitance, Nonlinearity, Reference Pixels MR – May 19, 2014.
IBB Calibration Update J. Rufus GIST21 Meeting Boulder, CO. 31 st March – 2 nd April 2004 © Imperial College London.
STScI 2010 Calibration Workshop The NICMOS Legacy Archival Recalibration Project Anton M. Koekemoer and the STScI NICMOS Team (E. Barker, E. Bergeron,
Introduction NICMOS (Near-Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectroscopy) was installed on the Hubble Space Telescope during SM2 in 1997 and has been the.
CCD Image Processing: Issues & Solutions. CCDs: noise sources dark current –signal from unexposed CCD read noise –uncertainty in counting electrons in.
Non-standard Gains for NICMOS Daniela Calzetti (In lieu of Torsten Boeker) TIPS May 15 th 2003.
PyRAF/Pipeline Removal of SAA Persistence from NICMOS Data Elizabeth A. Barker Vicki Laidler Eddie Bergeron Anton Koekemoer Elizabeth A. Barker Vicki Laidler.
ACS WFC Flat-Field Changes Temperature change from -77 C to -81 C on July 4, 2006 leads to expected changes for flat fields. Are L-flat measures stable.
1 Notes about eis_prep Alessandro Gardini University of Oslo Oslo, July 9th, 2009.
STIS Status TIPS, September 17, 2009 Charles Proffitt for the STIS team.
TIPS, Feb 15, Tomas Dahlen1 Update on the NICMOS flat –field monitoring Tomas Dahlen & NICMOS team.
Increased Thermal Background for the post-NCS NICMOS TIPS – June 19, 2003 Megan Sosey NICMOS.
Comparison of MC and data Abelardo Moralejo Padova.
Non-linear filtering Example: Median filter Replaces pixel value by median value over neighborhood Generates no new gray levels.
Introduction to Digital Image Analysis Kurt Thorn NIC.
Torsten Böker TIPS May 16, 2002 status Instrument status 1) Final temperature adjustment 2) Fine Optical Alignment 3) Remaining SMOV timeline.
Performance of 1600-pixel MPPC for the GLD Calorimeter Readout Jan. 30(Tue.) Korea-Japan Joint Shinshu Univ. Takashi Maeda ( Univ. of Tsukuba)
POPULATION VERSUS SAMPLE
Relative Spectral Response and Flat Fields with Internal Calibration Lamps Luisa M. Lara IAA-CSIC Granada (SPAIN)
NAC flat fielding and intensity calibration
Charge Transfer Efficiency of Charge Coupled Device
CCD Image Processing …okay, I’ve got a bunch of .fits files, now what?
COS FUV Flat Fields and Signal-to-Noise Characteristics
On-Orbit Performance and Calibration of the HMI Instrument J
AC-9/AC-S data analysis from CDOM Lab
Preliminary Design Review
Fitting Curve Models to Edges
Preliminary Design Review
Detective Quantum Efficiency Preliminary Design Review
On the source of the diffuse background light in HUDF
Physics 114: Lecture 11 Error Analysis, Part II
EPIC Calibration & Operations Meeting
Comparator Circuits AIM:
Anna Lisa Stöckl, David Charles O’Carroll, Eric James Warrant 
AQT90 FLEX Service Training
Detecting Dark Clouds in the Galactic Plane with 2MASS data
DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING Elective 3 (5th Sem.)
Presentation transcript:

New static DQ masks for NICMOS Tomas Dahlen & Elizabeth Barker TIPS 3/19/2009 TIPS, Mar 19, 2009 - Tomas Dahlen

NICMOS Data Quality (DQ) extension of calibrated images (. _cal NICMOS Data Quality (DQ) extension of calibrated images (*_cal.fits or *_ima.fits) contains information about which pixels may be problematic and should/may be excluded when combining dithered images. DQ Meaning 0 No known problems 1 Reed-Solomon decoding error in telemetry 2 Poor or uncertain Linearity correction 4 Poor or uncertain Dark correction 8 Poor or uncertain Flat Field correction 16 Pixel affected by "grot" on the detector 32 Defective (hot or cold) pixel 64 Saturated pixel 128 Missing data in telemetry 256 Bad pixel determined by calibration 512 Pixel contains Cosmic Ray 1024 Pixel contains source (see Section 3.4) 2048 Pixel has signal in 0th read 4096 CR detected by Multidrizzle 8192 User flag 16384 Curvature in detector response Most flag values are dynamic, i.e., are set during observation/calibration. Static flag values are DQ=16 (“grot” affected pixels) and DQ=32 (“bad” pixels). Each NICMOS camera has its own static mask given in the header keyword MASKFILE. TIPS, Mar 19, 2009 - Tomas Dahlen

New static DQ masks for NICMOS The current “post-NCS” static masks were created 2002. We now have a large set of calibration images obtained during NICMOS monitoring programs 2002-2008. We have used this data to create new static masks for the three NICMOS cameras based on better statistics. The temporal coverage also allows us to investigate any changes in the masks with time or detector temperature. TIPS, Mar 19, 2009 - Tomas Dahlen

DQ=32 “Bad” pixels We use long dark exposures (>1000s) to identify “Bad” pixels as pixels with a dark current deviating from what is expected. Hot pixels are defined as pixels with excessive charge compared to surrounding pixels. Cold pixels have extremely low(/zero) dark current (i.e., “dead” pixels). To quantify the number of bad pixels we use the recipe in Sosey (2002, NICMOS ISR 2002-001 “ Updating the NICMOS Static Bad Pixel Masks”). A median dark image is made using available monitoring dark data after excluding CR affected pixels A smoothed image is made and subtracted from the median image The resulting image is rescaled in units of its rms Bad pixels are defined as pixels outside 5 Sosey (2002) TIPS, Mar 19, 2009 - Tomas Dahlen

DQ=32 “Bad” pixels Since we have monitored the darks continuously from 2002 to 2008, we can look for changes with time/temperature. NIC 1 NIC 2 NIC 3 Old DQ=32 193 (0.29%) 656 (1.0%) 446 (0.68%) 2002 46 17 16 2003 49 21 2004 70 28 2005 69 24 30 2006 29 2007 66 34 2008 31 36 All new 88 (+0.13%) 40 (+0.06%) 42 (+0.06%) Number of bad pixels Old DQ=32: Number of DQ=32 pixels in existing mask. For each year the number of additional hot pixels is tabulated. All new: Total number of different pixels flagged as hot during at least one year. Black dots: number of DQ=32 pixels in existing mask. Red dots: number of DQ=32 after adding new bad pixels

DQ=32 “Bad” pixels Plots show pixels that are not flagged in existing DQ mask, but pass the criteria for being bad in this investigation. Number of pixels that “suddenly” turn bad and can be “saved” by using multiple DQ masks is ~5 in each camera. (In addition a few bad pixels drop below the selection with time.) We find that having multiple DQ masks to “save” at the most a few pixels per camera is not “worthwhile” and only a single mask is created for each camera.

DQ=16 “grot” pixels The grot consists of flecks of anti-reflective paint on the detectors (that were scraped off the optical baffles between the dewars due to the expansion of the solid nitrogen in Cycle 7). Grot leads to areas with reduced sensitivity. Size of grot ranges from 25m to over 100m and since NICMOS pixels are 40m on a side, grot can affect regions of several pixels, as well as a fraction of a pixel. The largest example of a grot region is the "battleship" feature in NIC 1 which affects approximately 35 pixels. Flat-field image DQ mask

DQ=16 “grot” pixels The grot affects the incoming light onto the detectors. Flats are ideal to estimate the effects of grot due to their high “uniform” counts over the whole detector. To quantify the grot we use the recipe in NICMOS ISR 2003-003 (Schultz et al.). We use a well sampled non-inverted flat-field (F160W filter). A smoothed flat image is subtracted from this flat. Grot pixels are defined as a pixels deviating more than 4 in the subtracted image (excluding bad DQ=32 pixels).

DQ=16 “grot” pixels Table: The number of grot pixels. The number found here is significantly lower than in the existing mask for nic2 and nic3. Existing New NIC1 180 170 NIC2 243 123 NIC3 249 113 Q: what are the characteristics of the pixels not selected using the new selection? To investigate this we look at the relative DQE response of the flagged pixels - this is the pixel value of a ratio image created by dividing the flat image with a smoothed flat image. “Normal” pixel has response=1.

DQ=16 “grot” pixels Relative DQE response The new selection suggest that grot pixels have response ~< 0.8. Existing New NIC1 180 170 NIC2 243 123 NIC3 249 113 The pixels that are flagged in the existing mask and NOT flagged in the new selection have a fairly normal response in the range 0.8-1.2. Existing New Existing - New

DQ=16 “grot” pixels Relative DQE response The new selection suggest that grot pixels have response ~< 0.8. Existing New NIC1 180 170 NIC2 243 123 NIC3 249 113 The pixels that are flagged in the existing mask and NOT flagged in the new selection have a fairly normal response in the range 0.8-1.2. Furthermore, the rms of the previously flagged pixels look normal Black dots: rms of non-flagged normal pixels Green dots: rms of previously flagged pixels Rms look similar, green dots should be OK We should therefore be able to “de-flag” these Rms vs. response Previously flagged

DQ=16 “grot” pixels FINAL SELECTION Q: Does the number of grot pixels change with time? Existing New 2002 2008 NIC1 180 170 172 174 NIC2 243 123 119 139 NIC3 249 113 112 A: No. But there are somewhat more flagged pixels in NIC2-2008, but these have fairly normal response 0.7-0.9. We will not include a time dependence in the grot mask (i.e., not create multiple masks). FINAL SELECTION As a final selection, we include all “4 pixels” from above as grot pixels, except those that have a response >0.8 and a normal signal-to-noise. The new MASKFILEs for the post NCS era will be delivered by end of March -09.

New static DQ masks for NICMOS Summary: Grot, DQ=16 Bad, DQ=32 Existing New NIC 1 180 163 193 281 NIC 2 243 119 656 696 NIC 3 249 96 446 448 DQ=16, grot pixels Existing: New: NIC 1 NIC 2 NIC 3