Juno Perijove 24, December 26, 2019 |
Juno Perijove 24, December 26, 2019 |
Jan 3 2020, 06:01 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2511 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
PJ24 happened back on 12/26 but the spacecraft was in solar conjunction until around the end of the year and we are just starting to get the data back. With the holidays it may be next week before images start showing up on missionjuno, so stay tuned.
-------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 11 2020, 02:44 PM
Post
#2
|
||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2346 Joined: 7-December 12 Member No.: 6780 |
This is a partial answer to Björn's question in the PJ 2 and 3 thread.
QUOTE Has anyone else been flat fielding the JunoCam images and if so, how? The striping artifacts are most evident in the methane band images. And we have a nice methane band engineering image in PJ24. During the cruise phase after Earth flyby, I was fairly convinced, that the striping artifacts are mostly an effect of interframe transfer smear and straylight, and studied this extensively. In order to test for the flat field as a major cause in the less bright Jupiter environment, here an experiment with the mentioned PJ24 image, rendered into a crop of a cylindrical map: I've run a sequence of an assumed simple familiy of flat fields with one continuous parameter ("codimension 1"). It shows, that one part of the swath shows less striping artifacts for one parameter value, while another part of the swath (but for the same CCD pixel position) shows less artifacts for another parameter value. I'm considering this as evidence for the hypothesis, that the striping artifacts cannot be removed, at least not completely, by an appropriate constant flat field, but require (additional) modelling of interframe transfer smear and stray light. (I'm aware of the methane band filter characteristics varying with the incidence angle on the CCD. So there remains some residual uncertainty about this conclusion.) I've been able to model part of the interframe transfer smear and the stray light for EFB images. But I failed to refine the model (within the available time) to a degree that adjustments by those model assumptions introduced less artifacts than we had without those adjustments, meaning that these effects are more complex than I first thought. I found incidence and emission angle the most significant, but not the only contributors to illumination effects. |
|
|
||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th April 2024 - 11:52 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |