IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Discussion of stray light in Juno Earth flyby images
Gerald
post Aug 27 2015, 10:02 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



This is now a first step of a somewhat sophisticated analysis of the ghosts, the success of which is to find out.
The ghosts are best feasible outside the bright Earth. So I've masked all efb12 subframes to just show the ghosts in front of dark background.
Example:
Attached Image

This is the average of all these masked subframes, constraint to the non-black pixels:
Attached Image

This average shows remnants of the source images. Most of this can be averaged away by decomposing the image in a horizontal and a vertical mean brightness function.
For averaging, the brightness values are temporarily gamma-corrected with gamma = 2, considering the square-root encoding of the raw image.
The two functions can then be composed to result in this mean ghost image:
Attached Image

This image is intended to serve as a 0th approximation of a flatfield for the ghosts.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Gerald
post Jan 4 2016, 06:14 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2348
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



Some more explanations regarding the above article:

As described in the article, I've applied methods related to the Newton method to fit peaks into the EFB03 data. The idea is, to find a local minimum of the square error sum. For differentiable functions, the derivative is zero at the minimum of a function. The Newton method can find such a point efficiently, if the derivative is locally sufficiently similar to a linear function. Unfortunately, the error functions defined immediately by the RMS error of a ("power-law") peak with respect to the actual data isn't that well-behaved at the guessed starting points of the iteration. But by using a sufficiently high power of the RMS error, the resulting function can be made sufficiently well-behaved. The following graphics visualizes the underlying principle for the 1-dimensional case:
Attached Image

PDF version: Attached File  NewtonMethod_and_Modification.pdf ( 118.43K ) Number of downloads: 1012


An explanation of zeta has been pending:
Here two attempts to give the parameter zeta an intuitive meaning, visually (Fourier series and effect on peak)
Attached Image

and audible, with each "beat" starting a new damping by increasing zeta in a linear way. Parameter u1 varies with each "beat" in a total of two cycles. The audio version samples only the Fourier series, not the respective derived peak. (The file is packed twice with 7-zip, for effective compression, and to obtain a .zip extension.)
Attached File  ZetaSamples1.0_2.0_0.2_1.01_1.41_0.004_400_400_2.wav.7z.zip ( 269.26K ) Number of downloads: 439


And back to EFB03:
This graphics shows linear regression data ("raw") of vertical stripes of width 100 pixels obtained from near the left and from near the right side of EFB03,
the best-fit "power-law" peaks with zeta=1, and the residuals (remaining errors).

Attached Image

There appear to be systematic errors with respect to the considered family of peaks. This effect is more distinct near the right of EFB03 than near the left side. I'm presuming, that these deviations can be reduced a little, but not considerably by including zeta as variable peak parameter. Inferring zeta is rather fragile and probably time-consuming, therefore I'm looking for other options first.

My favored approach will be a description by a sum of two peaks, a narrow high and a wide shallow one. Since the horizontal variability of the peak parameters clearly cannot be described by a single peak, I'm considering to investigate multi-peak approaches as the next step to narrow down the 2d-structure of EFB03 stray light.

The additional math needed to feed into some modified Newton method doesn't look difficult at first glance. Although I don't know yet, how well-behaved the approach will be numerically. I guess, that dedicating another about two weeks will return first (continuous) 2d approximates.

Other related tasks appear at the horizon, e.g.
- writing a ray tracer to explain/model the 2d structure of the stray light physically, and
- pinning down the effect of TDI regarding integration over some neighboring color filter (probably responsible for horizontal substripes within framelets).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jan 4 2016, 07:20 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2559
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Gerald @ Jan 4 2016, 10:14 AM) *
As described in the article, I've applied methods related to the Newton method to fit peaks into the EFB03 data.

Keep in mind that EFB03 was taken in a mode that is unlikely to be duplicated for Jupiter observations (lots of TDI in a visible channel). We will probably only use a lot of TDI for the CH4 channel.

In the diagram you show above of the CFA, be aware that there is a light shield between the top of the CCD and the back of the optics with an aperture nominally 0.231x0.473 inches centered on the center of the sensor. This is intended to block stray light paths from the sensor bond wires and metallization on the sensor package, though there could be some misalignment and some small paths could still exist.

Mods: it might make sense to create a subforum for this material, much as was done with the MSL discussion of technical details about the cameras.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Gerald   Discussion of stray light in Juno Earth flyby images   Aug 27 2015, 10:02 PM
- - Gerald   After horizontal point noise filtering of the 0th ...   Aug 28 2015, 09:35 PM
- - Gerald   Subframes 0 and 81 show the same part of Earth, wi...   Aug 29 2015, 06:12 PM
- - Gerald   An idea of the draft pinhole simulation of the geo...   Aug 31 2015, 10:41 AM
- - Gerald   It took me some time to improve the geometric dist...   Sep 2 2015, 03:21 PM
- - Gerald   12 ghost images, cropped from the raw subframes (#...   Sep 3 2015, 11:48 PM
- - Gerald   A first estimate of "how" blurred the gh...   Sep 4 2015, 08:25 PM
- - Gerald   The source of the blurred ghosts seems to be about...   Sep 6 2015, 02:17 AM
- - Gerald   Some regions of the efb images can be assumed to b...   Sep 30 2015, 10:10 PM
- - Gerald   A preliminary analysis of EFB03 hints towards the ...   Oct 9 2015, 03:19 AM
- - Gerald   A fist step towards an empirical description of th...   Oct 24 2015, 12:14 PM
- - Gerald   Evaluating a simple function at a small number of ...   Dec 22 2015, 01:52 PM
- - Gerald   This graphics visualizes some properties of a fami...   Dec 24 2015, 09:04 PM
- - Gerald   Possible physical root cause for sharp ghosts in J...   Dec 29 2015, 06:12 PM
- - Gerald   Some more explanations regarding the above article...   Jan 4 2016, 06:14 PM
|- - mcaplinger   QUOTE (Gerald @ Jan 4 2016, 10:14 AM) As ...   Jan 4 2016, 07:20 PM
- - Gerald   Thanks a lot, that's helpful information. Prov...   Jan 5 2016, 01:24 PM
|- - mcaplinger   QUOTE (Gerald @ Jan 5 2016, 05:24 AM) a d...   Jan 5 2016, 04:27 PM
- - Gerald   Thanks, great! Good to know, that the ray trac...   Jan 5 2016, 06:35 PM
- - mcaplinger   Here's a dimensioned drawing of the Junocam co...   Jan 6 2016, 11:11 PM
- - Gerald   Thanks for the technical plan. This clarifies seve...   Jan 7 2016, 01:50 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 05:31 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.