| Version 1 (modified by , 17 years ago) ( diff ) |
|---|
GPC Dark Trends
I analyzed a set of 140 dark exposures taken during run 1c in the period from 02/08/08-02/11/08. The exposuretimes range from 12 to 100s, the detector temperatures range from -90 to -60. The figure below shows expodure time vs. temperature of the dataset:
ccd36/cell2 analysis
I selected a region x=461..510,y=81..130 in chip36/extension2 with a relatively prominent dark feature:
In the first step I took the average of the region and made a second order polynomial fit to the exposuretime (DARKTIME keyword). I found that the first two exposures of each of the 10 dark series have significantly lager counts that the other ones. I plot the residuals after subtracting the best fit as a function of exposure number withing series (different series color-coded):
The first blue point s not displayed and has a residual value of 200. From now on I dropped the first two exposures of each series. The two figures below shows the linear fit in exposure time of the remaining 120 dark images and the residuals as a function of temperature (DETTEM keyword):
There seems to be no clear 2nd order trend like you would expect it(monotonically rising with temperature), so I decided to look at the 30s exposures only and fitted a linear relation to the dark current as a function of temperature:
The next step is to do the analysis pixel-by-pixel. I used again the 120 images with different exposure times and fitted a linear relation in time and linear relation in temperature. The coefficients for each pixel are stored in a fits file:
Using this basis a dark of any arbitrary exposure time and temperature can be created: dark = a1_1 * time[s] + a1_2 + a2_2 * temperature[C] + a2_2. Of course, a1_2 and a2_2 could be combined. Below there are some example residual images:
Also interseting to see are the nchi-images which show the quality of both fits, nchi = sqrt( SUM[ dark_residual2 ] / N ):
Cosmics are clearly visible and should be removed to identify the pixels that are really bad. To do this I included an iterative kappa-sigma-clipping to the fit. This is the resulting nchi-image of the time-fit:
Ok, this particular cell (chip36/extension2) seems to be quite 'friendly', meaning correctable. But what about the others?
full detector improved analysis
In the following I show the results of a full-detector analysis. I dropped one more raw image, because it turned out to have zero values only is some of the chips. Also I changed from doing a linear fit in time and temperature to a 2-dimentional fit: dark = a0 + a1 * time + a2 * temperature.
- global results
- ccd01 details
- ccd02 details
- ccd03 details
- ccd04 details
- ccd05 details
- ccd06 details
- ccd10 details
- ccd11 details
- ccd12 details
- ccd13 details
- ccd14 details
- ccd15 details
- ccd16 details
- ccd17 details
- ccd20 details
- ccd21 details
- ccd22 details
- ccd23 details
- ccd24 details
- ccd25 details
- ccd26 details
- ccd27 details
- ccd30 details
- ccd31 details
- ccd32 details
- ccd33 details
- ccd34 details
- ccd35 details
- ccd36 details
- ccd37 details
- ccd40 details
- ccd41 details
- ccd42 details
- ccd43 details
- ccd44 details
- ccd45 details
- ccd46 details
- ccd47 details
- ccd50 details
- ccd51 details
- ccd52 details
- ccd53 details
- ccd54 details
- ccd55 details
- ccd56 details
- ccd57 details
- ccd60 details
- ccd61 details
- ccd62 details
- ccd63 details
- ccd64 details
- ccd65 details
- ccd66 details
- ccd67 details
- ccd71 details
- ccd72 details
- ccd73 details
- ccd74 details
- ccd75 details
- ccd76 details















