1 / 27

Stellar Linearity Test

Stellar Linearity Test. Jason Surace (Spitzer Science Center). IRAC Linearization Pre-Launch. Linearization was based on exhaustive ground testing. Tests were done with ramped exposure time observations of a steady, extended emission source (test lamp).

daphne
Télécharger la présentation

Stellar Linearity Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stellar Linearity Test Jason Surace (Spitzer Science Center)

  2. IRAC Linearization Pre-Launch Linearization was based on exhaustive ground testing. Tests were done with ramped exposure time observations of a steady, extended emission source (test lamp). Quadratic and cubic functions were fit to the observed DN as a function of time. Solutions appeared to be good to better than 1%.

  3. IRAC Linearization Post-Launch Inability to use the shutter made pixel-wise measurements of the linearization practically impossible. Linearity was tested by examining HDR frames of a bright source which illuminated most of the array, and which had a strong gradient (a nebula). The ratio between the surface brightness in the long and short frames was examined as a function of flux in the short frame. Channel 4 was found to appear to be much more linear than the ground solution, and a new solution was used. Confusingly, different ground tests produced different results.

  4. Stellar Test IERs made from AOR templates. Step over array, with gauss 5 dither and offsets to separate each observations, to minimize latent image problems. Stack of all observations

  5. Stellar Test: Target Selection Target selection difficult, yet critical to success. Stars need to saturate in 10-15 seconds. Test from 1/3 to 3x full well depth. Had to use different stars for InSb and Si:As channels. Needed stars actually visible, and had been previously observed. Settled on IOC CVZ calibrators

  6. Data Reduction Data processed with “pipe-0” - this applies basic reformatting, adds pointing. Data further processed with on-line linearity correction module, flat-fielded, gain corrections applied. IDL script locates stars, re-centers, extracts photometry using local background subtraction.

  7. Channel 1 - Peak DN vs. Exptime

  8. Ch.1 Flux vs Peak DN

  9. Ch.1 Flux vs Peak DN

  10. Channel 2

  11. Ch.2 Flux vs Peak DN

  12. Ch.2 Flux vs Exptime

  13. Summary: InSb Up until nearly full-well, the InSb channels are linearized to around 0.2%. The “saturation level” is highly dependent on pixel phasing, due to the undersampling of the IRAC beam. Saturation affects the central pixel first, and driving this well into saturation only results in flux underestimates of 20% or so.

  14. Ch.4 Peak Flux vs Exptime

  15. Ch.4 Flux vs Peak DN Uh-oh, wasn’t the response supposed to go down??

  16. Ch.4 Muxbleed Aperture photometry show previously was in a 5-pixel radius aperture. Large enough to catch this muxbleed pixel, which we formerly blamed on the bandwidth effect.

  17. Ch.4 Muxbleed

  18. Ch.4 Small Ap. Flux vs Peak DN The uncorrected data is totally linear! Not how it behaved on the ground!

  19. Ch.4 Derived Fluxes into Saturation

  20. Looking at Ch.3

  21. Same behavior as Ch.4

  22. Ch.3 Muxbleed Muxbleed nearly identical to ch.4

  23. Ch.3 Small Ap. Photometry Hmm…. Correction is no good - it hurts more than it helps.

  24. Ch.3 Flux vs Exptime

  25. SWIRE-2MASS Color-Mag DR1 Note: arrays are linear at low well depths! Original analysis from ELAIS-N1 DR1 Release (note: offsets between channels zeroed, real ones are between 0 and 0.1)

  26. SWIRE vs. 2MASS DR2 ELAIS-N1 DR1 ELAIS-N2 DR2 2MASS-IRAC oops Ch.3 Flux (mJy) Our DR1 banding processing masked banded pixels, so effective saturation set in way before the well filled. DR2 is very different, and uses full well depth.

  27. SWIRE vs. 2MASS DR2 ELAIS-N1 DR1 ELAIS-N2 DR2 2MASS-IRAC Ch.4 Flux (mJy)

More Related