Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Flat field — where it appears

An exposure of something meant to be uniform, used to divide out how sensitivity and illumination vary across an imaging detector. It corrects errors that multiply the light, and mishandles any that add to it, such as scattered light.

Named by 2 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Also named here as illumination correction — the same set of essays touches all of them, so they are one junction rather than several.

A dome flat that is 3.5 per cent wrong leaves 0.042 magnitudes across the field. Two things called the flat field. The left panel is the true illumination of the focal plane, falling by 12 per cent from centre to corner because of vignetting and the filter's own radial transmission. The middle panel is what a dome flat measures, which is the illumination produced by a screen at a finite distance lit by lamps — a different angular distribution, and therefore a different fall-off by a few per cent. The right-hand plot is what survives dividing one by the other: a smooth radial gradient of 0.042 magnitudes from centre to edge. Pixel-to-pixel response scatter, which is what most people mean by a flat field, is 1.8 per cent per pixel and averages down to 0.255 per cent inside a photometric aperture. The term everybody removes is the one that does not matter, and the term that matters is smooth, is different for every flat-fielding method, and looks exactly like a real gradient in the sky.

A response measured pixel by pixel

Two completely different quantities are called the flat field. One is the detector's pixel-to-pixel response, which everybody removes and which averages away anyway. The other is the illumination pattern of the optics, which is smooth, is different for every method of measuring it, and survives into every magnitude the instrument produces.

starlight · Photometric systems A flat sky, and stars that are wrong. The residual brightness after flat-fielding, in per cent, against distance from the field centre, for the sky (flat line) and for a star (curve), with 3 per cent scattered light at the centre of both the flat and the science exposure. The sky, which fills the field as the flat's illumination did, carries the same scattered component and divides out exactly: the corrected image looks perfectly flat, which is the test an observer applies. The star, a point that scatters a negligible fraction of its light into its own aperture, is divided by the scattered component it never had and comes out 2.9 per cent too faint at the centre. The visible check passes and the measurement fails.

Light that adds, corrected as if it multiplied

A flat field is an exposure of something uniform, and some of the light in it did not come through the optics the way starlight does — it scattered off a baffle, a filter face or a dusty window and landed where the geometry never sent it. Dividing by that flat makes the sky in every science image look perfect and makes every star in it wrong, by an amount the image itself cannot show.

starlight · Photometric systems

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Illumination correctionScattered lightSelf-calibrationSystematic errorColour termDetector responseDifferential photometryDitheringPhotometric zero pointSky backgroundSurface brightnessVignetting

All concepts