"Do the Nikon have the function to find and map out stuck pixels?"... 
Strictly speaking it is (singular) "Does the Nikon have the function to find and map out stuck pixels?"
But you could say (plural) "Do the Nikons have the function to find and map out stuck pixels?"
It's complicated, even English people get muddled.
Anyhow, back on-topic, this is what I have found out from the manual:
I really don't know what it all means. But I think that high ISO and long exposure means noise even if noise reduction is on.
By default I have turned on NR. But I have heard that astronomers recommend turning it off. Maybe that is the next thing to try?
Apparently you can do things with MS Windows Nikon software and RAW images to fix it too, But I can only handle jpeg in linux.
Strictly speaking it is (singular) "Does the Nikon have the function to find and map out stuck pixels?"
But you could say (plural) "Do the Nikons have the function to find and map out stuck pixels?"
It's complicated, even English people get muddled.
Anyhow, back on-topic, this is what I have found out from the manual:
I really don't know what it all means. But I think that high ISO and long exposure means noise even if noise reduction is on.
By default I have turned on NR. But I have heard that astronomers recommend turning it off. Maybe that is the next thing to try?
Apparently you can do things with MS Windows Nikon software and RAW images to fix it too, But I can only handle jpeg in linux.
Last edited:
Terrible problems getting my nightly snap of the hoped-for Nova.
I made a hash of Focussing in darkness, well, you can imagine. You can't SEE anything! The nearby parked car roofs were not low and flat enough to balance a tripod easily too.
Street lights hardly make for dark skies either. I really must write to the Local Councillor. Not that he'd know light pollution from a hole in the ground.
Thought I'd try the V1+ setting that make supposedly colours more vivid, and turned off noise reduction:
Another bust!
My mood was hardly lightened on reading about the problems local residents in Pembrokeshire are creating about our new Space Radar station, designed to keep us, the US and Australia safe from marauding enemy satellites:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y89ne1l7o
Usual NIMBY whatnot from ill-informed locals. Talk of migrating Shearwater and Chuff birds being confused by the installation of 27 antennas. They'll be mentioning newts in local ponds next!
Some claim the spot is "Magical". Some are worried about lights. Well, this is radar. It doesn't use lights.
Ignorant comparisons of cancer risks from "Iron Dome" missile radars (which can probably microwave an egg at a 1000 yards) and this one which points up at the sky. I know a bit about radars, more than I can tell you.
These chaps at RAF Fylingdales don't look worried about health issues:
Civilians really shouldn't interfere with things that are best left to Physicists and Engineers.
Sorry to rant.
I made a hash of Focussing in darkness, well, you can imagine. You can't SEE anything! The nearby parked car roofs were not low and flat enough to balance a tripod easily too.
Street lights hardly make for dark skies either. I really must write to the Local Councillor. Not that he'd know light pollution from a hole in the ground.
Thought I'd try the V1+ setting that make supposedly colours more vivid, and turned off noise reduction:
Another bust!
My mood was hardly lightened on reading about the problems local residents in Pembrokeshire are creating about our new Space Radar station, designed to keep us, the US and Australia safe from marauding enemy satellites:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y89ne1l7o
Usual NIMBY whatnot from ill-informed locals. Talk of migrating Shearwater and Chuff birds being confused by the installation of 27 antennas. They'll be mentioning newts in local ponds next!
Some claim the spot is "Magical". Some are worried about lights. Well, this is radar. It doesn't use lights.
Ignorant comparisons of cancer risks from "Iron Dome" missile radars (which can probably microwave an egg at a 1000 yards) and this one which points up at the sky. I know a bit about radars, more than I can tell you.
These chaps at RAF Fylingdales don't look worried about health issues:
Civilians really shouldn't interfere with things that are best left to Physicists and Engineers.
Sorry to rant.
"Hot" pixels are a bit of a misnomer for pixels with above usual charge leakage for the sensor. Sensor temperature has it's own set of problems which is why we use cooled cameras. The best thing to do is take images with the sensor covered and then subtract that from the final image, plus stack many shorter exposures with a little positional dither, then bad pixels, noise and other issues tend to average out when aligned, as in the case of bad pixels they are not in the same place wrt the target object on each exposure. You should also take flats -- images of an even light source that will allow correction for vignetting, uneven sensitivity etc.
Space War is becoming a reality, but not quite as I once envisaged it!
Instead it's about cyber warfare, electronic attacks, and ground-to-orbit missiles capable of destroying satellites.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...world-is-preparing-for-war-in-space/103634106
Indeed, I was inwardly quite excited at the prospect of Space War! We may need to develop our skills if the Klingons attack, never mind The Usual Suspects.
I tried 15s photos with the lens cap on at ISO 400 and ISO 1600.
Totally black screen with the exception of a double grey pixel that appeared near the bottom at ISO 1600:
I think the jpeg compression has anti-aliased them.
A total over-exposure to white was just that. No black pixels.
About 10 consistent rogue red pixels appear in long exposures of the sky at both ISO's. I suppose this is some sort of over-sensitivity.
I do know the Nikon D40 with 6M pixels was considered a better camera with a base ISO of 100, whereas the D60 at 10M is ISO 200.
I really don't know, but I assume sensor heating is aggravating this over-sensitivity in long exposures.
Considering the sensor is 3872 X 2592 small format, this is really quite impressive quality control by Nikon. Old LED screens used to be worse!
I have finished "Quanta and Fields" by Sean Carroll. I certainly can't argue with The Standard Model. All is waves!
The last Chapter (Appendix) was on Fourier Transform. I know that subject.
The more you confine a wave function to a small space (position), the more spread out the frequencies (momenta) become. This is the Uncertainty Principle!
The correct mathematical description is that Momentum is the Fourier Transform of Position. It's just maths, though quite why Planck's Constant (6 X 10^-34 J.s) is what it is remains a mystery.
Amongst talk of Fermions, Sean also pointed out that the Binding Energy of a Hydrogen Molecule is only 4.5eV which must be a photon verging from blue to low ultraviolet. It is the 2 electrons that pull it together over the repulsive force of the protons, and they have opposite spin.
Other interesting bits of chemistry involve how the gas Helium works with two electrons, and metal Lithium with three, though the outer one is the main event.
Overall, an interesting if difficult read.
I tried 15s photos with the lens cap on at ISO 400 and ISO 1600.
Totally black screen with the exception of a double grey pixel that appeared near the bottom at ISO 1600:
I think the jpeg compression has anti-aliased them.
A total over-exposure to white was just that. No black pixels.
About 10 consistent rogue red pixels appear in long exposures of the sky at both ISO's. I suppose this is some sort of over-sensitivity.
I do know the Nikon D40 with 6M pixels was considered a better camera with a base ISO of 100, whereas the D60 at 10M is ISO 200.
I really don't know, but I assume sensor heating is aggravating this over-sensitivity in long exposures.
Considering the sensor is 3872 X 2592 small format, this is really quite impressive quality control by Nikon. Old LED screens used to be worse!
I have finished "Quanta and Fields" by Sean Carroll. I certainly can't argue with The Standard Model. All is waves!
The last Chapter (Appendix) was on Fourier Transform. I know that subject.
The more you confine a wave function to a small space (position), the more spread out the frequencies (momenta) become. This is the Uncertainty Principle!
The correct mathematical description is that Momentum is the Fourier Transform of Position. It's just maths, though quite why Planck's Constant (6 X 10^-34 J.s) is what it is remains a mystery.
Amongst talk of Fermions, Sean also pointed out that the Binding Energy of a Hydrogen Molecule is only 4.5eV which must be a photon verging from blue to low ultraviolet. It is the 2 electrons that pull it together over the repulsive force of the protons, and they have opposite spin.
Other interesting bits of chemistry involve how the gas Helium works with two electrons, and metal Lithium with three, though the outer one is the main event.
Overall, an interesting if difficult read.