10
$\begingroup$

While taking pictures of the bubble nebula I noticed a very strange artifact on only one of my pictures. It can't be a satellite since its not a straight line and this is a 90s exposure that should make a line much longer. Also I doubt this is just readout noise from the camera (image is unstretched, unedited) since hot pixels don't form lines. So could this be a cosmic ray hit? If not does anyone have an idea what this could be?

The image was taken with my Canon 7D Mark II @ISO1600, 90s exposure. Celestron C8 SGT (XLT), Celestron Advanced VX

enter image description here

enter image description here

| improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could it be something closer to earth like dust/speck of dirt/pollen/bug eyeball/sap/water droplet/etc that was on the lens and shifted during the exposure? $\endgroup$ – iMerchant Jul 30 '16 at 6:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @iMerchant I highly doubt that, since it looks like something that was smaller than 1 pixel and still extremly sharp (compare it to the stars in the background). From this I concluded it must be something on the sensor of the camera, not something that came through the optics $\endgroup$ – RononDex Jul 30 '16 at 11:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll let others give definitive answer to this, but cosmic rays can leave tracks on ccd. The fact it is not straight suggests a rather loe energy electron, rather than a high speed muon or similar. $\endgroup$ – James K Jul 30 '16 at 21:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since it is very narrow, i think it must be something inside the camera, as an thing outdide would be blurred by imperfection of the lens. Some kind of stray elecron seems most likely $\endgroup$ – James K Jul 30 '16 at 21:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The word you are looking for is "meteor", and I hardly think that's what it looks like on the picture. $\endgroup$ – nataliaeire Aug 30 '16 at 14:50
9
$\begingroup$

It's a track about 50 pixels long, at 4.1 $\mu m$ per pixel that's 200 $\mu m$ in the plane of the sensor.

It's about 1 pixel wide, quite lumpy, and seems to change direction a bit. It really fits the description of an ionizing particle. There are multiple possible sources,

I'm pretty sure @JamesK has nailed it as an electron, but what else can we learn? There must be some way to get a very rough idea of how many $e^- h^+$ pairs correspond to a fully exposed pixel at "@ISO1600", then we could convert it to a dE/dx and see if it's minimum ionizing or if it's much higher.

Going diagonally, with a density of 2.3 g/cm${}^3$ that's about 1.3 mg/cm${}^2$ areal density per pixel. A [minimum ionizing particle] at 1.5 MeV / g cm${}^2$ would deposit only about 2000 eV which would make less than 1000 $e^- h^+$ pairs. That might correspond to a bright pixel. It's not out of the question that it's a minimum ionizing particle.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That's a very interesting read. If it might help you for further analysis, this is a page that analysis the sensor of my camera really deeply (with all the different read noise, gain, etc for each iso setting): clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii Alternatively this is another page with some more info: sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-7D-Mark-II.html Note that this image was taken while the sensor was at a temperature of around 34°C $\endgroup$ – RononDex Aug 31 '16 at 10:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RononDex looks like 2230 $e^-$ is the maximum value at ISO 1600 so indeed it could be a minimum ionizing particle! Thanks! $\endgroup$ – uhoh Aug 31 '16 at 12:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.