Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A qCMOS camera with sub-electron read noise can outperform classical CCDs for fast time-domain imaging on 1-meter telescopes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:11 UTC pith:SBO7E6RW

load-bearing objection A competent, honest commissioning report with new on-sky qCMOS data; the broad 'outperforms CCDs' claim is plausible but is calibrated against a slow, high-read-noise CCD and needs a fairer benchmark before it generalizes. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14279 v2 pith:SBO7E6RW submitted 2025-12-16 astro-ph.IM

The ORCA-TWIN qCMOS Experiment I. Science case and commissioning at Calar Alto Observatory

Martin M. Roth , Pasko Roje , Stella Vjesnica , Stefan Cikota , Alex J. Brown , Mike Kretlow , Marco Azzaro , Santiago Reinhart
show 13 more authors
Jesus Aceituno Harry Dawson Carsten Denker Torsten En{\ss}lin Stephan Geier Thomas Granzer Thomas Kupfer Gianluca Li Causi Samaya Nissanke Jose Luis Ortiz Fernando Pedichini Katja Poppenh\"ager Axel Schwope
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords qCMOSreadout noisetime-domain astronomyhigh-cadence photometryCCD vs CMOSdetector commissioningasteroid triangulationspeckle imaging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that a new generation of quanta CMOS (qCMOS) camera, which reads out every pixel through its own tiny amplifier and achieves 0.3 electrons of read noise, generally beats classical CCDs for high-cadence imaging on 1-meter-class telescopes. The advantage is largest when exposures are short, where the CCD is readout-noise limited while the qCMOS is limited only by photon shot noise. Numerical simulations put a factor of 1.4 signal-to-noise advantage for an 18th-magnitude star at 10 seconds, and a factor of 13 reduction in binned pixel read noise after accounting for the smaller pixels. Commissioning observations at a 1.23-m telescope demonstrated 2-second-cadence differential photometry of an ultra-compact binary despite poor weather. If the claim holds, small telescopes can open up sub-second-cadence science such as occultations, asteroid light curves, and fast stellar variability.

Core claim

The central claim is that qCMOS technology, exploiting a floating diffusion node with tiny capacitance and on-chip correlated double sampling, reaches sub-electron read noise (0.3 e−) while reading out a full frame in 0.039 s; classical CCDs used for comparison need 1.6 s and carry 11.7 e− read noise at 3 MHz. Because nine qCMOS pixels fit in one CCD pixel's area, the binned qCMOS read noise adds in quadrature to 0.9 e− — still 13 times below the CCD's 11.7 e−. In time-series simulations of a 19th-magnitude star, the qCMOS reaches SNR=10 at a 0.8 s cadence, while the CCD needs about 10 s; the CCD is readout-noise limited throughout. The paper reports first-light and high-cadence observations

What carries the argument

The enabling mechanism is the qCMOS pixel architecture: a floating diffusion node with very small capacitance converts individual photoelectrons into a high voltage, and on-chip correlated double sampling plus column-level low-pass filters suppress read noise to 0.3 e−. The argument's arithmetic engine is the comparison of binned read noise: for N=9 small pixels covering the same sky area as one CCD pixel, the combined noise is sqrt(N)×0.3 ≈ 0.9 e−, against 11.7 e− for the CCD, a factor-13 gain that shrinks but remains positive even against the CCD's slow-scan 2.9 e− mode.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's advantage rests on the assumption that the 11.7 e− read noise of the comparison CCD fairly represents what a classical CCD delivers at high cadence, and that the datasheet noise figures — not unmodeled effects like flat-field residuals or tracking jitter — govern real on-sky performance.

What would settle it

Point the same qCMOS and a modern frame-transfer CCD at the same 19th-magnitude star with 0.8 s exposures on the same telescope: if the qCMOS does not reach SNR≈10 where the CCD reaches SNR≈3 (or if the CCD reaches SNR=10 at a cadence well below 10 s), the central performance claim fails. A simpler check: a V=17 star at 0.1 s exposure should yield SNR≈4 on the qCMOS; if it does not, the simulation's prediction is not borne out.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • High-cadence photometry at 0.1–2 s cadence becomes practical on 1-m telescopes, with SNR=10 reachable at 0.8 s for a 19th-magnitude star under good conditions.
  • Time-series efficiency improves because the 0.039 s readout time is negligible, unlike the 1.6 s CCD readout that truncates cadence below that value.
  • Two synchronized qCMOS cameras on an 1800 km baseline can extend asteroid parallax triangulation from the Moon-distance regime to several AU, and can probe different turbulence profiles for speckle imaging.
  • Even under non-photometric, full-Moon conditions, differential photometry at 2 s cadence reproduces known light curves, showing the camera's robustness.
  • The negligible penalty of post-readout binning opens scene-dependent data processing for direct imaging and potentially spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the benchmark were a modern frame-transfer CCD with 2–3 e− read noise rather than the 11.7 e− used here, the factor-13 read-noise gain would shrink to roughly 3–4; the central 'generally outperforms' claim then depends on the CCD's slower readout time more than on its noise floor.
  • The simulations omit flat-field residual noise, clock-induced charge, and tracking errors that may matter at 0.096 arcsec pixels; a realistic end-to-end test on bright stars with high cadence would quantify how much of the predicted SNR advantage survives on sky.
  • The same noise arithmetic could apply to spectroscopy: if post-readout binning is nearly free, a qCMOS could replace a CCD for fast, low-resolution spectroscopy of variable targets on small telescopes.
  • The two-site synchronized concept suggests a general method: any transient or Solar System object can be localized in 3D by differential timing between two fast cameras, not limited to the specific Toutatis-style triangulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the commissioning of a Hamamatsu ORCA-Quest 2 qCMOS camera at the Calar Alto 1.23 m telescope as the first element of the two-site ORCA-TWIN project. It presents the scientific motivation (high-cadence time-domain photometry, asteroid triangulation, occultations, speckle imaging), a numerical comparison of qCMOS versus a classical CCD based on a Poisson+Gaussian noise model and DAOPHOT aperture photometry, and commissioning results obtained under very unfavorable conditions (full Moon, Calima, clouds). The main claim, stated in the Abstract and Section 7, is that qCMOS technology generally outperforms classical CCDs for high-cadence imaging on 1 m-class telescopes. The simulation parameters are fully tabulated in Table A.1, and light curves of ZTF J2130+4420 and NN Ser are shown to demonstrate feasibility.

Significance. If the central comparative claim is correct, the result is valuable: it would show that small telescopes equipped with qCMOS cameras can reach cadences of ~0.1–2 s with SNR previously requiring much slower or noisier readouts. The paper has clear strengths: the simulation is transparent, all input parameters are tabulated, the noise model is standard, and the authors explicitly list their simplifications (Gaussian PSF, no flatfield residuals). The commissioning data are honest about the adverse conditions and still deliver scientifically usable light curves. However, the headline claim is broader than the evidence: the comparison uses only one specific full-frame CCD at a fast-readout setting, and no on-sky CCD comparison is presented. The central assertion therefore needs either a fairer benchmark or a more limited formulation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §4, Table A.1] The claim that 'qCMOS technology generally outperforms classical CCDs for high-cadence imaging' rests on a simulation that compares ORCA-Quest 2 against a single CCD: the Andor iKon-L at 3 MHz with RON=11.7 e− and full-frame ROT=1.6 s. The paper itself states that the same CCD at 50 kHz has RON=2.9 e−, but no simulation is shown at that setting. For the published V=18/10 s example, a modern frame-transfer CCD with RON≈3 e− would reduce the SNR advantage from the quoted factor ~1.4 to roughly 1.1 (near unity). The generalization is therefore a parameterization of a favorable comparator, not an established general result. I recommend benchmarking against a representative frame-transfer/windowed CCD or replacing 'generally outperforms' with a qualified claim about full-frame CCDs of the iKon-L type.
  2. [§4, Fig. 6] The cadence-floor comparison is unfair. The CCD curve is truncated at 1.6 s because that is the full-frame readout time of the iKon-L at 3 MHz, but many classical CCDs used for high-cadence work (frame-transfer devices, windowed readout) can read a small science region in well under 0.1 s. Therefore the 0.1–2 s regime is not exclusive to qCMOS, and the conclusion that the CCD 'has already reached the detection limit at this short exposure time' should be demonstrated against a windowed/frame-transfer CCD scenario. Without this, the cadence advantage attributed to qCMOS alone is overstated.
  3. [§4, Table A.1] The simulation uses a Gaussian PSF and neglects flatfield residuals; these simplifications are acknowledged, but no sensitivity analysis is provided. The overall SNR advantage claimed for the qCMOS is only about a factor 1.4 in the headline case, and the qCMOS pixel scale is 0.096 arcsec, far finer than the seeing disk. Unmodeled Moffat wings, pixel-response nonuniformity, or tracking jitter at that sampling could plausibly change the DAOPHOT noise estimate by a non-negligible fraction of this margin. Please add robustness tests (e.g., Moffat PSF, 0.5% flatfield residuals) or state quantitatively why these effects are negligible for the 1.4× conclusion.
  4. [§7] Section 7 states that the feasibility of high-cadence photometry was demonstrated 'in agreement with the predictions from numerical simulations,' but no quantitative comparison between the measured light-curve scatter and the simulated SNR is given. Figure 10 shows a light curve obtained under non-photometric conditions, and the reduction is expressly preliminary. As written, the statement is too strong; either provide a quantitative SNR comparison from the commissioning data or soften the claim to 'consistent with the expected performance in a qualitative sense.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. §2] The Abstract gives the ORCA-TWIN baseline as 1635 km, while §2 and Fig. 2 state 1800 km. Please unify.
  2. [§2] Typo: 'hot subdwards' should be 'hot subdwarfs'.
  3. [§4, Fig. 6] The axes of the scatter plot are not labeled in the available version of the figure. The reader should not have to infer which axis is cadence, which is detected photons, and which is SNR from the caption alone.
  4. [Table 1] Focal ratio is printed as '1/8'; this should be 'f/8' for consistency.
  5. [§4, p. 4] The text says 'a marginal SNR=4 detection' for the 0.1 s qCMOS exposure, and the printed value is 17±4 photons; the significance statement is clear, but defining SNR for these aperture-photometry numbers in one sentence would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the comparison is a parameterized simulation from external datasheet values, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim (qCMOS generally outperforms classical CCDs for high-cadence imaging on 1-m telescopes) is supported by the §4 numerical simulation, whose inputs are manufacturer datasheet parameters: qCMOS RON 0.3 e−, readout time 0.039 s; Andor iKon-L RON 11.7 e−, readout time 1.6 s, plus QE, dark current, sky brightness, and telescope throughput (Table A.1). No parameter is fitted to the target claim. The quoted 'factor 13' readout-noise gain is an explicit quadrature calculation (√N × RON_qCMOS = 3 × 0.3 e− = 0.9 e− versus 11.7 e−), and the headline SNR advantage (~1.4) is a computed output that includes photon shot noise, sky, dark current, and DAOPHOT aperture photometry. That the result depends on the choice of CCD benchmark is a modeling limitation or correctness risk, not circularity: the paper even notes the slow-scan CCD mode with RON 2.9 e− yields a smaller gain of 3, but does not hide this dependency. The commissioning light curves are compared against external published light curves (Kupfer et al. 2020b; Özdönmez et al. 2023) and are not fed back into the simulation. Self-citations (Roth 2023; Enßlin 2025; Teckenburg et al. 2025) are not load-bearing for the derivation; external characterizations by Lucas et al. and Krynski et al. provide independent support. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input prediction, or self-citation uniqueness argument is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions, conserved quantities) are introduced. ORCA-TWIN is a project name pairing two existing telescopes and two commercial cameras, not a new physical object. The central claim depends instead on three input parameters (the two RON values and the photometry aperture) plus five modeling assumptions, all listed above.

free parameters (3)
  • Readout noise ORCA-Quest 2 (RON) = 0.3 e-
    Taken from the Hamamatsu datasheet (§4, Table A.1). The headline SNR advantage (factor ~1.4 at V=18/10 s; factor 13 in binned pixel noise) is directly set by this number.
  • Readout noise Andor iKon-L (RON) = 11.7 e- at 3 MHz (2.9 e- at 50 kHz)
    Taken from the Andor datasheet at the fast readout mode, chosen as the CCD benchmark (§4). The comparison result is governed by the ratio of this value to the qCMOS value.
  • DAOPHOT aperture and sky annulus radii = aperture radius 1.5 arcsec; sky annulus 2.0-3.0 arcsec
    Hand-chosen photometry parameters that set the recovered flux and SNR in the simulation; a different aperture would shift the quoted SNR values (§4, Table A.1).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian PSF adequately represents the stellar profile for SNR-comparison purposes
    Invoked in §4/Appendix A: 'A more accurate Moffat profile is not deemed necessary'. Recovered aperture-photometry SNR depends on how much light falls in the aperture, so a real PSF with wings could shift the quoted SNR values.
  • domain assumption Pixel noise is fully described by Poisson (star, sky, dark) plus Gaussian (readout) statistics
    §4 states flatfield residuals were not modeled, and no allowance is made for pattern noise, clock-induced charge, or cosmic rays. Any unmodeled noise component erodes the claimed qCMOS advantage.
  • domain assumption Manufacturer datasheet parameters (QE, dark current, RON, ROT) describe real on-sky performance
    The entire qCMOS-vs-CCD comparison in §4 uses datasheet values; the paper does not present its own lab characterization, which is deferred to a forthcoming paper II.
  • domain assumption The ORCA-Quest 2 vs Andor iKon-L at 3 MHz is a fair representative comparison for 'classical CCDs' on 1m telescopes
    The abstract and §7 generalize to 'classical CCDs', but the simulation tests only one low-RON qCMOS against one higher-RON CCD at its fastest readout; a HiPERCAM-class frame-transfer CCD (used only for data reduction in §6) is never benchmarked.
  • standard math Poisson and Gaussian noise statistics and quadrature addition of independent noises
    Standard photometric error propagation used throughout §4; not in question, but it is the machinery that makes the input RON ratio decisive for the conclusion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13770 in / 15516 out tokens · 125006 ms · 2026-08-03T16:11:53.299031+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We describe a pilot study to explore a new generation of fast and low noise CMOS image sensors for time domain astronomy, using two remote telescopes with a baseline of 1635 km. The experiment involves direct imaging with novel qCMOS image sensor technology that combines fast readout with sub-electron readout noise. Moreover, synchronized observations from two remote telescope sites will be used to explore new approaches for measuring Solar System bodies, precision stellar photometry, and speckle imaging. A fast-track installation of an ORCA-Quest2 camera at the Calar Alto Observatory 1.23m telescope has demonstrated the potential of the qCMOS technology for time domain astronomy. Numerical simulations suggest that owing to sub-electron readout noise, qCMOS sensors outperform classical CCDs for high-cadence imaging on 1m-class telescopes. The small penalty for post-readout binning, that is almost insignificant in comparison to higher readout noise detectors, opens interesting applications for scene-dependent data processing in direct imaging, and potentially even for spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14279 by Alex J. Brown, Axel Schwope, Carsten Denker, Fernando Pedichini, Gianluca Li Causi, Harry Dawson, Jesus Aceituno, Jose Luis Ortiz, Katja Poppenh\"ager, Marco Azzaro, Martin M. Roth, Mike Kretlow, Pasko Roje, Samaya Nissanke, Santiago Reinhart, Stefan Cikota, Stella Vjesnica, Stephan Geier, Thomas Granzer, Thomas Kupfer, Torsten En{\ss}lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simultaneous observations of asteroid 4179 Toutatis, left: WFI La Silla, right: FORS1 Paranal. Credit: ESO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: triangulation of asteroid 4179 Toutatis with 513 km base￾line between ESO observatories at Paranal and La Silla. Right: 1800 km baseline of ORCA-TWIN sites on mainland Spain and Tenerife. Credit: ESO, OpenStreetMap Wiki. two off-the-shelf innovative qCMOS cameras, along with estab￾lishing a detector lab, provided the opportunity of a quick start in the area of detector technology, image sensor charac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CMOS pixel layout, including the floating transfer gate detail. Legend: pixel (80), thick low-doped p-type silicon substrate (82), tran￾sistors (83), (84), (86), (88), buried oxide insulator layer (90), photode￾tector area (82), polysilicon gates defining photodetector (94), deep de￾pletion region for photo electron collection (98), reset transistor (84), buffer transistor (86), row selection transistor (8… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated images of a star for qCMOS (left) and CCD sen￾sor (right), respectively, within a window of approx. 10 × 10 arcsec2 width. The concentric circles indicate the aperture and the sky annu￾lus for DAOPHOT photometry that is applied to the images to measure photon flux and its uncertainty. pled at the plate scale mentioned above. Likewise, the sky back￾ground is estimated from tabulated sky surface br… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 10.000 realisations of simulation of 19th magnitude star under excellent observing conditions, plotted as number of detected photons (blue) versus cadence time step in seconds. Red dots: Corresponding SNR distribution. The circle in orange indicates the detection limit, de￾fined as SNR=3. The circle in cyan marks the region where exposures reach SNR=10. of datapoints on the abscissa is truncated for the CC… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: First Light image: color composite from broad- and narrow-band filter exposures of Ring Nebula M57. Orientation: North up, East left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ORCA-Quest 2 camera mounted to Cassegrain focus of CAHA 1.23m telescope. The chiller and the GPS antenna are mounted outside of the scope of the picture. 6. Observations The commissioning campaign was scheduled around full moon on June 11, 2025. Weather conditions were unfavorable through the entire run, exacerbated by Calima, a dusty wind from the Sahara desert that prevented observations for most of the … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Preliminary light curve for ZTF J2130+4420 obtained during the observing run with the HiPERCAM data reduction software (top panel). Second and third panels: telescope drift in X and Y coordinates shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Optimal mitigation of random telegraph noise for improved photometry at high frame rates

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new algorithm correcting random telegraph noise jumps in CMOS sensors improves SNR of faint stellar light curves by over 5% on average and outperforms masking when the PSF is undersampled or noise sources are comparable.

  2. proto-Lightspeed: a high-speed, ultra-low read noise imager on the Magellan Clay Telescope

    astro-ph.IM 2026-01 accept novelty 5.0

    The paper reports the design, commissioning on two runs, and measured performance of proto-Lightspeed, a seeing-limited high-speed imager delivering sub-electron read noise on the Magellan Clay Telescope.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., & Beletic , J

    Amico , P., Madhav , K., Hernandez , E., Roth , M. M., & Beletic , J. W. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230138

    2023

  4. [4]

    U., Lesser , M

    Ay , S. U., Lesser , M. P., & Fossum , E. R. 2002, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4836, Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, ed. J. A. Tyson & S. Wolff , 271--278

    2002

  5. [5]

    2022, , 74, 877

    Beniyama , J., Sako , S., Ohsawa , R., et al. 2022, , 74, 877

    2022

  6. [6]

    Bessell , M. S. 1979, , 91, 589

    1979

  7. [7]

    2024, , 531, 403

    Bialek , S., Bertin , E., Fabbro , S., et al. 2024, , 531, 403

    2024

  8. [8]

    2005, Experimental Astronomy, 19, 69

    Burke , B., Jorden , P., & Vu , P. 2005, Experimental Astronomy, 19, 69

    2005

  9. [9]

    H., & Lebofsky , M

    Campins , H., Rieke , G. H., & Lebofsky , M. J. 1985, , 90, 896

    1985

  10. [10]

    2024, , 110, 063029

    Cuadrat-Grzybowski , M., Clesse , S., Defraigne , P., Van Camp , M., & Bertrand , B. 2024, , 110, 063029

    2024

  11. [11]

    2024, , 686, A25

    Dawson , H., Geier , S., Heber , U., et al. 2024, , 686, A25

    2024

  12. [12]

    B., et al

    Dorsman , B., Raaijmakers , G., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2023, , 944, 126

    2023

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.17269

    En lin , T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.17269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    En lin , T. A. 2019, Annalen der Physik, 531, 1800127

    2019

  15. [15]

    2022, , 661, A113

    Geier , S., Dorsch , M., Pelisoli , I., et al. 2022, , 661, A113

    2022

  16. [16]

    2015, Science, 347, 1126

    Geier , S., F \"u rst , F., Ziegerer , E., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1126

    2015

  17. [17]

    1989, , 213, L15

    Haefner , R. 1989, , 213, L15

    1989

  18. [18]

    Hanbury Brown , R., Davis , J., Lake , R. J. W., & Thompson , R. J. 1974, , 167, 475

    1974

  19. [19]

    Hodapp , K. W. & Hall , D. N. B. 2006, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 232, The Scientific Requirements for Extremely Large Telescopes, ed. P. Whitelock , M. Dennefeld , & B. Leibundgut , 40--51

    2006

  20. [20]

    2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 41088

    Hu , G., Mi , L., Xiao , K., et al. 2025, Scientific Reports, 15, 41088

    2025

  21. [21]

    2007, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Janesick , J., Andrews , J., Tower , J., et al. 2007, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6690, Focal Plane Arrays for Space Telescopes III, ed. T. J. Grycewicz , C. J. Marshall , & P. G. Warren , 669003

    2007

  22. [22]

    T., & Elliott, T

    Janesick, J., Andrews, J. T., & Elliott, T. 2006, in High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy II, ed. D. A. Dorn & A. D. Holland, Vol. 6276, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 62760M

    2006

  23. [23]

    2002, Experimental Astronomy, 14, 33

    Janesick , J., Gunawan , F., Dosluoglu , T., Tower , J., & McCaffrey , N. 2002, Experimental Astronomy, 14, 33

    2002

  24. [24]

    2009, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Janesick , J., Pinter , J., Potter , R., et al. 2009, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7439, Astronomical and Space Optical Systems, ed. P. G. Warren , C. J. Marshall , R. K. Tyson , M. Lloyd-Hart , J. B. Heaney , & E. T. Kvamme , 743907

    2009

  25. [25]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Janesick , J., Pinter , J., Potter , R., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7742, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IV, ed. A. D. Holland & D. A. Dorn , 77420B

    2010

  26. [26]

    Janesick , J. R. 2001, Scientific charge-coupled devices (SPIE Press Monograph)

    2001

  27. [27]

    J., Bell , R., et al

    Jerram , P., Pool , P. J., Bell , R., et al. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4306, Sensors and Camera Systems for Scientific, Industrial, and Digital Photography Applications II, ed. M. M. Blouke , J. Canosa , & N. Sampat , 178--186

    2001

  28. [28]

    & Stefanov , K

    Jerram , P. & Stefanov , K. 2020, in High Performance Silicon Imaging (Second Edition): Fundamentals and Applications of CMOS and CCD Sensors, ed. D. Durini , Woodhead Publishing, 255--287

    2020

  29. [29]

    L., Desmars , J., et al

    Kretlow , M., Ortiz , J. L., Desmars , J., et al. 2024, , 691, A31

    2024

  30. [30]

    2025 a , in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Krynski , J., Bernard , V., Lalucaa , V., et al. 2025 a , in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13448, Advanced Photon Counting Techniques XIX, ed. M. A. Itzler , J. C. Bienfang , & K. A. McIntosh , 134480K

    2025

  31. [31]

    2025 b , , 134, 037001

    Krynski , J., McGrath , D., Le Roch , A., et al. 2025 b , , 134, 037001

    2025

  32. [32]

    B., Burdge , K

    Kupfer , T., Bauer , E. B., Burdge , K. B., et al. 2020 a , , 898, L25

    2020

  33. [33]

    B., Marsh , T

    Kupfer , T., Bauer , E. B., Marsh , T. R., et al. 2020 b , , 891, 45

    2020

  34. [34]

    B., van Roestel , J., et al

    Kupfer , T., Bauer , E. B., van Roestel , J., et al. 2022, , 925, L12

    2022

  35. [35]

    2015, , 576, A44

    Kupfer , T., Geier , S., Heber , U., et al. 2015, , 576, A44

    2015

  36. [36]

    2024, , 967, 81

    Leichty , M., Garnavich , P., Littlefield , C., et al. 2024, , 967, 81

    2024

  37. [37]

    2024, , 136, 114504

    Lucas , M., Norris , B., Guyon , O., et al. 2024, , 136, 114504

    2024

  38. [38]

    A., & Masoodian , S

    Ma , J., Zhang , D., Elgendy , O. A., & Masoodian , S. 2021, IEEE Electron Device Letters, 42, 891

    2021

  39. [39]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Mackay , C., Basden , A., & Bridgeland , M. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5499, Optical and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy, ed. J. D. Garnett & J. W. Beletic , 203--209

    2004

  40. [40]

    E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al

    Morgado , B. E., Sicardy , B., Braga-Ribas , F., et al. 2023, , 614, 239

    2023

  41. [41]

    T., Hindsley , R

    Mozurkewich , D., Armstrong , J. T., Hindsley , R. B., et al. 2003, , 126, 2502

    2003

  42. [42]

    Nir , G., Zackay , B., & Ofek , E. O. 2018, , 156, 229

    2018

  43. [43]

    2013, , 767, 124

    Nissanke , S., Kasliwal , M., & Georgieva , A. 2013, , 767, 124

    2013

  44. [44]

    L., Santos-Sanz , P., Sicardy , B., et al

    Ortiz , J. L., Santos-Sanz , P., Sicardy , B., et al. 2017, , 550, 219

    2017

  45. [45]

    2023, , 526, 4725

    \"O zd \"o nmez , A., Er , H., & Nasiroglu , I. 2023, , 526, 4725

    2023

  46. [46]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pedichini , F., Piazzesi , R., Li Causi , G., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13097, Adaptive Optics Systems IX, ed. K. J. Jackson , D. Schmidt , & E. Vernet , 130970A

    2024

  47. [47]

    2020, , 582, 497

    Plavchan , P., Barclay , T., Gagn \'e , J., et al. 2020, , 582, 497

    2020

  48. [48]

    & Harris , A

    Pravec , P. & Harris , A. W. 2007, , 190, 250

    2007

  49. [49]

    Roth , M. M. 2023, Astronomische Nachrichten, 344, e20230066

    2023

  50. [50]

    P., Gunn , J

    Schneider , D. P., Gunn , J. E., & Hoessel , J. G. 1983, , 264, 337

    1983

  51. [51]

    D., Mackebrandt , F., Thinius , B

    Schwope , A. D., Mackebrandt , F., Thinius , B. D., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 115

    2015

  52. [52]

    2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Smith , N., Coates , C., Giltinan , A., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5499, Optical and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy, ed. J. D. Garnett & J. W. Beletic , 162--172

    2004

  53. [53]

    Stetson , P. B. 1987, , 99, 191

    1987

  54. [54]

    J., Stassun , K

    Stevens , D. J., Stassun , K. G., & Gaudi , B. S. 2017, , 154, 259

    2017

  55. [55]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Strakhov , I., Safonov , B., & Cheryasov , D. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13095, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging IX, ed. J. Kammerer , S. Sallum , & J. Sanchez-Bermudez , 130952Q

    2024

  56. [56]

    J., et al

    Teckenburg , P., Kupfer , T., Brown , A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    & Burkert , A

    Thoss , V. & Burkert , A. 2025, , 980, 238

    2025

  58. [58]

    Tonry , J. L. 2011, , 123, 58

    2011

  59. [59]

    Tovar Mendoza , G., Davenport , J. R. A., Agol , E., Jackman , J. A. G., & Hawley , S. L. 2022, , 164, 17

    2022

  60. [60]

    X., Geller , S

    Tran , T. X., Geller , S. R., Lehmann , B. V., & Kaiser , D. I. 2024, , 110, 063533

    2024

  61. [61]

    2024, , 684, A118

    Uzundag , M., Krzesinski , J., Pelisoli , I., et al. 2024, , 684, A118

    2024

  62. [62]

    S., van Belle , G

    von Braun , K., Boyajian , T. S., van Belle , G. T., et al. 2014, , 438, 2413

    2014

  63. [63]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Vu , P., Fowler , B., Liu , C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8453, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy V, ed. A. D. Holland & J. W. Beletic , 84530D

    2012

  64. [64]

    2022, , 516, 5785

    Wang , F., Ge , J., & Willis , K. 2022, , 516, 5785

    2022