Going through some astronomy CCD calibration resources (-), I gather that there are in general 3 distinct types of correction that are applied:
The flat-field calibration seems to be the most complicated - the idea is to use a source of known radiance, and capture an image of this known radiance with the CCD. Then assuming we know the source radiance well enough, we can use some math to back out what the actual response function of individual pixels are. Then, for an actual image, we would divide by this response-map to get the actual image. There are a number of assumptions that go into this, such as:
I am not sure what error is incurred by ignoring 2 and 3 in the list at the beginning of this elog, perhaps this won't affect our ability to estimate the scattered power from the test-masses to within a factor of 2. But it may be worth it to do these additional calibration steps.
I also wonder what the uncertainty in the 1.5V/A number for the photodiode is (i.e. how much do we trust the Ophir power meter at low power levels?). The datasheet for the PDA100A says the transimpedance gain at 60dB gain is 1.5 MV/A (into high impedance load), and the Si responsivity at 1064nm is ~0.25A/W, so naively I would expect 0.375 V/uW which is ~factor of 4 lower. Is there a reason to trust one method over the other?
Also, are the calibration factor units correct? Jigyasa reported something like 0.5nW s / ct in her report.
The incident power can be calculated as Pin =CF*Total(Counts-DarkCounts)/ExposureTime.