<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hi<br>
<br>
As I mentioned I would also like to be kept informed on these tests<br>
<br>
we are right now cross-checking EIS vs Bonn reductions and it would<br>
be nice to add others<br>
<br>
Luiz<br>
<br>
Roberto Silvotti wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3FB0F62D.D435700F@na.astro.it">
<pre wrap="">Dear Mark,
As we are planning to compare the AW pipeline results on the
Capodimonte Deep Field WFI data obtained by Philippe Héraudeau
with the results that we obtained here with IRAF,
I would like to ask you a few more details on your tests on AW
pipeline vs. Bonn pipeline vs. IRAF, in order to better understand
what you did in Munich and use at best all these tests during our
future discussions next week in Groningen.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello All,
As a test of data reduction routines (astro-wise vs. Bonn pipeline vs.
IRAF) we have immersed ourselves (primarily Jan Snigula and
Yuliana Goranova) in the astro-wise pipeline using our WFI data.
Here some results/comments:
- Dataset used for testing: WiFI- images taken over 6 nights
(approx. 50GB).
Time for testreduction: approx. 1 week (most of the delays were caused
by unannounced pipeline changes occurring during the reduction.
Details:
- COSMICFILTER:
We tried to implement our cosmic filtering routine (cosmicfits from
Claus Goessl) in the pipeline. This attempt failed, due to the
current handling of bad columns/pixels in the images and the
existance of negative pixel values. The latter problem can be
circumvented in the program call, but the bad columns/pixels would
need to be replaced (PRIOR to executing our cosmic filter routine) with
a well defined NaN value, e.g. 0. Essentially, our cosmic filter
routine treats the bad columns as cosmic rays and spends an inordinate
amount of time trying to detect/correct them. It would be easy to
mask these as NaN's prior to running "cosmicfits".
- BAD COLUMNS:
Bad colums in general must be taken care of at an earlier stage of
the pipeline than currently implemented (see example ps
file). This was already discussed by Mark and Roeland.
- SWARP:
The pipeline currently uses a beta version of Swarp (swarp 2.0b),
that fails to create usable weight images. Reasonable weight
images are essential for obtaining a fast run-time with cosmicfits,
and are crucial when the frames on which cosmic rays are detected
have strong intensity slopes.
- UPDATES:
Unannounced pipeline changes that change object definitions, require
changes to the database, that can be time consuming, given the fact,
that we have to figure out the changes from the code, and guess
the needed Database changes. Usually Danny sends out an e-mail
explaining the required changes (usually after talking with Roeland
about the changes in the pipeline), but these e-mail come about 2
days after the changes, causing severe interruptions.
Suggestion: Create a stable branch of the pipeline in the CVS with
weekly? updates from a development branch, and the changes in these
updates should be discussed with the DBAs before, so that updates to
the pipeline cause as few interruptions as possible.
- TESTS:
- Bias:
Subtracting resulting masterbias from its raw input frames
rawbias file name median stddev average stddev
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C54C42.283_4.fits -0.199997 18.876 -0.244914 18.8759
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C55C44.983_4.fits -0.100006 18.9255 -0.161555 18.9254
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C56C42.354_4.fits 0.100006 18.89 0.00905352 18.8897
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C57C39.851_4.fits 0.100006 18.9164 -0.00907611 18.916
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C58C34.232_4.fits 0 18.8818 -0.0418041 18.8818
seWFI.2003-01-05T20C59C33.157_4.fits 0 18.881 -0.0651421 18.8809
seWFI.2003-01-05T21C00C32.066_4.fits 0 18.8516 -0.0559038 18.8515
seWFI.2003-01-05T21C01C33.362_4.fits 0 18.888 -0.0407198 18.888
seWFI.2003-01-05T21C02C30.338_4.fits 0.100006 18.8894 0.000104276 18.8891
seWFI.2003-01-05T21C03C29.919_4.fits 0.100006 18.9252 0.0489991 18.9252
(Is there a numerical round-off occurring in the median computation?).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I suppose that the master was calculated with the AW pipeline.
But it is not clear to me what these numbers tell us: just that each raw
frame
has a median or average very similar to the master ?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - DomeFlat:
Flatfielding biassubtracted raw domeflatframes using the processed
domeflat. ( SEM = std. error)
flatfielded raw flatfield filename median stddev average stddev
dseWFI.2003-01-06T21C59C26.278_4.fits 17778.8 90.3731 17778.1 90.3702
dseWFI.2003-01-06T22C00C53.969_4.fits 19056.3 94.5017 19055.6 94.4991
dseWFI.2003-01-06T22C02C15.050_4.fits 19074.4 94.4472 19073.4 94.4418
- TwilightFlats:
Flatfielding biassubtracted raw twilightflatframes using the processed
twilightflat. ( SEM = std. error)
flatfielded raw flatfield filename median stddev average stddev
dseWFI.2003-01-04T00C17C43.159_4.fits 17885.3 122.664 17886 122.662
dseWFI.2003-01-04T00C19C14.085_4.fits 17161.4 134.724 17161.9 134.723
dseWFI.2003-01-04T00C21C01.056_4.fits 16581.6 151.299 16582.4 151.297
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Here again I do not see what these numbers tell us.
The stddev are relatively small but, for example, we are not able
to say anything about flatness.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> - Astrometry:
From visual inspection of stars from the USNO catalog overplotted
on the image, the astrometric solution determined by the pipeline
seems to be very accurate even out to the edges.
Hard numbers:
mean position differences in arcsec:
RA DEC
-0.0002 0.0001
mean sigma of the position differences in arcsec:
RA DEC
0.4199 0.4021
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
For what concerns astrometry, the mean differences very close to zero
tell us
that there are no offsets in the RA and DEC.
It is less clear the meaning of the mean sigmas:
0.4 arcsec is an accuracy of the same order of the USNO catalogue
(~0.3).
So this values are normal if they represent absolute accuracy.
But they would be not good enough for our purposes if they represent the
relative
accuracy, for example the difference between one dithering and another.
So it would be interesting to known exactely what are these numbers.
Thanks in advance, cheers,
Roberto
----------------------------------------
Dr. Roberto Silvotti
----------------------------------------
INAF (Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica)
Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte
via Moiariello 16, I-80131 Napoli, Italy
----------------------------------------
tel/fax: +39-081-5575583/456710
e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:silvotti@na.astro.it">silvotti@na.astro.it</a>
web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.na.astro.it/~silvotti">http://www.na.astro.it/~silvotti</a>
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
News mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:News@astro-wise.org">News@astro-wise.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listman.astro-wise.org/mailman/listinfo/news">http://listman.astro-wise.org/mailman/listinfo/news</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>