| 16 | | It is important to make clear that the x.PV1.x label/data_group/workdir for MD was a sub-re-reprocessing of exposures that were reprocessed or just processed before date X (now set at 5/16/2012). There have been various other re-reprocessing and reprocessing of exposures (for recent refstacks, GR0 late 2012 night stack completion, etc ***) that have happened after that date. This means there can also be duplicate processing of exposures with valid <stage>_id. Duplicates were allowed because initially the exact date for PV1 was unclear and can also provide an old/new valid reprocessed exposure comparison (i.e., has a change in the ipp-X tag caused problems). When PV1 re-reprocessing was done, MD fields that ended their observing season around this time (i.e., MD05,06,07) were reprocessed to finish out their observing season for some fields since the date was initially uncertain for PV1. Again, either should be acceptable to use, and comparison of original and newer may be a helpful. |
| | 16 | It is important to make clear that the x.PV1.x label/data_group/workdir for MD was a sub-re-reprocessing of exposures that were reprocessed or just processed before date X (now set at 5/16/2012). There have been various other re-reprocessing and reprocessing of exposures (for recent refstacks, GR0 late 2012 night stack completion, etc ***) that have happened after that date. This means there can also be duplicate processing of exposures with valid <stage>_id. Duplicates were allowed because initially the exact date for PV1 was unclear and can also provide an old/new valid reprocessed exposure comparison (i.e., has a change in the ipp-X tag caused problems). When PV1 re-reprocessing was done, MD fields that ended their observing season around this time (i.e., MD05,06,07) were reprocessed to finish out their observing season for some fields since the date was initially uncertain for PV1. Again, either should be acceptable to use, and ''a comparison of original and newer would probably be a helpful''. |
