| 17 | | The good stacks I suggest as teplate are reported below, followed by a summary of all the steps I did. |
| 18 | | MD02 |
| 19 | | FILTER JD stacks.image.ID |
| 20 | | g 55191 40790-40893 |
| 21 | | r 55188 44942-45045 |
| 22 | | i 55180 39135-39238 |
| 23 | | z 55096 31535-31604 |
| | 23 | The good stacks I suggest as teplate are reported below, followed by a summary of all the steps I did.[[BR]] |
| | 24 | |
| | 25 | '''MD02'''[[BR]] |
| | 26 | |
| | 27 | FILTER JD stacks.image.ID[[BR]] |
| | 28 | |
| | 29 | g 55191 40790-40893[[BR]] |
| | 30 | |
| | 31 | r 55188 44942-45045[[BR]] |
| | 32 | |
| | 33 | i 55180 39135-39238[[BR]] |
| | 34 | |
| | 35 | z 55096 31535-31604 [[BR]] |
| | 36 | |
| | 37 | |
| | 38 | [[Image(MD02.png, 800px)]][[BR]] |
| | 39 | |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | ''' MD03''' |
| | 42 | [[BR]] |
| | 43 | |
| | 44 | FILTER JD stacks images[[BR]] |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | g [[BR]] |
| | 47 | |
| | 48 | |
| | 49 | r 55207 41983-42082 (both good)[[BR]] |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | r 55183 39667-39770 (both good)[[BR]] |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | i [[BR]] |
| | 54 | |
| | 55 | z [[BR]] |
| | 56 | |
| | 57 | |
| | 58 | [[Image()]][[BR]] |
| | 59 | |
| | 60 | '''MD04'''[[BR]] |
| | 61 | |
| | 62 | FILTER JD stacks images[[BR]] |
| | 63 | |
| | 64 | g [[BR]] |
| | 65 | |
| | 66 | r [[BR]] |
| | 67 | |
| | 68 | i [[BR]] |
| | 69 | |
| | 70 | z [[BR]] |
| | 71 | |
| | 72 | |
| | 73 | |
| | 74 | [[Image()]][[BR]] |
| | 75 | |
| | 76 | ''' Summary steps''' [[BR]] |
| | 77 | |
| | 78 | * Download all new stacks in the archive[[BR]] |
| | 79 | |
| | 80 | * Run psphot on unconvolved images [[BR]] |
| | 81 | |
| | 82 | * Compare the following parameters from cmf files: [[BR]] |
| | 83 | |
| | 84 | PSF magnitudes vs aperture magntude [[BR]] |
| | 85 | |
| | 86 | moment along x vs moment along y [[BR]] |
| | 87 | |
| | 88 | minimum fwhm vs major fwhm [[BR]] |
| | 89 | |
| | 90 | '''COMMENTS:''' |
| | 91 | the unconvolved images have more detections (but probably several of them are not real) |
| | 92 | the FWHM of the objects is degradated in the convolved image (probably too much in some skycells) |
| | 93 | To investigate the quality of stacks and select good templates, I used the fwhm and moments values of the unconvnolved images. |
| | 94 | |
| | 95 | |
| | 96 | |
| | 97 | The average values for each skycell is computed rejecting at 3 sigma (5 iterations) [[BR]] |
| | 98 | |
| | 99 | I'm comparing the values of these parameters in each filters and each field [[BR]] |
| | 100 | |
| | 101 | thaking a look by eyes some of the skycells of the best epochs, I choose the best templates [[BR]] |
| | 102 | |
| | 103 | some epochs with small fwhm and moments (in principle good templates) seem to be masked too much [[BR]] |
| | 104 | |
| | 105 | |
| | 106 | MD03 skycell 066 and 102 in 2 different nights [[BR]] |
| | 107 | |
| | 108 | For skycell 066 the first night is a very good template, while for skycell 102 the stack in not good. [[BR]] |
| | 109 | |
| | 110 | |
| | 111 | == '''Probably it will be necessary to select for different skycell, different nights (as template)''' == |
| | 112 | |
| | 113 | |