Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of Questions_Durham_MDS_Testing

Timestamp:

Jul 23, 2009, 11:40:05 PM (17 years ago)

Author:

shaun.cole@…

Comment:

--

Questions_Durham_MDS_Testing

@@ -1 +1 @@
 A set of questions that have arisen from the analysis of the MDS 07 and 08 images at Durham.
 
-Image examples related to the questions raised here can be found at [http://svn.pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/trac/ipp/wiki/Durham_MDS_Testing , this wiki page]
+Image examples related to the questions raised here can be found at [http://svn.pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/trac/ipp/wiki/Durham_MDS_Testing this wiki page]
 
 These questions are preliminary and will be updated as we learn more.
@@ -7 +7 @@
 1) The width of the tracks removed by Magic are often extremely wide (10s of pixels). For example, in the 19 warped frames for skycell 077 in MD08 (g-band), between ~20-50% of pixel data in frames are masked out. What is the prospect of getting Magic working within the specification of only a few percent masked pixels? Note that bad read-out regions also result in large areas of individual frames being masked out.
 
-2) We have measured the PSF of the stacked images (g-band MD08) to have a width of up-to and over 2 arcsecs whereas the data distribution table ([http://svn.pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/trac/ipp/wiki/PS1_Science_Processing_Status_20090705]) lists the image quality as 1.2 arcsecs. Why is it so bad (especially as the stack is made from only the 50% best data) and why is the quoted 1.2 arcsec wrong?
+2) We have measured the PSF of the stacked images (g-band MD08) to have a width of up-to and over 2 arcsecs whereas the  [http://svn.pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/trac/ipp/wiki/PS1_Science_Processing_Status_20090705 data distribution table] lists the image quality as 1.2 arcsecs. Why is it so bad (especially as the stack is made from only the 50% best data) and why is the quoted 1.2 arcsec wrong?