Changeset 3373

Timestamp:

Mar 3, 2005, 4:48:52 PM (21 years ago)

Author:

Paul Price

Message:

Fixing up some wording.

File:

• trunk/doc/misc/imageSubtraction.tex (modified) (3 diffs)

trunk/doc/misc/imageSubtraction.tex

@@ -1 @@
-%%% $Id: imageSubtraction.tex,v 1.1 2005-03-03 00:38:39 price Exp $
+%%% $Id: imageSubtraction.tex,v 1.2 2005-03-04 02:48:52 price Exp $
 \documentclass[panstarrs]{panstarrs}
 
@@ -210 +210 @@
 We are not using any spatial variation of the kernel.  The quantities
 are being measured within a 5 pixel radius aperture, centered on stars
-detected in the image.  We use clipping
-(2 iterations at 3.5$\sigma$) to obtain statistics on the population
-unaffected by small issues (such as very bright stars which haven't
-been properly masked).
+detected in the image.  We use clipping (2 iterations at 3.5$\sigma$)
+to obtain statistics on the population unaffected by small issues
+(such as very bright stars which haven't been properly masked).
 
 \begin{table}[h]
@@ -257 +256 @@
 Our head-to-head comparison indicates that POIS performs a subtraction
 of comparable quality to ISIS, but is faster by a factor of a few.  We
-are yet to compare the quality of subtractions where the density of
-high signal-to-noise stars is low; in this regime, ISIS might provide
-a better subtraction than POIS, simply because the POIS kernel pixels
-are not correlated.
+are yet to compare the quality of subtractions where there is a low
+density of stars with good signal-to-noise; in this regime, ISIS might
+provide a better subtraction than POIS, simply because the POIS kernel
+pixels are not correlated.
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%