Changeset 35751 for branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509

Timestamp:

Jul 3, 2013, 1:46:47 PM (13 years ago)

Author:

eugene

Message:

merge changes from trunk

Location:

branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509

Files:

• psLib/src/fits/psFitsScale.c (modified) (4 diffs)
• psphot (modified) (1 prop)
• psphot/src (modified) (1 prop)
• psphot/src/psphotSignificanceImage.c (modified) (1 diff)
• psphot/src/psphotStackImageLoop.c (modified) (1 prop)

branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psLib/src/fits/psFitsScale.c

@@ -204 +204 @@
     psTrace("psLib.fits", 5, "Mean: %lf Stdev: %lf", mean, stdev);
 
-    long range = 1 << options->stdevBits;  // Range of values to carry standard deviation
+    long range = 1L << options->stdevBits;  // Range of values to carry standard deviation
     *bscale = stdev / (double) range;
 
@@ -217 +217 @@
         // Put (mean - N sigma) at the lowest possible value: predominantly positive images
         imageVal = mean - options->stdevNum * stdev;
-        diskVal = - (1 << (options->bitpix - 1));
+        // diskVal = - (1 << (options->bitpix - 1));
+        diskVal = - (1L << (options->bitpix - 1));
         break;
       case PS_FITS_SCALE_STDEV_NEGATIVE:
@@ -224 +225 @@
         // Put (mean + N sigma) at the highest possible value: predominantly negative images
         imageVal = mean + options->stdevNum * stdev;
-        diskVal = (1 << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
+        diskVal = (1L << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
         break;
       case PS_FITS_SCALE_STDEV_BOTH:
@@ -850 +851 @@
     }
 
-    *blank = (1 << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
+    *blank = (1L << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
 
     switch (options->scaling) {

branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psphot/src/psphotSignificanceImage.c

@@ -102 +102 @@
                 smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = 0.0;
             } else {
-                // XXX the value of 100 here (or 1000 before) must depend on the FWHM of the smoothing kernel, right??
-                float v2 = value + PS_SQR(value/100.0);
-                smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = factor * PS_SQR(v2) / smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i];
+              // XXX the value of 100 here (or 1000 before) must depend on the FWHM of the smoothing kernel, right??
+              //              float v2 = value + PS_SQR(value/100.0);
+              // CZW 2013-06-20: I don't think this hack was helping.
+              float v2 = value;
+              smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = factor * PS_SQR(v2) / smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i];
             }
         }