Changeset 39893 for trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/calibration.tex
- Timestamp:
- Dec 18, 2016, 8:58:32 PM (10 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/calibration.tex
r39880 r39893 62 62 K. W. Hodapp,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 63 63 R. Jedicke,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 64 N. Kaiser,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 64 65 R.-P. Kudritzki,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 65 66 N. Metcalfe,\altaffilmark{\DUR} … … 68 69 % T. Grav,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 69 70 % J. N. Heasley,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 70 % N. Kaiser,\altaffilmark{\IfA}71 71 % G. A. Luppino,\altaffilmark{\IfA} 72 72 % R. H. Lupton,\altaffilmark{\Princeton} … … 591 591 the data from the exposure are loaded into the DVO database. 592 592 593 \section{PV3 DVO Master Database} 594 595 Data from the GPC1 chip images, the stack images, and the warp images 596 are loaded into DVO using the real-time analysis astrometric 597 calibration to guide the association of detections into objects. 598 After the full PV3 DVO database was constructed, including all of the 599 chip, stack, and warp detections, several external catalogs were 600 merged into the database. First, the complete 2MASS PSC was loaded 601 into a stand-alone DVO database, which was then merged into the PV3 602 master database. Next the DVO database of synthetic photometry in the 603 PS1 bands (see Section~\ref{sec:synthdb}) was merged in. Next, the 604 full Tycho database was added, followed by the AllWISE database. 605 After the Gaia release in August 2016 \citep{2016AA...595A...2G}, we 606 generated a DVO database of the Gaia positional and photometric 607 information and merged that into the master DVO database. 608 609 %% \note{need to describe the assignment of flags, etc, for the external data sources}. 610 593 611 \section{Photometry Calibration} 594 612 … … 868 886 of responsibility. 869 887 888 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 889 \begin{center} 890 \begin{minipage}{0.85\linewidth} 891 \includegraphics[width=\textwidth,clip]{{pics/photflat.example}.png} 892 \end{minipage} 893 \hspace{-3.0in} 894 \begin{minipage}{0.4\linewidth} 895 \vspace{3.25in} 896 \caption{\label{fig:photflat} High-resolution flat-field correction images for the 5 filters $grizy$.} 897 \end{minipage} 898 \end{center} 899 \end{figure*} 900 870 901 The iterations described above (calculate mean 871 902 magnitudes, calculate zero points, calculate new measurements) are … … 900 931 back to all measurements in the database, updating the mean photometry 901 932 as part of this process. The calculations for this last step are 902 performed in parallel on the DVO par ition machines.933 performed in parallel on the DVO partition machines. 903 934 904 935 With the above software, we are able to perform the entire relphot … … 911 942 analysis. 912 943 944 \begin{figure}[htbp] 945 \begin{center} 946 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/allsky.photom.sigma}.png} 947 \caption{\label{fig:allsky.photom.sigma} Consistency of photometry 948 measurements across the sky. Each panel shows a map of the 949 standard deviation of photometry residuals for stars in each 950 pixel. The median value of the measure standard deviations across 951 the sky is $(\sigma_g, \sigma_r, \sigma_i, \sigma_z, \sigma_y) = 952 (14, 14, 15, 15, 18)$ millimags. These values reflect the typical 953 single-measurement errors for bright stars.} 954 \end{center} 955 \end{figure} 956 913 957 %% \note{need to discuss the process of setting the final mean magnitudes} 958 959 \subsubsection{Photometric Flat-field} 914 960 915 961 For PV3, the relphot analysis was performed two times. The first … … 927 973 and to set the average magnitudes. 928 974 975 Figure~\ref{fig:photflat} shows the high-resolution photometric 976 flat-field corrections applied to the measurements in the DVO 977 database. These flat-fields make low-level corrections of up to 978 \approx 0.03 magnitudes. Several features of interest are apparent in 979 these images. 980 981 First, at the center of the camera is an important structure caused by 982 the telescope optics which we call the ``tent''. In this portion of 983 the focal plane, the image quality degrades very quickly. The 984 photometry is systematically biased because the point spread function 985 model cannot follow the real changes in the PSF shape on these small 986 scales. As is evident in the image, the effect is such that the flux 987 measured using a PSF model is systematically low, as expected if the 988 PSF model is too small. 989 990 The square outline surrounding the ``tent'' is due to the 2$\times$2 991 sampling per chip used for the Ubercal flat-field corrections. The 992 imprint of the Ubercal flat-field is visible throughout this 993 high-resolution flat-field: in regions where the underlying flat-field 994 structure follows a smooth gradient across a chip, the Ubercal 995 flat-field partly corrects the structure, leaving behind a saw-tooth 996 residual. The high-resolution flat-field corrects the residual 997 structures well. 998 999 Especially notable in the bluer filters is a pattern of quarter 1000 circles centered on the corners of the chips. These patterns are 1001 similar to the ``tree rings'' reported by the DES team and others 1002 (G. Berstein REF \& REFS). The details of these tree rings are beyond 1003 the scope of this article, and will be explored in future work. 1004 Unlike the tree ring features discussed by these other authors, the 1005 features observed in the GPC1 photometry are not caused by an 1006 interaction of the flat-field with the effective pixel geometry. 1007 Instead, these photometric features are due to low-level changes in 1008 the PSF size which we attribute to variable charge diffusion (Magnier 1009 in prep). 1010 1011 Other features include some poorly responding cells (e.g., in XY14) 1012 and effects at the edges of chips, possibly where the PSF model fails 1013 to follow the changes in the PSF. 1014 1015 %% XXX : need to refer to system paper on the central tent? 1016 929 1017 %% \note{show the flat-field residual images, discuss the features?}. 930 1018 931 1019 For stacks and warps, the image calibrations were determined after the 932 relative astrometry was performed on the individual chips. Each stack1020 relative photometry was performed on the individual chips. Each stack 933 1021 and each warp was tied via relative photometry to the average 934 1022 magnitudes from the chip photometry. In this case, no flat-field … … 941 1029 appropriate for a given warp. This latter effect is one of several 942 1030 which degrade the warp photometry compared to the chip photometry at 943 the bright end. 1031 the bright end. 1032 1033 \subsection{Photometry Calibration Quality} 1034 1035 Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.photom.sigma} shows the standard devitions of 1036 the mean residual photometry for bright stars as a function of 1037 position across the sky. For each pixel in these images, we selected 1038 all objects with (14.5, 14.5, 14.5, 14.0, 13.0) $<$ ($g,r,i,z,y$) $<$ 1039 (17, 17, 17, 16.5, 15.5), with at least 3 measurements in $i$-band (to 1040 reject artifacts detected in a pair of exposures from the same night), 1041 with \code{PSF_QF} $> 0.85$ (to reject excessively-masked objects), 1042 and with $mag_{\rm PSF} - mag_{rm Kron} < 0.1$ (to reject galaxies). 1043 We then generated histograms of the difference between the average 1044 magnitude and the apparent magnitude in an individual image for each 1045 filter for all stars in a given pixel in the images. From these 1046 residual histograms, we can then determine the median and the 68\%-ile 1047 range to calculate a robust standard deviation. This represents the 1048 bright-end systematic error floor for a measurement from a single 1049 exposure. The standard deviations are then plotted in 1050 Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.photom.sigma}. 1051 1052 The 5 panels in Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.photom.sigma} show several 1053 features. The Galactic bulge is clearly seen in all five filters, 1054 with the impact strongest in the reddest bands. We attribute this to 1055 the effects of crowding and contamination of the photometry by 1056 neighbors. Large-scale, roughly square features \approx 10 degrees on 1057 a side in these images can be attributed to the vagaries of weather: 1058 these patches correspond to the observing chunks. These images 1059 include both photometric and non-photometric exposures. It seems 1060 plausible that the non-photometric images from relatively poor quality 1061 nights elevate the typical errors. On small scales, there are 1062 circular patterns \approx 3 degrees in diameter corresponding to 1063 individual exposures; these represent residual flat-fields structures 1064 not corrected by our stellar flat-fielding. The median of the 1065 standard deviations in the five filters are 1066 $(\sigma_g,\sigma_r,\sigma_i,\sigma_z,\sigma_y) = (14, 14, 15, 15, 1067 18)$ millimagnitudes. 944 1068 945 1069 %% \note{recommendation} … … 949 1073 \subsubsection{Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares Fitting (1D)} 950 1074 951 \subsubsection{Sele tion of Measurements}1075 \subsubsection{Selection of Measurements} 952 1076 953 1077 \subsubsection{Stack Photometry} … … 957 1081 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 958 1082 \begin{center} 959 \includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize,clip]{{pics/DXT0.mean}.png} 960 \includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize,clip]{{pics/DXT1.mean}.png} 961 \includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize,clip]{{pics/DYT0.mean}.png} 962 \includegraphics[width=0.48\hsize,clip]{{pics/DYT1.mean}.png} 963 \caption{\label{fig:KHchip} Illustration of the Koppenh\"ofer Effect 1083 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/KHexample}.png} 1084 \caption{\label{fig:KHexample} Illustration of the Koppenh\"ofer Effect 964 1085 on chip XY04. In each plot, the solid line shows the measured 965 1086 mean residual for stars detected on this chip as a function of the … … 984 1105 \end{figure} 985 1106 986 \section{PV3 DVO Master Database} 987 988 Data from the GPC1 chip images, the stack images, and the warp images 989 are loaded into DVO using the real-time analysis astrometric 990 calibration to guide the association of detections into objects. 991 After the full PV3 DVO database was constructed, including all of the 992 chip, stack, and warp detections, several external catalogs were 993 merged into the database. First, the complete 2MASS PSC was loaded 994 into a stand-alone DVO database, which was then merged into the PV3 995 master database. Next the DVO database of synthetic photometry in 996 the PS1 bands (see Section~\ref{sec:synthdb}) was merged in. Next, 997 the full Tycho database was added, followed by the AllWISE database. 998 After the Gaia release in August 2016, we generated a DVO database of 999 the Gaia positional and photometric information and merged that into 1000 the master DVO database. 1001 1002 %% \note{need to describe the assignment of flags, etc, for the external data sources}. 1003 1004 \section{Astrometry Analysis} 1107 \section{Astrometry Calibration} 1005 1108 1006 1109 Once the full PV3 dataset loaded into the master PV3 DVO database, … … 1081 1184 form which can be applied to the database measurements. 1082 1185 1083 \begin{figure}[htbp]1084 \begin{center}1085 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/pv3.v1.dmag_g.sigma}.png}1086 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/pv3.v1.dmag_r.sigma}.png}1087 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/pv3.v1.dmag_i.sigma}.png}1088 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/pv3.v1.dmag_z.sigma}.png}1089 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/pv3.v1.dmag_y.sigma}.png}1090 \caption{\label{fig:dmag.measure} Consistency of photometry1091 measurements across the sky. Each panel shows a map of the1092 standard deviation of photometry residuals for stars in each pixel.}1093 \end{center}1094 \end{figure}1095 1096 1186 \subsubsection{Differential Chromatic Refraction} 1097 1187 … … 1128 1218 We represent the trend with a spline fitted to this dataset. 1129 1219 1130 %% The DCR trend has an amplitude of \note{XXX - XXX} in the five filters. 1220 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1221 \begin{center} 1222 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/dcr.r2.g}.png} 1223 \caption{\label{fig:DCRexample} Example of the DCR trend in the 1224 g-band. {\bf top:} DCR trend in the parallactic direction {\bf 1225 bottom:} DCR trend perpendicular to the parallactic angle.} 1226 \end{center} 1227 \end{figure} 1228 1229 The amplitude of the DCR trend in the five filters is $(g,r,i,z,y) = 1230 (0.010, 0.001, -0.003, -0.017, -0.021)$ arcsec airmass$^{-1}$ 1231 magntiude$^{-1}$. We saturate the DCR correction if the term $color 1232 TAN (\zeta)$ for a given measurement is outside a range where the 1233 DCR correction is well measured. The maximum DCR correction applied 1234 to the five filters is $(g,r,i,z,y) = (0.019, 0.002, 0.003, 0.006, 1235 0.008)$ arcseconds. 1236 1131 1237 %% \note{write down the DCR formalae for reference}. 1238 1239 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 1240 \begin{center} 1241 \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth,clip]{{pics/astroflat.gri}.png} 1242 \caption{\label{fig:astroflat.gri} High-resolution astrometric flat-field correction images for $gri$.} 1243 \end{center} 1244 \end{figure*} 1245 1246 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 1247 \begin{center} 1248 \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth,clip]{{pics/astroflat.zy}.png} 1249 \caption{\label{fig:astroflat.zy} High-resolution astrometric flat-field correction images for $zy$.} 1250 \end{center} 1251 \end{figure*} 1132 1252 1133 1253 \subsubsection{Astrometric Flat-field} … … 1140 1260 astrometric flat using a sampling resolution of 40x40 pixels, matching 1141 1261 the photometric flat-field correction images. 1142 Figure~\ref{fig:astroflat} shows the astrometric flat-field images for 1143 the five filters \grizy\ in each of the two coordinate directions. 1144 These plots show several types of features. 1262 Figures~\ref{fig:astroflat.gri} and \ref{fig:astroflat.zy} show the 1263 astrometric flat-field images for the five filters \grizy\ in each of 1264 the two coordinate directions. These plots show several types of 1265 features. 1145 1266 1146 1267 The dominant pattern in the astrometric residual is roughly a series … … 1174 1295 of this is unclear, but likely caused by the astrometry model failing 1175 1296 to follow the underlying variations because of the need to extrapolate 1176 to the edge pixels. Finally, we also identifyan interesting effect1297 to the edge pixels. Finally, we also mention an interesting effect 1177 1298 {\em not} visible at the resolution of these astrometric flat-field 1178 1299 images. Fine structures are observed at the \approx 10 pixel scale 1179 1300 similar to the ``tree rings'' reported by the DES team and others 1180 (G. Berstein REF \& REFS). We explore these tree rings in detail in 1301 (G. Berstein REF \& REFS). The details of these tree rings are beyond 1302 the scope of this article, and will be explored in future work. 1303 1304 Unfortunately, we discovered a problem with the astrometric flat-field 1305 correction too late to be repaired for DR1. As can be seen by 1306 inspection of Figures~\ref{fig:astroflat.gri} and 1307 \ref{fig:astroflat.zy}, there is significant pixel-to-pixel noise in 1308 the the astrometric flat-field images. This pixel-to-pixel noise is 1309 caused by too few stars used in the measuremnt of the flat-field 1310 structure for the high-resolution sampling. As a result, the 1311 astrometric flat-field correction reduces systematic structures on 1312 large spatial scales, but at the expense of degrading the quality of 1313 an individual measurement. Only $i$-band has sufficient 1314 signal-to-noise per pixel to avoid significantly increasing the 1315 per-measurement position errors. 1316 1317 Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.astrom.sigma} shows the standard devitions of 1318 the mean residual astrometry in $(\alpha,\delta)$ for bright stars as 1319 a function of position across the sky. For each pixel in these 1320 images, we selected all objects with $15 < i < 17$, with at least 3 1321 measurements in $i$-band (to reject artifacts detected in a pair of 1322 exposures from the same night), with \code{PSF_QF} $> 0.85$ (to reject 1323 excessively-masked objects), and with $mag_{\rm PSF} - mag_{rm Kron} < 1324 0.1$ (to reject galaxies). We then generated histograms of the 1325 difference between the object position predicted for the epoch of each 1326 measurement (based on the proper motion and parallax fit) and the 1327 observed position of that measurement, in both the Right Ascension and 1328 Declination directions (in linear arcseconds), for all stars in a 1329 given pixel in the images. From these residual histograms, we can 1330 then determine the median and the 68\%-ile range to calculate a robust 1331 standard deviation. This represents the bright-end systematic error 1332 floor for a measurement from a single exposure. The standard 1333 deviations are then plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.photom.sigma}. 1334 The median value of the standard deviations across the sky is 1335 $(\sigma_\alpha, \sigma_\delta) = (22, 23)$ milliarcseconds. 1336 1337 The Galactic plane is clearly apparently in these images. Like 1338 photometry, we attribute this to failure of the PSF fitting due to 1339 crowding. The celestial North pole regions have somewhat elevated 1340 errors in both R.A. and DEC. This may be due to the larger typical 1341 seeing at these high airmass regions, but without further exploration 1342 this is interpretation uncertain. Several features can be seen which 1343 appear to be an effect of the tie to the Gaia astrometry: the stripes 1344 near the center of the DEC image and the right side of the R.A. image. 1345 The mesh of circular outlines is due to the outer edge of the focal 1346 plane where the astrometric calibration is poorly determined. As 1347 discussed above, the median values in the images are higher than 1348 expected based on our PV2 analysis of the astrometry: the median 1349 per-measurement error floor of \approx 22 mas is significantly worse 1350 than the \approx 17 mas value in that earlier analysis. We attribute 1351 this degradation to the noise introduced by the astrometric 1352 flat-field. This noise can likely be addressed before the DR2 release 1353 of the individual measurement data. 1354 1355 \begin{figure}[htbp] 1356 \begin{center} 1357 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/allsky.astrom.sigma}.png} 1358 \caption{\label{fig:allsky.astrom.sigma} Consistency of photometry 1359 measurements across the sky. Each panel shows a map of the 1360 standard deviation of astrometry residuals for stars in each 1361 pixel. The median value of the standard deviations across the sky 1362 is $(\sigma_\alpha, \sigma_\delta) = (22, 23)$ milliarcseconds. 1363 These values reflect the typical single-measurement errors for 1364 bright stars. See discussion regarding the astrometric flat which 1365 is likely responsible for these elevated value. } 1366 \end{center} 1367 \end{figure} 1368 1369 % plot of the astrometric error floor per filter? 1181 1370 1182 1371 % \note{SECTION or REF?}. … … 1295 1484 1296 1485 After the full relative astrometry analysis was performed for the PV3 1297 database, the Gaia Data Release 1 became available. This afforded us 1486 database, the Gaia Data Release 1 became available 1487 \citep{2016A&A...595A...2G, 2016A&A...595A...4L}. This afforded us 1298 1488 the opportunity to constrain the astrometry on the basis of the Gaia 1299 1489 observations. Gaia DR1 objects which are bright enough to have proper … … 1320 1510 %% \note{Figures showing the Gaia residuals} 1321 1511 1512 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 1513 \begin{center} 1514 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/gaia.photom}.png} 1515 \caption{\label{fig:gaia.photom} Comparison with Gaia 1516 photometry. {\bf Left} Mean of PS1 - Gaia, {\bf Right} Standard 1517 deviation of PS1 - Gaia. For pixels with $|b| > 30$ and $\delta > 1518 -30$, the standard deviation of the PS1 - Gaia mean values is 7 1519 millimagnitudes, while the median of the standard deviations is 12 1520 millimagnitudes. The former is a statement about the consistency 1521 of the Gaia and Pan-STARRS\,1 photometry, while the latter 1522 reflects the combined bright-end errors for both systems. } 1523 \end{center} 1524 \end{figure*} 1525 1526 Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.photom} shows a comparison between the Pan-STARRS 1527 photometry in $g,r,i$ and the Gaia photometry in the $G$-band. To 1528 compare the PS1 photometry to the very broadband Gaia G filter, we 1529 have determined a transformation based on a 3rd order polynomial fit 1530 to $g-r$ and $g-i$ colors. This transformation reproduces Gaia 1531 photometry reasonably well for stars which are not too red. For a 1532 comparison, we have seleted all PS1 stars with Gaia measurements 1533 meeting the following criteria: $14 < i < 19$, with at least 10 total 1534 measurements, within a modest color range $0.2 < g - r < 0.9$. We 1535 also restricted to objects with $i_{\rm PSF} - i_{\rm Kron} < 0.1$, 1536 using the average $i$ magnitudes determined from the individual 1537 exposures. 1538 1539 For Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.photom}, we calculate the difference between 1540 the estimated $G$-band magnitude based on PS1 $g,r,i$ photometry and 1541 the $G$-band photometry reported by Gaia. For each pixel, we 1542 determine the histogram of these differences and calculate the median 1543 and the 68\%-ile range. In Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.photom}, these 1544 values are plotted as a color scale. 1545 1546 The Galactic plane is clearly poorly matched between the two 1547 photometry systems. This may in part be due to the difficulty of 1548 predicting $G$-band magnitudes for stars which are significantly 1549 extincted: the $G$-band includes significant flux from the PS1 1550 $z$-band which was not used in our transformation. Many other large 1551 scale feature in the median differences have structures similar to the 1552 Gaia scanning pattern (large arcs and long parallel lines. There are 1553 also structures related to the PS1 exposure footprint. These show up 1554 as a mottling on the \approx 3 degree scale (e.g., lower right below 1555 the Galactic plane). The amplitude of the residual structures is 1556 fairly modest. The standard devition of the median difference values 1557 is 7 millimagnitudes. This number gives an indication of the overall 1558 photometric consistency of both Gaia and PS1 and implies that the 1559 systematic error floor for each survey is less than 7 millimags. 1560 1561 % set Gr = -0.090 + gr*gi*0.229 + gi*(-0.207+gi*(gi*0.015 - 0.250)) + gr*(0.491+gr*(-0.021*gr - 0.052)) 1562 1563 %\[ 1564 %G - r = -0.09 + 0.229(g-r)(g-r) + (g-i)(( 1565 1566 \begin{figure*}[htbp] 1567 \begin{center} 1568 \includegraphics[width=\hsize,clip]{{pics/gaia.astrom}.png} 1569 \caption{\label{fig:gaia.astrom} Comparison with Gaia 1570 astrometry. {\bf Left} Mean of PS1 - Gaia, {\bf Right} Standard 1571 deviation of PS1 - Gaia. The median value of the standard 1572 deviations is $(\sigma_\alpha, \sigma_\delta) = (4, 3)$ 1573 milliarcseconds. } 1574 \end{center} 1575 \end{figure*} 1576 1577 Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.astrom} shows a comparison between the Pan-STARRS 1578 mean astrometry positions in $\alpha,\delta$ and the Gaia astrometry. 1579 For this comparison, we have seleted all PS1 stars with Gaia 1580 measurements with $14 < i < 19$ and with at least 10 total 1581 measurements. For Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.astrom}, we calculate the 1582 difference between the position predicted by PS1 at the Gaia epoch 1583 (using the proper motion and parallax fit) and the position reported 1584 by Gaia. For each pixel, we determine the histogram of these 1585 differences in the R.A\. and DEC directions, and calculate the median 1586 and the 68\%-ile range. In Figure~\ref{fig:gaia.astrom}, these 1587 values are plotted as a color scale. 1588 1589 There is good consistency between the PS1 and Gaia astrometry. There 1590 are patterns from the Galactic plane (though not very strongly at the 1591 bulge). There are also clear features due to the PS1 exposure 1592 footprint (ring structure on \approx 3 degree scales). In the plots 1593 of the scatter, there are patterns which are related to the Gaia 1594 scanning rule. These are presumably regions with relatively low 1595 signal to noise in Gaia; they were also apparent in the plots of the 1596 statisics of the per-exposure measurement residuals 1597 (Figure~\ref{fig:allsky.astrom.sigma}. The standard deviations of the 1598 median differences are ($\sigma_\alpha, \sigma_\delta) = (4, 3)$ 1599 milliarcseconds. 1600 1322 1601 \subsection{Calculation of Object Astrometry} 1323 1602 … … 1349 1628 1350 1629 \bibliographystyle{apj} 1351 \bibliography{lib}{}1352 %\input{calibration.bbl}1630 %\bibliography{lib}{} 1631 \input{calibration.bbl} 1353 1632 1354 1633 \end{document} … … 1372 1651 \end{verbatim} 1373 1652 1653 List of Figures and their sources: 1654 1655 * KH example & map: 1656 * kukui:/data/kukui.3/eugene/pv3.stats.20161202 1657 * kh.data.20151203.v1/spline.final.fits : spline fits to the KH data 1658 * kh.data.20151203.v1.fits : densify images of residuals per chip : (dX,dY) & (T0, T1) = (pre fix, post fix) 1659 * mana.sh : kh.example - plot of XY04 1660 * mana.sh : khmap (needs cleanup) 1661 * ipp094:/data/ipp094.0/eugene/pv3.cam.20150607/astrom.corrections : extractions and original scripts to make spline, etc 1662 1663 * DCR plots: 1664 * need to rebuild density plots (density images used to make splines are poor for plots) 1665 * old examples: 1666 * /data/kukui.3/eugene/dcr.20141205 1667 * dcr.r2.g.png 1668 * spline fits (DCR.example) 1669 * g : dP/dQ = 0.010, dPmax = 0.019 1670 * r : dP/dQ = 0.001, dPmax = 0.002 1671 * i : dP/dQ = -0.003, dPmax = -0.003 1672 * z : dP/dQ = -0.017, dPmax = -0.006 1673 * y : dP/dQ = -0.021, dPmax = -0.008 1674 1675 * astroflats: 1676 * kukui:/data/kukui.3/eugene/pv3.cam.20150607 1677 * plots.sh : 1678 * photflat.20151127.fix.fits was made in: 1679 * kukui:/data/kukui.3/eugene/setphot.20151213 1680 1681 * Gaia comparisons: 1682 * ipp094:/data/ipp094.0/eugene/pv3.stats.20161022 1683 * kukui:/data/kukui.3/eugene/pv3.stats.20161022 1684 1685 * photom & astrom residuals: 1686 kukui:/data/kukui.3/eugene/pv3.stats.20161202/maps.measure 1687
Note:
See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
