Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of PS1_SAS_AstromPhotom_20100310

Timestamp:

Mar 11, 2010, 12:39:23 PM (16 years ago)

Author:

eugene

Comment:

--

PS1_SAS_AstromPhotom_20100310

@@ -8 +8 @@
 the database.  Hopefully this will provide more light than smoke...
 
-[[Image(sas.field.png)]]
+[[Image(sas.field.png, 300px)]]
 
 The first figure shows the SAS field: black boxes are the outer bounds
@@ -35 +35 @@
 which should be must faster (the indexes are still being ignored).
 
-[[Image(sas.test.photom.g.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.photom.r.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.photom.i.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.photom.z.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.photom.y.png)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.photom.g.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.photom.r.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.photom.i.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.photom.z.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.photom.y.png, 300px)]]
 
 Aside from those issues, this analysis looks very encouraging.  The
@@ -57 +57 @@
 (stormy.weather.png), where I show zero point offsets vs time.
 
-[[Image(sas.test.astrom.g.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.astrom.r.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.astrom.i.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.astrom.z.png)]]
-[[Image(sas.test.astrom.y.png)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.astrom.g.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.astrom.r.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.astrom.i.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.astrom.z.png, 300px)]]
+[[Image(sas.test.astrom.y.png, 300px)]]
 
 As for astrometry, the residuals are OK (20-27 mas), but I suspect we