| 469 | | * then likely the PSF envelope trying to fit some odd inputs being an edge skycell |
| 470 | | |
| | 469 | * then likely the PSF envelope trying to fit some odd inputs being an edge skycell, and break into groups to run - ~100 inputs |
| | 470 | * 0-100 group okay, Target PSF ~6.7 pixels |
| | 471 | * 100-200 group has issue with Target PSF ~10 -- something in this group |
| | 472 | {{{ |
| | 473 | Input FWHMs : 6.206581 +/- 0.880895 |
| | 474 | Target seeing FWHM: 9.458570 |
| | 475 | }}} |
| | 476 | * subdivide further -- s2s1 for ~25 - drop the 7-7.5 ones - 15, 19-25,49,51,54-55,58-59,61-62 (remember to add +1) - |
| | 477 | {{{ |
| | 478 | Input FWHMs : 5.867408 +/- 0.759102 |
| | 479 | Target seeing FWHM: 8.387546 |
| | 480 | --> so it is the conversion of 7.5-> PS1 PSF? except full g gets to ~10.1, and below 7.3 gets to 8.3 so factor somewhere else still |
| | 481 | --> so could make set of high 7.x -- use the s2 set and add only -- s2s2 - 15, 19-25,49,51,54-55,58-59,61-62 - add +1 to list |
| | 482 | Input 0: 7.496574 |
| | 483 | Input 1: 7.430977 |
| | 484 | Input 2: 7.192523 |
| | 485 | Input 3: 7.257564 |
| | 486 | Input 4: 7.222930 |
| | 487 | Input 5: 7.049495 |
| | 488 | Input 6: 7.181604 |
| | 489 | Input 7: 6.598584 |
| | 490 | Input 8: 5.182988 |
| | 491 | Input 9: 7.168517 |
| | 492 | Input 10: 7.095002 |
| | 493 | Input 11: 7.000916 |
| | 494 | Input 12: 7.146842 |
| | 495 | Input 13: 7.231784 |
| | 496 | Input 14: 7.243643 |
| | 497 | Input 15: 7.007473 |
| | 498 | Input 16: 7.409586 |
| | 499 | Input FWHMs : 7.170876 +/- 0.208919 |
| | 500 | fit ext: 1.898029 sec for 225 of 225 sources | |
| | 501 | fit psf: 0.426171 sec for 161 of 225 sources | |
| | 502 | apresid: 0.120900 +/- 0.005411 (systematic error) from statistics of 225 psf stars (161 used) |
| | 503 | chisq vs flux fit term 0: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 504 | chisq vs flux fit term 1: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 505 | try model PS_MODEL_PS1_V1, ap-fit: 0.120900 +/- 0.005411 : sky bias: 0.000000 |
| | 506 | Target seeing FWHM: 9.458885 |
| | 507 | --> so looks like 7.49->9.45 |
| | 508 | }}} |
| | 509 | * s2s3 for <7.4 and still 9.45 -- also 7.2, only to 7.1 |
| | 510 | * s2s4 - clear down to 7.1 -- drop 0,1,2,4,11,12,14 |
| | 511 | {{{ |
| | 512 | Input 0: 7.049495 |
| | 513 | Input 1: 6.598584 |
| | 514 | Input 2: 5.182988 |
| | 515 | Input 3: 7.095002 |
| | 516 | Input 4: 7.000916 |
| | 517 | Input 5: 7.007473 |
| | 518 | Input FWHMs : 6.655743 +/- 0.743387 |
| | 519 | fit ext: 1.873564 sec for 225 of 225 sources | |
| | 520 | fit psf: 0.475994 sec for 172 of 225 sources | |
| | 521 | apresid: 0.102933 +/- 0.013974 (systematic error) from statistics of 225 psf stars (172 used) |
| | 522 | chisq vs flux fit term 0: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 523 | chisq vs flux fit term 1: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 524 | try model PS_MODEL_PS1_V1, ap-fit: 0.102933 +/- 0.013974 : sky bias: 0.000000 |
| | 525 | Target seeing FWHM: 8.786390 |
| | 526 | }}} |
| | 527 | * 200-345 group also issue ~10 |
| | 528 | * 300-345? yes ~8.3 -- s2s4 is test case then - try to track down which they are - |
| | 529 | * s41 ~7.6 -- how many in/rejected? |
| | 530 | * s42 ~6.8 but highest <7.5 is 6.2 and only couple |
| | 531 | * s43 ~6.4 and clear |
| | 532 | * s44 ~8.35 in/rej~14/6, 7.3 largest -- use this one, lots of large |
| | 533 | * so then which ones in this set are causing the large PSF and why? maybe not too unlikely that it would change 7.3->8.3 so do another above |
| | 534 | * specific sub test -- mem20_stack_test.fixfwhmincut055g |
| | 535 | {{{ |
| | 536 | PSF FWHM for image 1 is too large (7.785680 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 537 | PSF FWHM for image 5 is too large (7.621037 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 538 | PSF FWHM for image 9 is too large (7.927819 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 539 | PSF FWHM for image 11 is too large (7.701270 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 540 | PSF FWHM for image 12 is too large (9.293368 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 541 | PSF FWHM for image 13 is too large (9.460286 vs 7.500000 maxFWHM) --- rejected. |
| | 542 | Input seeing FWHMs: |
| | 543 | Input 0: 7.312490 |
| | 544 | -- Input 1: 7.785680 |
| | 545 | Input 2: 6.733018 |
| | 546 | Input 3: 7.106098 |
| | 547 | Input 4: 7.107179 |
| | 548 | -- Input 5: 7.621037 |
| | 549 | Input 6: 6.591544 |
| | 550 | Input 7: 7.348337 |
| | 551 | Input 8: 6.802173 |
| | 552 | -- Input 9: 7.927819 |
| | 553 | Input 10: 7.252710 |
| | 554 | -- Input 11: 7.701270 |
| | 555 | -- Input 12: 9.293368 |
| | 556 | -- Input 13: 9.460286 |
| | 557 | Input FWHMs : 7.031693 +/- 0.286558 |
| | 558 | fit ext: 1.920824 sec for 225 of 225 sources |
| | 559 | fit psf: 0.459095 sec for 168 of 225 sources |
| | 560 | apresid: 0.102416 +/- 0.002603 (systematic error) from statistics of 225 psf stars (168 used) |
| | 561 | chisq vs flux fit term 0: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 562 | chisq vs flux fit term 1: 0.000000 +/- 0.000000 |
| | 563 | try model PS_MODEL_PS1_V1, ap-fit: 0.102416 +/- 0.002603 : sky bias: 0.000000 |
| | 564 | Target seeing FWHM: 8.350183 |
| | 565 | }}} |
| | 566 | * may indicate only able to happen with large numbers of varying IQ inputs, not with 20 |
| | 567 | * really need more output details from target PSF selection to know what it is doing.. |
| | 568 | * -- OOPS -- unfortunately these were cleaned before listings saved so cannot trace filenames w/o rerunning... |
