Re: [TASS] Flat fielding

[Andrew Bennett <andrew.bennett@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>]

I think it is worthwhile at this point to summarize the
progress that has been made since this thread started
Sep8 with my query as to whether Mk III flat fielding was
as good as it could or should be. This question was
intended as a lead-in to the more difficult problem of
Mk IV flat fielding.

The initial response that there is no problem
(with the Mk III) was amplified (Mike G, Sep10) to
>It is true that the current flat technique is oblivious to N-S gradients.
>That's why the FlatComp program was born.
There is general concensus that, with FlatComp, the
Mk III problem is solved.

The Mk IV flat fielding is a more serious problem.
Tom Droege (Sep11) reported work on a light box and on the
same date Chuck Shaw told us about his, described at
http://www.ghg.net/cshaw/flat.htm
On Sep23 Arne Henden (on another thread) wrote.
>  Flatfielding a Mk4 should *not* be a major
>problem as long as a light box is constructed.
So we seem to have arived at a concensus here too.

This, I think represents real progress. I, at least,
was not aware before that the Mk IV problem was fully
recognized and that plans included construction of a
suitable light box.

Andrew Bennett, Avondale Vineyard, Nova Scotia, Canada.