Re: Photometric solutions: Disk 16 vs. Disk 17

[Tom Droege <tdroege@veriomail.com>]

Michael and all,

My log book entry shows:

010325 20:31 TomScn 1,160,100 (clouds)

So there were some clouds.

The naming convention - I quote from TN-30:

>Author: Arne A. Henden
>Date: 970516
>Revision: #0 970516
>Key Words: documentation, catalogs
>Tom asked me to come up with a file naming convention for the TASS files. 
>Here is my proposal. I don't consider it 'fixed in stone' yet, so if 
>someone has an objection to any part, let me know and I'll try to 
>accomodate them. It has to be a pretty strong objection, though, so be 
>sure to explain yourself thoroughly.
>TASS data files will have a name in the form:
>     abcdyyyy.xxx
>where
>     a = site
>     b = camera
>     c = processing status
>     d = reserved
>     yyyy = julian date - 2450000
>     xxx  = day fraction
>At present, there will be no difference between upper and lower case 
>ASCII. This is a similar format to tm3get to retain continuity. I also 
>retained the 8.3 format for compatibility with DOS and the ISO9660 CDROM 
>format.


R in the processing status column means "raw".

Rob and I are following this convention except we have abandoned limiting 
the file name to 8 characters.  Thus we have removed the "." separating 
Julian day from Julian fractional day, and added .fits

I think this was discussed here and no one objected.

Tom Droege


At 05:32 PM 4/16/01 -0400, you wrote:

>   I've modified the pipeline to handle the data on Disk 17.
>There were three major issues:
>
>       a. the convention for image file names changed.  The old file
>          names looked like this:
>
>                   H3R1816.755
>
>          and the new file names look like this:
>
>                   hvra1992810.fits
>
>          I know that the first character encodes the observatory site
>          ('h' means Tom's house), the second character encodes the
>          filter name ('v'), but I don't know what "ra1992810" means.
>          Could someone let me know?
>
>       b. the FITS header keywords and values changed
>
>       c. there weren't enough stars in the subset of Tycho-1 to
>          match some of the fields
>
>   In order to fix item c., I made a new subset of Tycho-1, in which
>I relaxed the criterion on stdev of photometric measurements from
>0.05 mag to 0.07 mag.  That increased the number of stars over the entire
>sky from 257,000 to 382,000; the number of stars in each Mark IV field
>increased from 30-50 to 45-70.  Some of the fields with only 30 stars
>were failing to match up properly, but with 45 or so catalog stars,
>they all matched up.
>
>   I haven't done any examination in depth of the results, but I thought
>8