RE: Tech Note 89 and photometric error vs. position on frame

["Creager, Robert S" <CreagRS@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>]

Hello Michael,

Well, since XVista is the primary reducing program at this point, it seems
that we might want to leave downfits as is, unless you desire to make the
change?  I'll be happy to coordinate a release if you would like.

Cheers,
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stupendous Man [mailto:richmond@a188-l009.rit.edu] 
> Sent: December 23, 2002 12:17 PM
> To: tass@listserv.wwa.com
> Cc: mwrsps@rit.edu
> Subject: Tech Note 89 and photometric error vs. position on frame
> 
  Tom wrote concerning the issue of signed versus unsigned data values in
the raw images:

> Why not fix Downfits so that it writes 0
> - 65535?  Michael, I assume that the pipeline will not care???

  Well, there's the small problem that XVista truncates all pixel values
greater than 32767 to 32767 ....  sigh.  I have been working on this for two
years now ... still not done.  I don't think it will make any big difference
-- such stars tend to be saturated anyway.

  Merry Christmas, all.

                                          Michael