[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Status Report for March 2003

To: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>, tass@listserv.wwa.com
Subject: Re: Status Report for March 2003
From: Andrew Bennett <andrew.bennett@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 23:41:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030401182904.0217e7f0@pop.earthlink.net>
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20030401064723.009ea360@pop.earthlink.net> <5.0.0.25.2.20030401064723.009ea360@pop.earthlink.net> <d73k8vk1gp6hqkr0brdktg0ripanp52lo7@4ax.com> <5.0.0.25.2.20030401182904.0217e7f0@pop.earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-tass@listserv.wwa.com

On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 18:35:57 +0000, Tom wrote:

>Andrew and all,
>
>Michael allows fitting a 0, 1, or 2nd order surface to the data.  I use 
>only the first order.  I think this does not bother a nice star field.
>
>I have looked at lots of fields.  DS9 has a feature that allows taking N-S 
>or E-W sections through the image.  The way I set up the cuts, this these 
>sections are either flat within the noise, or I throw the image away.

Sorry! I just don't see how 1st or even 2nd order can
leave a galactic plane image, replete with blobby star
clumps and dust lanes, flat. 

Andrew Bennett, Avondale Vineyard

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Status Report for March 2003
  - From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>

References:
- Status Report for March 2003
  - From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
- Re: Status Report for March 2003
  - From: Andrew Bennett <andrew.bennett@ns.sympatico.ca>
- Re: Status Report for March 2003
  - From: Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Status Report for March 2003
Next by Date: Re: aperture photometry and sky variations
Prev by thread: Re: Status Report for March 2003
Next by thread: Re: Status Report for March 2003
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread