Re: Data Processing Switch

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

The practical fact is that the sky brightness is so high here that I would 
hardly know a dust donut if I saw one.  I see very little effect no matter 
what flat/dark combination I use.   The sky is much brighter than the 
corrections.  Sad, I know, but I have to face the facts.

Hopefully Rob had a different situation.

Tom Droege

At 01:13 PM 6/2/03 -0700, Arne Henden wrote:
>Additions to Rob's comments
>   - you could find new dust donuts appearing if you don't take
>     flats every night, and need to go back to see when the
>     donut occurred and reprocess starting at that point
>My feeling is to save the raw images and discard the processed
>images after you have done the star extraction.  That way you
>save the same amount of data, but can recreate anything.
>Arne
>
>Creager, Robert S wrote:
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Tom Droege [mailto:tdroege2@earthlink.net] Sent: June 02, 2003 7:29 AM
>>>
>>>The proposal is to save the dark subtracted, flat fielded, and position 
>>>corrected files which come out of Michael R's pipeline instead.  These
>>
>>I would say apply the location correction to the original images, and keep
>>those.  I've offered to write a script that does this (take the pipeline
>>output and update the original FITS headers).
>>
>>>data reduction.  There is no way to get a better flat or dark later in 
>>>time.  I don't know what else we might want to do.
>>
>>Sure there is.  Better reject/selection criteria of images used for
>>generating flats or darks...
>>Cheers,
>>Rob
>>
>
>