Re: Data Processing Switch

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Arne and all,

I recall that when we started all this, you advocated direct processing and 
no saving of the raw data.  I am proposing saving the cleaned up images 
because they are easier to look at when you want to see something.  We do 
keep all the information that would allow restoring the image pretty close 
to the original if there was a reason to do so.  I say pretty close only 
because I am not completely sure.  Seems lie it could be unfolded with the 
data we have.  Putting the darks and flats used in the header is a good 
idea.  I presently keep them in dated directories and have not yet faced 
the problem of how to archive them.

As I point out above, in earlier tass days you advocated direct processing 
and you declined any possibility of saving or furnishing raw images.  What 
has happened to change you mind about this?

Tom Droege

At 06:24 PM 6/2/03 -0700, Arne Henden wrote:
>Yes, but "almost as good" is not the same as "exact".  As Rob mentioned,
>there may be occasion to reprocess images, look at dark columns if
>engineering data is needed to trace problems, etc.  I reprocess
>quite often when dealing with transient phenomena; rarely when
>dealing with calibrations or repeating stars.  It just depends on
>what you