Re: Working on Data

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

Looking at the data (on another computer) I see I should have said V mag
10 to 14 below.  

Tom Droege

On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 10:43, Tom Droege wrote:
> While this looks awful, I think Michael uses the correct term 
> "annoying".  If I do a "by eye" estimation of sigma, then these residuals 
> look about like what I see looking at the whole data set.
> 
> The question is, "do we care?"
> 
> I would certainly like to fix this problem. However, it is not very 
> significant in the range where the data is really useful, V mag 9 to 
> 13.  In this range other errors dominate.  One can argue that one should 
> fix each problem as it arises and thus beat down the overall noise.  Yep!
> 
> I figure that after we do this and one or two things more that the data 
> will look nicer and will give users more confidence in it's quality, but 
> that it really won't be any better for it's purpose.  Sigh!  I wish this 
> were not true, but I am not very optimistic that we well very much improve 
> the data taken in this suburban location.
> 
> Still, I am optimistic that the data is useful.  For the moment it may be 
> the only such data available.
> 
> Michael, if you work out a fix for this, will it require rerunning all the 
> data?
> 
> I would not mind doing this, it is only a couple of months of feeding CD's 
> to hungry computers.  Possibly we can just reprocess the .cal files.  In 
> either case, I want to process everything in a consistent way.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 
> At 06:24 PM 7/9/03 -0400, Stupendous Man wrote:
> >I think that the answer is "yes" in V-band (which is where the
> >scatter at the bright end is most annoying), and "no" in I-band.
> >Take a look at these pictures of residuals as a function of position
> >on the chip (for a very particular subset of all star -- details
> >in an upcoming Tech Note):
> 
> 
>