Add post-processing step to PSFEx package

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Dec 7, 2017, 14:25

• Integrate PSFEx model interpolation script

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Jan 16, 2018, 14:16

Morgan is still waiting to hear back from E. Sheldon. Hopefully we can start working on this issue next week.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Jan 22, 2018, 17:14

Has there been any feedback regarding this issue? If not, I suggest we send an email tomorrow.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @MorganSchmitz on Jan 22, 2018, 17:20

No, still nothing. I'll send an email with Martin and JL in cc tomorrow.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Jan 23, 2018, 16:43

If we don't hear back by 30/01/18 we should simply integrate @MorganSchmitz's Python script into the pipeline.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @MorganSchmitz on Jan 25, 2018, 10:59

Update: I got a reply from Eli Rykoff! Basically, he also wasn't sure how to interpret PSFEx parameters, and so he tried to handle things exactly as they are within the SExtractor code (when it's ran with a .psf file to do shape measurement).

I will still look into this in detail, in particular wrt to the first issue (1/PSF_SAMP vs PSF_SAMP), if only to try and understand why SExtractor does things that way and what I missed - but meanwhile I think we can move forward and use the Sheldon/Rykoff code in the pipeline? (And even if we still end up changing something, it would just be a new version of the Sheldon/Rykoff code, but the package here should remain unchanged anyway, right?)

If @sfarrens agrees I'll get on that early next week so hopefully we can use it for our test sesh on Thursday.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Jan 25, 2018, 11:05

Sounds, good. It should be easy to create a new package using the template and implement the Sheldon/Rykoff code.

[sfarrens]

In GitLab by @sfarrens on Feb 1, 2018, 16:28

closed