Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Automatic Sky Frame Identification #13

Open
Nat1405 opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Automatic Sky Frame Identification #13

Nat1405 opened this issue May 26, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@Nat1405
Copy link
Owner

Nat1405 commented May 26, 2020

Sky frames are currently identified by their P and Q offsets. If the "radius" of the offsets (sqrt(POFF^2 + QOFF^2) ) is larger than a threshold value the frame is deemed to be a sky frame. However, this can fail if the science frames were not centred as well and every frame has a non-zero offset radius.

I think moving the sky frame identification from makePythonLists to sortScienceAndTellurics() is a good idea. Then, a new way to identify sky frames vs science frames automatically is needed.

@Nat1405
Copy link
Owner Author

Nat1405 commented May 26, 2020

One algorithm idea:

For each telluric or science observation directory:
    - Make two clusters of images based on P and Q offsets
    - Take the cluster with the higher median counts to be the science frames.

@Nat1405
Copy link
Owner Author

Nat1405 commented Feb 4, 2021

47 programs at time of writing have a skyFrameError. I've been working to update how sky frames are identified. I implemented the clustering idea, and it seems to work pretty well for bright objects like telluric observations. However, for very faint targets like in GN-2013A-Q-62 both the skyFrame and scienceFrame clusters have very similar median counts. In that case, it's better to fall back to the "outside 1.5 arcsecond offset" strategy....

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant