-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Unexpected pixel values in *.dat vs sextract_single_image #4
Comments
@mrosseel thanks for the very detailed report! The pixel coordinates reported by You may tell VaST to accept blended stars by re-running the analysis with '-x3' option: |
@kirxkirx thanks for the fast reply! The information on the blended star and how to avoid it is interesting. I made some further tests where I used the exact same fits to make sure there's not an error there. The command: Clicking on the star gives: Looking the out01208.dat file: So using the exact same fits file, pgfv is giving other pixel values than the .dat file. |
Maybe this is a different star? According to the last two screenshots, './sextract_single_image' reports star 1208 (lightcurve file out01208.dat), but the grep'ed lightcurve is for the star 'out01218.dat '. Also they have very different instrumental magnitudes (-12 and -8, respectively), while they should be the same for the reference image. The star numbers should remain the same as long as 'default.sex' is not changed and it's the same version of SExtractor running on the same computer. (At least, this should be true for the stars detected on the reference image, i.e. the ones with numbers below the 10000 gap in numbering.) Also I checked that with the test data set, the pixel coordinates of a star in its lightcurve file and reported by './sextract_single_image' are the same within the rounding error. |
yes it was a different star, should have seen that. In the end, I could fix my issues by using '-x 3' to include the blended stars (their lightcurves look ok) and by using the correct file to get my X and Y positions. Thx for the help! |
Glad the problem is solved! Yes, slight differences in pixel positions are expected between 'data.m_sigma', its more expanded version 'vast_lightcurve_statistics.log' and the lightcurve file on one hand, and 'vast_list_of_all_stars.log' on the other hand. This is for sources detected on the reference image, for other sources (these differences may be arbitrary large as the positions correspond to different frames: the first frame where the source was detected or the reference frame). The file 'vast_list_of_all_stars.log' lists for each detected source its pixel position transformed to the pixel coordinate frame of the reference image and averaged over multiple images, while all the other files mentioned above list the pixel position measured on the first image where the source was detected (for the majority of sources this will be the reference image). |
version: vast-1.0rc84
Note: the reference frame in 'vast_summary.log' is processed via astrometry.net and saved as new-image.fits.
If I execute the following command:
./sextract_single_image ../../new-image.fits 886 1199
The red cross is over a star. When I click this star I get the following output:
When I look at this same star in either 'vast_list_of_all_stars.log' or in 'out01177.dat', the following coordinates are displayed:
So the question is, is this a bug or is there another way to get the pixel position of a star on the reference frame?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: