Re: SDFw scanning

From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 11:47:39 PDT

  • Next message: Alex Conley: "Re: SDF and SDFw comparison by Naoki"

    > Because of the bad border contamination
    > we loose about 20 to 30% of the available area.

    Note that what you are saying, basically, is that the union sums are no
    different from the intersection sums.

    The way to scan them is to turn up your ap.sig cut to 6 or 8. Then
    also bump the greyscale limits in sublineup and tiles by a factor of two
    or so. I would suggest that nobody should list themselves has having
    scanned the union sums without doing this-- because otherwise you've
    just basically scanned the intersection sum subtraction again.

    The problem is that all apsig calculations are based ont he sky noise
    average for the image, which is dominated by the "good" region in the
    center of the image where a maximum number of images contributed to the
    sum.

    Ideally, of course, we would do the sums by including the bits of
    neighboring chips that overlapped this chip, thereby having greater
    depth everywhere. That is much harder, however; we did what was
    feasable first.

    -Rob



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 10 2002 - 11:47:57 PDT