From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 03:11:09 PDT
Thank you, Naoki -- that was fast work. We'll look through this list
and add them into our priorities for tonight (if the weather ever clears
up!) and tomorrow. Ideally, we will be able to find them in the
subtractions Rob is still working on, but if not, then we'll ask you for
the FITS image finding charts.
Rob, As I said I would in the earlier email, I asked Naoki if he could
help, and it looks like he has managed to do it much faster than Mamoru
thought he could. (Mamoru answered my email saying that Naoki wouldn't
be able to start on SDFe until he got to his computers on Monday Tokyo
time at the earliest.) Anyway, hopefully between the Tokyo and
Nashville/Berkeley scans we will get some more targets in the I_cousins
= 23.7 -- 24.7 range for HST.
attached mail follows:
Actually, the reason I was asking about the SDFe field, is that Naoki has
*not* done this field -- this was supposed to be our job. I'll see if I can
get him, and ask if he can do it, but we should do the best we can on it
since he certainly won't have any results before tonight's Keck run. I'll
also try to reach Tony and Gerson to see what they know -- or can do now.
"Robert A. Knop Jr." wrote:
> > Quick question before you go: Nobody ever gave a report back on what
> > happened with the second scan of SDFe. I saw the message from Gerson,
> > and then your message saying they should be scanned with higher
> > threshold, but then silence. Do you know anything more about what
> > state they are in?
>
> I suspect nobody has done them. I was busy with other things, and I
> suspect that others are put off by the noise and garbage around the
> edge.
>
> I don't consider this terribly high priority, since I believe that all
> of that area *has* been scanned by Naoki. So it hasn't been completely
> lost; we just haven't sent it through our stuff.
>
> Note that we never did do union sums of hte other SDF flanking field.
>
> To do it right, we would sum neighboring chips into each chip, to get
> the maximum depth everywhere. However, that is a *huge* amount of
> effort, since the small overlaps will almost certainly guarantee that
> all transformations will have to be done by hand. (Esp. sine APM
> solutions of Subaru images aren't good enough to give us a starting
> point.) We simply don't have the time for that at this point. (Once
> again, if we had planned ahead further, we probably could have done it--
> but it would have involved doing most of the groundwork over a week
> ago. A week ago I was getting ready for CFHT cross telescope
> subtractions.)
>
> -Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 12 2002 - 03:07:54 PDT