From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 15:05:06 PST
In follow-up to my previous posting, I should add that the depths
are a bit optimistic because I haven't explicitly accounted for
the final refs. Thus, implicit in my calculation was that the
refs were always better than the news, but since we can't add
exposure time to the refs, this assumption will not hold when
we have to blur the refs by alot. I'll try to put the refs
directly into the calculation. If anyone has measurements of the
seeing for the refs, that would be a big help. Otherwise I'll
assume 50 minutes with 0.8 arcsec seeing for each field.
- Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 15:05:22 PST