From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 09:59:51 PST
> Removing bad pixels, cosmic rays etc, is not a problem with sub-pixel
> dithering Vallery. See the paper I sent around.
>
> Also, the new software is only really needed in the regime where the
> S/N is greater than or comparable to the changes in the wavelength
> dependent flat-field changes. We will be lucky to be in that regime,
> so one can do what the ACS Team does -- if you want to be quick and
> dirty -- and just drizzle together the images using a wavelength
> independent flat-field. But we here are hoping to make the full proper
> reduction fairly automatic.
Ah, OK. Initially at least, quick and dirty will be
useful for purposes of getting the redshift and possibly
confirming the type.
> Better resolution is indeed helpful. You want to resolve the features
> not convolve them with something their own size (if possible). You
> only loose S/N by doing so.
Yes, this was a point Lifan and I have tried to make
in meetings. And even in the non-drizzled reduction of
Adam's data (the image), one can see the features show up
nicely.
Rachel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 10:00:10 PST