From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 10:28:11 PDT
If the candidate was obviously good in all 4 individuals
images, I don't see how this would change one's conclussions
because the mag for the subtraction you see in "tiles" *is*
correct.
You wouldn't have thrown out a case where the magnitudes
all agreed.
I haven't had time to gone through all the candidates as
you all have been. I also don't recall anyone sending e-mail
earlier that a candidate looked good in the subtraction,
looked clean in all 4 images, looked similar in all four
image, but was brighter than in the sum.
I can't imagine such a case not raising a red flag, so I
do doubt you missed something real due to this.
If you are referring to an effect on the comments people
have made in the "still to be considered" catagory, then no
worries! It'll get rechecked.
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Vitaliy Fadeyev wrote:
>
>
> That's not so great. The individual magnitudes may have entered in
> my decision-making in some cases. Granted those cases were doubtful
> to start with.
>
> vitaliy
>
>
> "Robert A. Knop Jr." wrote:
>
> > When you go into imview to look at the magnitudes on the invidual
> > images, the magnitudes you get are TOO HIGH (i.e. too dim) by 0.75
> > magnitudes, due to a bug in the processing. Please take this into
> > account. (imview still is fine for consistency checks.)
> >
> > Note also that the magnitudes in imview are for the host+the supernova,
> > so in general (when the magnitudes are right) you will see *lower*
> > (brighter) magnitudes in imview for the individual images than you see
> > in the subtraction. The bug offsets this (and will fortuitously offset
> > it just the right amount if %INC is 100), but it wasn't intentional!
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > --
> > --Prof. Robert Knop
> > Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> > robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 05 2004 - 10:28:34 PDT