From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 11:05:27 PDT
In cases where there are two CRs, and no host, one
couldn't be confident it was a real event anyway. In cases
where there were 3 good, consistent, and clean regions, but
CRs in the 4th image, CRs should have been efficiently
flagged prior to the sum.
The point is that if there were a lot of cases with 3
consistent images going into the sum, but a summed magnitude
which was much *brighter* than those 3 individual images,
then one should get concerned and say something.
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Vitaliy Fadeyev wrote:
>
>
> Sorry for confusion. I meant only cases where there is 1 or more CR clearly
> present in individual images.
>
> vitaliy
>
>
> "Robert A. Knop Jr." wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 10:02:48AM -0700, 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.
> >
> > In any event, you should not have thrown out a candidate because all the
> > individual magnitudes were consistent with each other and different from
> > the subtraction magnitude. If you saw a case where that happens, and
> > the individual magnitudes were *dimmer*, it indicates that something is
> > wrong, not that it's a bad candidate. (That's how Rachel and I found
> > the bug in the first place.)
> >
> > The only thing about those magnitudes that should affect whether or not
> > a candidate is a good one is if the individual images are *consistent*
> > with each other. Which this bug does not affect, anyway.
> >
> > -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 - 11:05:51 PDT