[DAMD-79] psfObject should have fiberFlux instead of fiberMag Created: 13/Apr/20 Updated: 23/Oct/20 Resolved: 23/Oct/20 |
|
| Status: | Won't Fix |
| Project: | Data Model |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | Masayuki Tanaka | Assignee: | hassan |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Description |
|
As per discussions with rhl on slack, we prefer to have fluxes (in nJy) instead of magnitudes in the photometry table in the 3rd HDU of pfsObject. There is also an on-going discussion of whether we use fiberFlux or psfFlux. This ticket thus does not need to be worked upon immediately, but once the fiber vs psf discussion is setttled, we want to update the data model. |
| Comments |
| Comment by vlebrun [ 02/Sep/20 ] |
|
sorry to show up later after the discussion but why not use micro-Jansky instead of nanoJy, the resulting values in the spectra will be closer to unit (roughly, 1e-17 erg/cm2/s/A corresponds to one microJy and it is a expected value for our 22+ magnitude galaxies)
|
| Comment by vlebrun [ 08/Sep/20 ] |
|
We have an additional question : which unit should we use for the line fluxes : 10^-35 W/m2/s (that is 1 nJ.Hz) or should we go back to the usual erg/cm2/s ? |
| Comment by hassan [ 23/Oct/20 ] |
|
Duplicates work in |