[INSTRM-1434] Provide WCS for DAMD-2 PFSD files Created: 05/Nov/21 Updated: 06/Feb/22 Resolved: 06/Feb/22 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | Instrument control development |
| Component/s: | pfs_utils |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | cloomis | Assignee: | yuki.moritani |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | EngRun | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||
| Story Points: | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Sprint: | PreEngRun4 | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
We need a WCS for each raw AG image HDU – the ones which go into the PFSD files. The MCS/PFSC WCS is pixel->pfi_mm; if that is acceptable perhaps the pfs.utils.coordinates routine can be adapted? Or do we need/want to provide a pixel->sky WCS for the raw PFSD files? That does not seem right, unless we decide that the PFSD files should contain more than the AGCC outputs. |
| Comments |
| Comment by yuki.moritani [ 03/Jan/22 ] |
|
cloomis is it OK to call the routine per HDU (i.e. camera)? I'm thinking to make one providing pixel->sky.... |
| Comment by cloomis [ 04/Jan/22 ] |
|
Makes sense to me. |
| Comment by yuki.moritani [ 11/Jan/22 ] |
|
cloomis I upload the ticket branch to create WCS cards for each AG cameras. (I'm not sure to what extent WCS needs to be precise, ) You can call the routine in the same way as MCS: namely def WCSParameters("pfi_sky", cent, rot, alt, az, pa=0., icam=0, time='2020-01-01 10:00:00') pa and icam is new parameters and the latter is agId (starting from 0). (I'll write docstring in the code..) Could you please check if it is OK.. |
| Comment by cloomis [ 15/Jan/22 ] |
|
That certainly works for me, thanks. But supporting MCS and AGC with one function makes the interface a little confusing: for the AGC, rot is ignored and cent is not obvious, and for the MCS pa and icam are ignored. Would it be better to split that function? |
| Comment by yuki.moritani [ 15/Jan/22 ] |
|
That's makes sense. I just kept one function so that mcs doesn't need any modification. If MCS side is OK to change interface (e.g., name of function to call), I'd be happy to separate these two. (Actually I prefer separated one...) |
| Comment by yuki.moritani [ 06/Feb/22 ] |
|
I tested the code using AG images in Nov. The code also was reviewed and merged. So I close this ticket. |