[PIPE2D-1127] Type of broadband fluxes used by flux calibration should be configurable Created: 12/Dec/22 Updated: 14/Dec/22 Resolved: 14/Dec/22 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | sogo.mineo | Assignee: | sogo.mineo |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | flux-calibration | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Reviewers: | price |
| Description |
|
fitPfsReferenceFlux.py currently uses pfsConfig.fiberFlux but it has to be pfsConfig.psfFlux because pfsConfig files that came out of observation contain psfFlux only. Because there are disagreements as to which flux to use, we should make it configurable. |
| Comments |
| Comment by price [ 13/Dec/22 ] |
|
Surely fiberFlux and psfFlux should be very close to identical for the stars we want to use to calibrate against, and if they're not then it's not a suitable calibration source? The two should differ only for extended sources. |
| Comment by sogo.mineo [ 13/Dec/22 ] |
|
They are close, but in reality pfsConfig.fiberFlux is NaN while pfsConfig.psfFlux is finite. The current code needs amending because it uses fiberFlux only. To hard-code psfFlux will suffice, but it is also easy to add a configuration parameter to choose between fiberFlux and psfFlux. |
| Comment by sogo.mineo [ 13/Dec/22 ] |
|
Could you review this PR? I made two commits: the first one is the essential one. In the second commit, I typed several python scripts. |
| Comment by sogo.mineo [ 14/Dec/22 ] |
|
Merged. (I don't think it a necessary condition for merging that mypy runs cleanly...) Thank you for the review. |