[PIPE2D-1156] fluxTable masks too severe Created: 01/Feb/23  Updated: 02/Mar/23  Resolved: 02/Mar/23

Status: Done
Project: DRP 2-D Pipeline
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Normal
Reporter: vlebrun Assignee: price
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Attachments: PNG File NovRun_mask_621_635nm.png     PNG File pip2d-1156.png    
Sprint: 2DDRP-2023 A

 Description   

By looking at the original data I noticed that in noisy parts of the spectra some isolated pixels remain unflagged, and with values that do not seem to be coherent with the (current) noise estimate of the spectrum. These pixels are used by PIPE1D just as others and can induce wrong measurement if their value is not correct. This problem might be solved by the correction of the noise estimate though.



 Comments   
Comment by price [ 02/Feb/23 ]

Could you please provide instructions to reproduce this?

Comment by vlebrun [ 02/Feb/23 ]

I used Topcat on the FluxTable extension, plotted all the pixels (in red), then selected all pixels with mask=0 and overplotteed them (in blue)

the file is pfsObject-00010-00001-1,1-009954820000a57e-006-0x6e85dbfdd0e3cf63.fits

from the GE_COS1 dataset (pfsDesignId=0x608f5cd5e916bf12: visit=83244..83249 )

Actually I had no clear expectation on such a bad part of the spectrum, an I'd wait for the issues on the noise evaluation before focusing on this one, it might just be that it will be solved then

Comment by price [ 02/Feb/23 ]

On what file? How was the data processed? What version was used? What do you expect the result to be, and how does this differ from that?

https://github.com/Subaru-PFS/drp_doc/blob/master/pipelineUser/help.rst

Comment by price [ 01/Mar/23 ]

At least part of the problem is that mask=0 excludes good pixels as well as bad. On this coadd, we've OR-ed the input masks while excluding bad pixels, so CR means that there was a cosmic-ray at that pixel in one of the inputs, but we've excluded it in the process of coadding (but maybe we didn't do a great job with neighbouring pixels). We've also added a mask plane (which, due to a bug, wasn't showing up; and wasn't being calculated very well) called OVERLAP which indicates pixels from one arm that have better coverage by another arm. So you should ignore pixels with (mask & NO_DATA) != 0.

I've fixed a couple of things in the fluxTable, and made the plot with the correct masking, and I think it looks much better.

Comment by vlebrun [ 01/Mar/23 ]

looks definitely better indeed. Is this new masking ( ignore pixels with (mask & NO_DATA) != 0 ) going to be definite, or just to wait for your fix ?

Comment by price [ 02/Mar/23 ]

In general, you should never expect that all mask planes indicate something bad, so each time you use a mask you need to ask what mask planes you care about.

Comment by price [ 02/Mar/23 ]

Merged.

Generated at Sat Feb 10 16:03:32 JST 2024 using Jira 8.3.4#803005-sha1:1f96e09b3c60279a408a2ae47be3c745f571388b.