https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.3.4 803005 13-09-2019 https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/INSTRM-1434 Instrument control development <p>We need a WCS for each raw AG image HDU &#8211; the ones which go into the PFSD files. The MCS/PFSC WCS is pixel-&gt;pfi_mm; if that is acceptable perhaps the <tt>pfs.utils.coordinates</tt> routine can be adapted? </p> <p>Or do we need/want to provide a pixel-&gt;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.</p> INSTRM-1434

Provide WCS for DAMD-2 PFSD files

Task Normal Done Done yuki.moritani cloomis EngRun Thu, 4 Nov 2021 19:00:09 +0000 Sun, 6 Feb 2022 05:19:13 +0000 Sun, 6 Feb 2022 05:19:13 +0000 pfs_utils 0 2 <p><a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=cloomis" class="user-hover" rel="cloomis">cloomis</a> is it OK to call the routine per HDU (i.e. camera)? I'm thinking to make one providing pixel-&gt;sky....</p> <p>Makes sense to me.</p> <p><a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=cloomis" class="user-hover" rel="cloomis">cloomis</a> 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</p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-java"> def WCSParameters(<span class="code-quote">"pfi_sky"</span>, cent, rot, alt, az, pa=0., icam=0, time=<span class="code-quote">'2020-01-01 10:00:00'</span>) </pre> </div></div> <p>pa and icam is new parameters and the latter is agId (starting from 0). (I'll write docstring in the code..)</p> <p>Could you please check if it is OK..</p> <p>That certainly works for me, thanks.</p> <p>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?</p> <p>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...)</p> <p>I tested the code using AG images in Nov. The code also was reviewed and merged. So I close this ticket.</p> Relates INSTRM-1458 DAMD-2 Development Rank 0|02qpq3:r3s0000000c Sprint PreEngRun4 Story Points 1.0