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/PIPE2D-381 DRP 2-D Pipeline <p>Spectra extracted from the image must have been divided through by the response of the system to the flat-field lamp; that is, we should not make any correction for the effects of the flat-field lamp or the dichroic in the per-arm spectra, and we should not correct the merged spectra for the flat-field lamp spectrum until we look at the spectrophotometric standards (at that point in open-use when no spectrophotometric standards have been observed we may want to do something special/hacky).</p> <p>Currently, this is done by normalising the flat-fields row by row, and putting the lamp response in the fiberTrace. However, we want to reverse this: the flat should not be normalised row by row, and the fiberTrace should be normalised row by row. That flat should be normalised as a whole across the entire instrument, as is done for imaging.</p> PIPE2D-381

Leave lamp response in the master flat

Story Normal Won't Fix Won't Fix price price Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:59:24 +0000 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:30:21 +0000 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 20:30:21 +0000 0 2 <p>I'm not sure it's possible to leave the lamp response in the master flat, because neighbouring fibers may have different response, so it's not clear what the value between them should be.</p> <p>I believe <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=rhl" class="user-hover" rel="rhl">rhl</a>'s plan is to construct a separate flat image for each fiber. This will require defining a new flat-field class, which is more work than we were initially considering. <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=hassan" class="user-hover" rel="hassan">hassan</a>, is this something you want to do now?</p> <p>This can be re-scheduled for a later sprint as it's not critical on anything, although it's good to clean up earlier. I'll move it to the next sprint.</p> <p>Can you elaborate a little more on what is needed? You need to define a whole new class for flats?</p> <p>Actually just talked to @rhl about it, and this particular ticket can be addressed, but without needing - at this stage - to create flat images for each fiber. The work of creating individual fiber images can be done later this year. </p> <p>So this particular ticket will remain in this sprint.</p> <p><a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=rhl" class="user-hover" rel="rhl">rhl</a> is this still something you want to do? Putting the lamp response in the flat would undo the recent work to have <tt>pfsArm</tt> fluxes in counts.</p> <p><a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=rhl" class="user-hover" rel="rhl">rhl</a> will look into this and comment shortly. This could be closed as won't fix and revisit later.</p> <p>In our meeting today, we agreed that the current way we're flat-fielding and normalising is how we want to proceed, at least in the medium-term.</p> Relates PIPE2D-316 Development Rank 0|zzs89z:i Sprint 2DDRP-2019 C 2DDRP-2019 D 2DDRP-2019 E 2DDRP-2021 A 8 Story Points 2.0