Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес
оригинального документа
: http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/irw/proceedings/stetsonp.dir/section3_4.html
Дата изменения: Mon Apr 18 18:37:09 1994 Дата индексирования: Sun Dec 23 20:17:57 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п п |
As mentioned above, two simulated images (stars centered on pixels,
stars not necessarily centered on pixels) were reduced with five
point-spread functions each (a PSF was obtained from each of the
simulated ``science frames,'' one was obtained from actual WFC images,
and three were obtained from Tiny TIM simulations). In each case I
found that the PSFs obtained from the simulations themselves yielded
the most accurate photometry. Tables 1 and 2 present actual values of
derived using the PSFs from the synthetic frames
themselves, for four subsets: (a) all stars; (b) all stars except the
faintest two magnitudes (true < 2.00); (c) all stars more than 28
pixels from the center of the cluster; and (d) all stars brighter than
true = 2.00 inside 28 pixels from the center of the cluster.
ALLSTAR does not seem to have a big problem with undersampling: with one exception, the results are not worse when the stars are allowed to lie anywhere within their pixels. And I believe that exception may be more an artifact of the simulation than of the reduction. In the process of generating the first test image, whenever two artificial stars had their centers in the same pixel, one was thrown away and only one was kept. In the latter simulation, any number of stars falling in the same pixel were all retained. Subsequently, the reduction software was unable to distinguish the numerous stars lying in a single pixel, and reduced the blend as one object. The cross-identification software then associated this object with only one of the artificial stars in the ``truth'' list, thereby implying a lower recovery rate and a higher typical photometric error.