bug in blkrep?
Arp wrote on Mar 04, 2010
Hi!
Is there a bug in blkrep?
Because, I have a fits file with the dimension 512x1, its one line.
If I want to enlarge it to 512x512 I would use blkrep and use 512 for dimension 2. but this simply does nothing... the resulting image has the same dimension than the original one.
If I, however use a 512x2 as an input and use 256 for dimension 2, it works fine.
Or is that normal for blkrep?
Is there a bug in blkrep?
Because, I have a fits file with the dimension 512x1, its one line.
If I want to enlarge it to 512x512 I would use blkrep and use 512 for dimension 2. but this simply does nothing... the resulting image has the same dimension than the original one.
If I, however use a 512x2 as an input and use 256 for dimension 2, it works fine.
Or is that normal for blkrep?
Mike Fitzpatrick wrote on Mar 04, 2010
I suspect that what you have is a 1-D file (i.e. a FITS NAXIS=1 or an imhead on the file shows the size as "[512]" and not "[512,1]"). In thise case, higher dimensions are ignored and you need to actually turn the file into a legitimate 2-D image using e.g.
Where foo.fits is "[512]} and "bar.fits" will be "[512,1]", BLKREP will then work as expected on bar.fits.
-Mike
cl> imstack foo.fits bar.fits
Where foo.fits is "[512]} and "bar.fits" will be "[512,1]", BLKREP will then work as expected on bar.fits.
-Mike
Last post on Mar 04, 2010