daophot substar does not react to wcsin=’physical’
hansmor wrote on Apr 13, 2010
Hi,
I have a problem with the substar task in the daophot package
To me, this looks like a bug.
This works and substract those five stars from my image.
Alternatively, I try using a physical coordinate system:
This only pretends to work - when looking at the result no substraction has happened.
image.fits4.nst.3 and image.fits4.nst.1 are identical except that the first one uses logical coordinates and the second physical.
Presumably IRAF just ignores the wcsin='physical'...
Is there an easy fix for that? It would make my life much simpler to use the physical coordinate system instead of the logical one because the logical coordinates are, of course, non-unique between image.fits[1], image.fits[2], image.fits[3] and image.fits[4].
Cheers,
Hans Moritz
I have a problem with the substar task in the daophot package
To me, this looks like a bug.
daophot> substar image.fits[4] image.fits4.nst.3 '' image.fits4.psf.1.fits default
SUBTRACTING - Star: 66 X = 574.54 Y = 203.57 Mag = 16.78
SUBTRACTING - Star: 97 X = 910.58 Y = 523.63 Mag = 16.92
SUBTRACTING - Star: 105 X = 691.93 Y = 659.66 Mag = 16.99
SUBTRACTING - Star: 106 X = 197.77 Y = 712.67 Mag = 17.45
SUBTRACTING - Star: 114 X = 217.99 Y = 868.73 Mag = 17.54
A total of 5 stars were subtracted out of a possible 5
This works and substract those five stars from my image.
Alternatively, I try using a physical coordinate system:
daophot> substar image.fits[4] image.fits4.nst.1 '' image.fits4.psf.1.fits default wcsin='physical' wcsout='physical' wcspsf='physical'
SUBTRACTING - Star: 66 X = 1148.08 Y = 406.14 Mag = 16.78
SUBTRACTING - Star: 97 X = 1820.16 Y = 1046.26 Mag = 16.92
SUBTRACTING - Star: 105 X = 1382.85 Y = 1318.32 Mag = 16.99
SUBTRACTING - Star: 106 X = 394.55 Y = 1424.34 Mag = 17.45
SUBTRACTING - Star: 114 X = 434.98 Y = 1736.45 Mag = 17.54
A total of 5 stars were subtracted out of a possible 5
This only pretends to work - when looking at the result no substraction has happened.
image.fits4.nst.3 and image.fits4.nst.1 are identical except that the first one uses logical coordinates and the second physical.
Presumably IRAF just ignores the wcsin='physical'...
Is there an easy fix for that? It would make my life much simpler to use the physical coordinate system instead of the logical one because the logical coordinates are, of course, non-unique between image.fits[1], image.fits[2], image.fits[3] and image.fits[4].
Cheers,
Hans Moritz
Last post on Apr 13, 2010