Project

General

Profile

Image health seeing and obstac » History » Version 15

James Annis, 12/01/2012 12:09 PM

1 2 James Annis
h1. Image Health seeing and Obstac
2 1 James Annis
3 1 James Annis
The lore is that the image health seeing values are sometimes unrelated to the real seeing.
4 1 James Annis
5 1 James Annis
What do we know?
6 1 James Annis
7 2 James Annis
8 2 James Annis
DIMM free air seeing values are in red, Quick Reduce produced Sextractor FWHM measures of the
9 2 James Annis
delivered image quality (free air seeing + dome seeing + optics + tracking) is in green,
10 2 James Annis
and the Image Health FWHM measures are in blue.
11 6 James Annis
!{width:750px}FWHM_IH_QR_DIMM-20121025-20121026.jpg!
12 2 James Annis
(This image is from Douglas Tucker, October 26, 2012 )
13 2 James Annis
Note that IH and QR track each other well at small seeing values, but that IH
14 2 James Annis
has a cutoff at about 1.5".
15 2 James Annis
16 2 James Annis
If one finds a image with bad seeing, say 2", reported by QR and asks the SISPI
17 2 James Annis
database for the harmonic_mean_seeing values for all 62 ccds, often there will
18 2 James Annis
be only a single ccd reported in the database.
19 2 James Annis
20 2 James Annis
It is likely that Image Health has a threshold above which its seeing measurements
21 2 James Annis
are thrown away: not used in the fp_harm_mean_seeing calculation and not
22 2 James Annis
sent to the SISPI database.
23 2 James Annis
24 2 James Annis
Next, Jiangang (amongst others) points out there is a scale difference between
25 2 James Annis
IH and QR. Jiangang's report is here
26 2 James Annis
[[2_Comparison_of_fwhmwhisker_from_different_methods_based_on_images_from_11242012]]
27 2 James Annis
but I want to point out the following plot:
28 8 James Annis
!{width:350px}fwhm_QR_IH.png!
29 9 James Annis
At small seeing values QR and IH track well, but at 1.5" the IH seeing flattens out due to
30 9 James Annis
the threshold cut we discussed above. At small seeing it looks like a factor of 1.2 or 1.25 multiplied
31 9 James Annis
on the IH seeing would take it into the QR/sextractor values. Jiangang's analysis shows
32 13 James Annis
many varieties of FWHM calculations; sextractors are fine. (I'm going to ignore the magenta
33 13 James Annis
points above the line as a bad data set)
34 9 James Annis
35 9 James Annis
36 11 James Annis
Here is Ken Patton's description of the IH seeing measurement algorithm, from an email dated
37 14 James Annis
Nov 5, 2012. Notice that there is already a calibration constant multiplier  in use.
38 10 James Annis
39 11 James Annis
bq. Just to weigh in really quick on Image Health-  it does not use sextractor, and doesn't really make a large catalog of stars on each chip. It also does not flat field or bias correct the image (it has to run within 20 seconds).  To explain the basic algorithm:
40 9 James Annis
41 9 James Annis
# It works on each amplifier individually, and uses sky noise estimates that it previously calculated to set a pixel detection threshold. Then it steps along the chip in a roughly grid like fashion randomly sampling pixels to make a seed pixel list.
42 1 James Annis
# For each seed pixel it steps around the object to make sure it's isolated and doesn't have any saturated pixels.
43 9 James Annis
# It then calculates the weighted centroid and moments for the ellipticity estimate, throwing out objects above an ellipticity cut (pretty much the main thing it uses to isolate stars from anything else).
44 9 James Annis
# It also calculates effectively a count-weighted radius estimate for the fwhm.  For every pixel above 1/2 the maximum pixel value in the object it averages the radius from the centroid and weights it with the counts in that pixel.  The fwhm is then computed as twice this "averaged" radius.
45 9 James Annis
# On an individual chip the stars from each amplifier (generally we find 5-20ish on each using this method) are averaged using the harmonic mean.
46 9 James Annis
# The focal plane estimate is then the harmonic mean of all the individual chips.
47 10 James Annis
# This almost always produces estimates that are lower than those from sextractor and other methods- so the last thing we did was use simulated data (dc6b) to calibrate a fitting formula to scale the IH fwhm estimate with a fudge factor to bring it in line with sextractor values.  Although on an individual chip the values scatter around quite a bit due to the low number of stars and crude algorithm, we tried to scale the overall focal plane average such that it lined up with extractor estimates.  If this is not accurate we can adjust it.
48 9 James Annis
49 1 James Annis
bq. If you have any other questions please let me know- I'll try to help out however I can. -Ken
50 14 James Annis
51 14 James Annis
h2. Summary
52 14 James Annis
53 14 James Annis
There is a high seeing rejection threshold in IH that should be removed.
54 14 James Annis
55 14 James Annis
The FWHM calibration constant multiplier should be increased by 1.2 or 1.25.
56 15 James Annis
57 15 James Annis
h2. Image files