|
|
[fitsbits] the need for BITPIX=64? by
William Pence
Preben Grosbol wrote:
I still have reservation concerning BITPIX=64 for the following reasons:
1) there seems no good physical reason for 64-bit integer...
|
|
0 |
725 |
|
|
[fitsbits] the need for BITPIX=64? by
Thierry Forveille
William Pence writes:
Preben Grosbol wrote:
I still have reservation concerning BITPIX=64 for the following reasons:
1) there seems no good...
|
|
3 |
752 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
1,273 |
|
|
[fitsbits] TDIMn by
William Thompson
I noticed that the WCS Paper III mentions that there's a pending motion before
the FITS committees to make the TDIMn keyword official. I was wondering...
( 1 2)
|
|
12 |
2,140 |
|
|
[fitsbits] substring array convention by
William Pence[_2_]
One of the changes that was made in the new 3.0 version of the FITS
Standard document was to delete Appendix B, which described 2
conventions for storing...
|
|
0 |
1,474 |
|
|
[fitsbits] stupid shell tricks by
Steve Allen
Many years ago, before all the perl and Tcl and other scripting
languages, I produced a little unix-oriented script for extracting
FITS keyword values from the...
|
|
0 |
858 |
|
|
[fitsbits] Status of New FITS Standard by
William Pence
This is an update on the status of the proposed new Standard document
that precisely defines the required format for FITS data files. A
draft of the...
|
|
0 |
1,786 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
1,385 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,778 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,638 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,658 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
715 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,226 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,820 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
2,454 |
|
|
|
|
8 |
2,880 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1,974 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,225 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
1,054 |
|
|
|
|
0 |
1,096 |