|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[fitsbits] fitsverify and "implied" table columns themselves...?
I guess we all got so caught up in Paper 3 that we forgot to check
back with Paper 1. The problem isn't with the "Green Bank Convention" for degenerate columns. As Bill Pence said, it's that we're using the image version of the WCS names rather than the bintable version: We should have 1CRPX1 instead of CRPIX1. I could try to get this changed, but I think the users would revolt, since it's been this way for years now and we have many TB of data. It's hard to believe I never looked at fitsverify on these files before. Oh well. Thanks, -Mike -- Mike Nolan +1 787 878 2612x334 Fax: +1 787 878 1861 Arecibo Observatory, HC 3 Box 53995, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[fitsbits] fitsverify and "implied" table columns themselves...? | Bob Garwood | FITS | 0 | August 27th 08 06:56 PM |
[fitsbits] fitsverify and "implied" table columns themselves...? | William Pence[_2_] | FITS | 0 | August 27th 08 06:39 PM |
[fitsbits] fitsverify and "implied" table columns themselves...? | Bob Garwood | FITS | 0 | August 27th 08 05:52 PM |
[fitsbits] fitsverify and "implied" table columns themselves...? | Mike Nolan | FITS | 0 | August 27th 08 05:14 PM |
"Constant failure"; "The greatest equations ever"; "The Coming Revolutions in Particle Physics" | fishfry | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 13th 08 02:38 AM |