|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification
On Fri 2008-05-30T12:48:46 +1000, Mark Calabretta hath writ:
I don't think that we have any significant points of disagreement. I concur. We also do not have a set of altered words for Bill Pence to propose which make it clear that traverse along array indices isn't really pixels and does not really have units until and unless the WCS says they do, and that in the case where the coordinate along the array axis can reasonably be interpreted as a real-valued entity the data value is intended to correspond to the measured quantity at the integer values which run from 1 to NAXISj. I don't have any immediate suggestions which can boil all of our agreement into concise words. I think it would be appropriate for the standard to contain the above information in a section completely separate from the definition of the WCS keywords. I agree, but I'm not sure how complicated that process would get. -- Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 University of California Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification | Mark Calabretta | FITS | 0 | May 30th 08 04:00 AM |
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification | Mark Calabretta | FITS | 0 | May 30th 08 03:48 AM |
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification | Jonathan McDowell | FITS | 0 | May 29th 08 04:12 PM |
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification | Eric Greisen | FITS | 0 | May 29th 08 03:45 PM |
[fitsbits] CRPIX clarification | Jonathan McDowell | FITS | 0 | May 29th 08 02:18 AM |