|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
[fitsbits] Potential new compression method for FITS tables
On Thursday 16 December 2010 14:42:51 Mark Taylor wrote:
Although it doesn't say so explicitly, I presume since there's no
indication otherwise that tables encoded in the way described by this
document are still XTENSION = 'BINTABLE'. I think this is problematic,
since a table reader which is unaware of this convention may encounter
such a FITS extension, see that it's a BINTABLE, and believe that it can
make sense of it.
I can second your concern. We have had the discussion before in the 80's
with the blocking convention. I believe it to be important that old readers,
not knowing new conventions, are not mislead. As a minimum, it should be
trivial for the end user (e.g. by reading the header keywords) to understand
why data are not read correctly.
As a side comments, I participated in a meeting for general archives a few
years ago. There they did not recommend to save compress data since
the effect of single bit errors is more serious than for raw data, not
justifying the gain of disk space.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|[fitsbits] Potential new compression method for FITS tables||Rob Seaman||FITS||0||October 30th 10 12:46 AM|
|[fitsbits] FITS Image Compression Paper and Software||William Pence[_2_]||FITS||0||March 17th 09 08:07 PM|