DM-40955: LATISS psf stamp size is incorrect for the large PSFs #480
Conversation
config/latiss/characterizeImage.py
Outdated
| @@ -15,6 +15,9 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| # Reduce psfex spatialOrder to 1, this helps ensure success with low numbers of psf candidates. | |||
| config.measurePsf.psfDeterminer["psfex"].spatialOrder = 1 | |||
| # Set the default kernel and stamp sizes for PSF modelling appropriate for LATISS | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
US spelling is modeling (one l).
| # Reduce piff spatialOrder to 1, this helps ensure success with low numbers of psf candidates. | ||
| config.psf_determiner['piff'].spatialOrder = 1 | ||
| # Change the PSF determiner to psfex from piff default as the latter will not | ||
| # scale well to the large kernel/stamp sizes for PSF modelling for LATISS data. |
| config.psf_determiner.name = "psfex" | ||
| # Reduce spatialOrder to 1, this helps ensure success with low numbers of psf candidates. | ||
| config.psf_determiner["psfex"].spatialOrder = 1 | ||
| # Set the default kernel and stamp sizes for PSF modelling appropriate for LATISS. |
Namely: (a) set the characterizeImage kernelSize and stampSize to 71 (b) change finalize to use a kernelSize and stampSize of 71 (c) change finalize PSF model from piff to psfex Note that (c) is required (for now) because piff doesn't scale well with increasing stampSize.
laurenam
force-pushed
the
tickets/DM-40955
branch
from
638d176
to
9f97207
Compare
|
I made the update to move the |
| @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ setupRequired(astro_metadata_translator) | |||
| setupRequired(obs_lsst_data) | |||
| setupRequired(daf_butler) | |||
| setupOptional(meas_extensions_gaap) | |||
| setupOptional(meas_extensions_psfex) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm never sure what should be optional or required here, and I'm sure this has to be picked up by pipe_tasks currently, but I think it's okay to have this here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not totally clear on this either! My reasoning was:
a) we should not rely on it being picked up by another required package (as that could change from underneath us).
b) it's "optional" because it is only actually "required" if processing LATISS data (but I'm not 100% sure that's correct reasoning since it seems that it's crossing a line).
I'll leave it as is for now (but will keep it in mind if we see problems down the road that could be related).
|
Assuming you confirmed that moving to the config works, then 👍 |
No description provided.