Bob Hanisch wrote
> I just want to add my support for Alberto's objection to instr.scale -- I
> think this could be very confusing. The scale here is not an attribute of
> the instrument, but of the image. Glancing quickly through the UCD-UCD1+
> mapping, however, I do not see a UCD that fits very well.
Alberto (I think) wrote
> > Actually, where is the resolution in this scheme? > Probably it was
> not in the SIAP, but I should read the SIAP specs again.
To underline these points, I think thaat there may be a tendency to think of images as products of instruments using pixel detectors, where the pixel scale of the instrument determines the resolution of the image and the sampling interval of the image. But of course that ain't necessarily so. As has been pointed out, data processing can change the image pixel size of even CCD images let alone other forms of data. The resolution is determined by the PSF, but even that means different things in different regimes. Both pixel size and resolution are variable e.g. by weighting radio data.
Hence for describing images you need an image pixel size.
Resolution is tricker since even in a single image that can be brightness dependent. In the Registry we would use a range but in describing images I think that the choices are
cheers
a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Anita M. S. Richards, AVO Astronomer
MERLIN/VLBI National Facility, University of Manchester,
Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, U.K.
tel +44 (0)1477 572683 (direct); 571321 (switchboard); 571618 (fax).
Received on 2004-03-25Z15:15:00