You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Where densest_x, densest_y, densest_ave are just my estimate of the FWHM(x,y,mean) in pixels (from my previous code), astroImage is my fits data matrix (not background subtracted), and the fit_shape is put by hand since an odd number is needed and I prefer to check first, usually I put something a little larger than my estimate of the PSF.
I would like to know if this kind of approach makes sense, since I read here ([https://photutils.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/psf.html]) that my data should be already background_subtracted prior PSF photometry, and this is what I basically do in the second part with a median Background2D estimation. My question is:
In this case it still makes sense to include a local background estimation in the IterativePSFPhotometry call, as I do, Can be beneficial in cases of crowded part of the image, or it is just handled togheter by the grouping part and consequent simultaneous fit?
I would also like to know if the general guesses for aperture, fit_shape and so on make sense with respect to the measured FWHM and if, once the photometry is done, the flux_err in the table of the results can be used to compute the magnitude error as:
Or it needs some other considerations? Such as being dependent on the error that one can include in phot = psfphot(data), that if I understood correctly could as a first approximation be set to the standard deviation of the global background estimation.
Thank you very much in advance,
Matteo
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello,
I'm trying to get flux estimate (and magnitudes) from IterativePSFPhotometry and related errors, but I have some doubts, this is part of my code:
Where
densest_x, densest_y, densest_ave
are just my estimate of the FWHM(x,y,mean) in pixels (from my previous code),astroImage
is my fits data matrix (not background subtracted), and the fit_shape is put by hand since an odd number is needed and I prefer to check first, usually I put something a little larger than my estimate of the PSF.I would like to know if this kind of approach makes sense, since I read here ([https://photutils.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/psf.html]) that my data should be already background_subtracted prior PSF photometry, and this is what I basically do in the second part with a median Background2D estimation. My question is:
In this case it still makes sense to include a local background estimation in the IterativePSFPhotometry call, as I do, Can be beneficial in cases of crowded part of the image, or it is just handled togheter by the grouping part and consequent simultaneous fit?
I would also like to know if the general guesses for aperture, fit_shape and so on make sense with respect to the measured FWHM and if, once the photometry is done, the
flux_err
in the table of the results can be used to compute the magnitude error as:Or it needs some other considerations? Such as being dependent on the
error
that one can include inphot = psfphot(data)
, that if I understood correctly could as a first approximation be set to the standard deviation of the global background estimation.Thank you very much in advance,
Matteo
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: