Re: FITS tables

[Jure Skvarc <jure.skvarc@ijs.si>]

Arne's explanation made me realize that we are probably talking about rather
different types of star lists.  I thought that the magnitudes would be "real",
after making all kinds of transformations, calibrations etc.  Apparently, Arne
envisioned a standard file format for very raw star lists which contain
instrumental magnitudes only.

So, there was a bit of confusion.  However, I imagined that each operator would
do his job to the bitter end, because he has all of the information available,
and only then distribute data.  Is it realistic to expect interest for
half-finished data in quantites 1 million/night?  Or maybe I again don't
undertand something?


As for the aperture size, I actually usually think "radius", but most people
think in diameter, when it comes to circular things in general, so I proposed
diameter.  But it is just a matter of convention and the transformation between
the two is relatively simple.

Also, the idea to include software name and version in the header looks good to
me.

We had a rainy weekend, so I talked much more than usually  I expect to be busy
starting tomorrow but I will summarize any further additions to the star list
format after next weekend, if anything new appears by then.

			Jure



aah@nofs.navy.mil wrote:
> 
> Jure asked about whether the raw starlists should use
> magnitude or total counts.
> .....