MICADO-WISE issueshttps://gitlab.astro-wise.org/micado/micadowise/-/issues2023-02-22T08:59:38Zhttps://gitlab.astro-wise.org/micado/micadowise/-/issues/110(13) 181, DRLS, DPR Keywords2023-02-22T08:59:38ZHugo Buddelmeijerhugo@buddelmeijer.nl(13) 181, DRLS, DPR Keywordshttps://trello.com/c/7bxcPBw6/15-13-181-drls-dpr-keywords
```
ID: 181
Document: MICADO Data Reduction Library Specifications
Location: 72, 5 & 7, Tab 5.1.1 (pp15-16), Tab 7.4.1 (pp101)
Reviewer: EVA/ADO
Submit: no
Responsible: GVK
```
T...https://trello.com/c/7bxcPBw6/15-13-181-drls-dpr-keywords
```
ID: 181
Document: MICADO Data Reduction Library Specifications
Location: 72, 5 & 7, Tab 5.1.1 (pp15-16), Tab 7.4.1 (pp101)
Reviewer: EVA/ADO
Submit: no
Responsible: GVK
```
Text:
Some revisions are needed because: They have DPR.TECH set to IMAGE everywhere, while some of them appear to be SPECTRUM. Their proposed DPR.TYPE keywords do not follow DICB recommendation of generic-to-specific descriptions, missing on the fundamental type. For example, their COLDMASK_RAW appears to be a case of "FLAT,LAMP,COLDMASK", FSTD_RAW appears to be "STD,FLUX", etc. SCI_SLIT should likely be DPR.CATG=ACQUISITION" At least in the current scheme of things, static calibrations are not considered raw files. They are all "master cal" files. No such thing as DPR.TECH='TABLE'.
Answer:
The document will be updated to match the DICB standards.FDRGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nlGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nlhttps://gitlab.astro-wise.org/micado/micadowise/-/issues/109(5) 188, DRLS, Quality Parameters2023-02-22T08:59:52ZHugo Buddelmeijerhugo@buddelmeijer.nl(5) 188, DRLS, Quality Parametershttps://trello.com/c/acvRG9zz/3-5-188-drls-quality-parameters
```
ID: 188
Document: MICADO Data Reduction Library Specifications
Location: 72, Tab 7.4.1, 101
Reviewer: EVA/JRE
Submit: yes
Responsible: GVK->HBU
```
Text:
[AD5] requires...https://trello.com/c/acvRG9zz/3-5-188-drls-quality-parameters
```
ID: 188
Document: MICADO Data Reduction Library Specifications
Location: 72, Tab 7.4.1, 101
Reviewer: EVA/JRE
Submit: yes
Responsible: GVK->HBU
```
Text:
[AD5] requires a set of data quality parameters to be defined depending on the type of data product.
Answer:
The list of QC1 parameters per data product have been specified in Appendix A of the document. These will be indeed used to identify algorithms and procedures to compute them and prototype them where necessary by FDR. Table 7.4.1 gives an overview the header keywords that classify the spectroscopic data items such that the data flow frame can determine the workflow for that data for the spectroscopic data. Tables 5.1.1/2/3 gives that overview for all data items (also imaging). We realize now that Table 7.4.1 is thus superfluous and have removed. Apologies for the confusion.
ESO Step 4: CLOSED WITH ACTION
Possibly a misunderstanding: AD5 does not refer to the QC1 parameters. Suggested action: to include the missing params (ABMAGLIM, PSF_FWHM, etc.) by FDRFDRGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nlGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nl2021-04-30https://gitlab.astro-wise.org/micado/micadowise/-/issues/108(13) 762, DRLS, Weight Algorithm2023-02-22T08:59:46ZHugo Buddelmeijerhugo@buddelmeijer.nl(13) 762, DRLS, Weight Algorithm```
ID: 762
Document: 072_ELT-SPE-MCD-56305-0008_1.0_DataReductionLibrarySpecs.pdf
Location: 72, , p. 42
Reviewer: YJU
Submit: yes
Responsible: GVK->HBU
```
Text:
Even if you intend to use the CPL/HDRL for this, please specify how you ...```
ID: 762
Document: 072_ELT-SPE-MCD-56305-0008_1.0_DataReductionLibrarySpecs.pdf
Location: 72, , p. 42
Reviewer: YJU
Submit: yes
Responsible: GVK->HBU
```
Text:
Even if you intend to use the CPL/HDRL for this, please specify how you intend to create the weight image, to compute the sky with details on the input parameters if any.
Answer:
We assume this refers to page 46. The algorithm description will be improved and at the latest provided at FDR.FDRGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nlGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nl2021-06-30https://gitlab.astro-wise.org/micado/micadowise/-/issues/107370, CP, ZP vs extinction2023-02-22T08:59:42ZHugo Buddelmeijerhugo@buddelmeijer.nl370, CP, ZP vs extinction```
ID: 370
Document: MICADO Calibration Plan
Location: 76, 6.1.2.3, 34
Reviewer: ASM
Submit: no
Responsible: JUP->HBU
```
Text:
It seems to me that we should distinguish between zeropoint (which, at the end, is more a chracteristic of...```
ID: 370
Document: MICADO Calibration Plan
Location: 76, 6.1.2.3, 34
Reviewer: ASM
Submit: no
Responsible: JUP->HBU
```
Text:
It seems to me that we should distinguish between zeropoint (which, at the end, is more a chracteristic of the telescope+instrument system) and extinction (which is atmospheric). I would expect one extinction value but ZP for each detectors.
Answer:
We indeed plan to derive a single extinction value per exposure and and a zeropoint per detector per exposure. As a baseline we plan that each exposure will have a zeropoint derived with the atmospheric extinction computed simply from airmass plus fixed atmospheric extinction coefficient. If there are calibrators in the science image (e.g., Euclid and/or VISTA references) the zeropoint will be done on those. Otherwise the same procedure will be done on the nightly photometric reference field. We intend to offer in the interactive pipeline other ways to derive atmospheric extinction in case suitable input observations exist. For example same fields, observed at different airmasses. The detailed design for this will be made by end of Sep 2019.FDRGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nlGijs Verdoes Kleijng.a.verdoes.kleijn@rug.nl