[Aavso-photometry] FITS Keyword List

[Michael Newberry]

Certainly the image could meet the FITS standard, but that does not 
necessarily mean that some important keywords it might contain can be 
understood by any other software. For example, it might use NOISE123  for 
the readout noise, or EXPOSE66 for the exposure time, and the image still 
would pass the test since the verifier would just assume those 2 keywords 
are private. But you would run into trouble trying to do photometry on the 
image because the readout noise and exposure time are not in a readily 
accessible form.

Michael Newberry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Jones" <nt7t at centurytel.net>
To: "AAVSO Photometry" <aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Aavso-photometry] FITS Keyword List


> Interesting.  I submitted an SBIG image from my ST8 and it found 2
> warnings and 0 errors.  So I guess that as far as NASA is concerned,
> SBIG meets the fits "standard".
>
> Maybe we should be kinder when we speak of SBIG's efforts.
>
> Jim Jones
>
> Brian D. Warner wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> The one FITS standard has become a pretty well universally adopted 
>> convention.
>> Regardless of how well-adopted that convention is, that does not equate 
>> to
>> a formal standard.
>>
>> Any claims by any vendor should more carefully qualify what is meant 
>> about
>> compliance. If it follows a convention, that is what should be stated, 
>> not
>> that it's in compliance with _the one standard._
>>
>> I'll go back to my original contention that if any image from any package 
>> can
>> pass the test on
>>
>>   http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_verify.html
>>
>> (not NOFS, as I incorrectly stated, but NASA/GSFC FITS Support page), it 
>> should be
>> considered "compliant" for now and that the software is also "compliant." 
>> That is
>> a formal test that can be independently validated by anyone.
>>
>> Arne proposed that he work with vendors to adopt some sort of rules. 
>> That's fine,
>> but unless something special happens, it looks to be just another 
>> convention,
>> maybe the "AAVSO FITS convention." That's fine, too, just as long as it's 
>> recognized
>> as such and not some formal standard against which software is claimed to 
>> comply and
>> so
>> imply suitability or usefulness.
>>
>> Unfortunately, without the making of a true standard, the issue of 
>> compliance will
>> never be resolved (that assumes people will honor that standard). Adding 
>> yet another
>> convention just means more work, headaches, and tech support issues for 
>> vendors and
>> end-users.
>>
>>
>> Clear Skies,
>> Brian D. Warner
>> Palmer Divide Observatory/Space Science Institute
>> http://www.MinorPlanetObserver.com
>>
>> Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link (CALL)
>> http://www.MinorPlanetObserver.com/astlc/default.htm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Aavso-photometry mailing list
>> Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
>> http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Aavso-photometry mailing list
> Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry
>
>