[Aavso-photometry] Comparing charts to field photometry

[Aaron Price]

 Hi, George. These differences are known and are a result of loading new photometric data last 
summer as part of our project to update the photometry on most of our charts. We left the labels 
alone during that phase. When the next phase occurs, additional new photometry will be loaded and 
then all the labels will be updated.  That phase will likely occur in April and will be accompanied 
by many announcements via the discussion groups, web site, newsletters, etc. So stay tuned.

Aaron



On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 09:00:52AM -0500, George Silvis wrote:
> 
> I'm just getting started with CCDV photometry. I'm finding many 
> discrepancies between charts and field photometry table star labels. 
> Or I'm doing it wrong!
> 
> For example, take V Gem
>    chart 0717+13(e),  Field Photometry 080301
> - There are 19 labeled stars on the chart, 18 in the photometry 
> ("94") is missing
> - 7 differences in the labels
>                       photometry vs chart label
> 000-BBM-965      119            120
> 000-BBN-001      115             116
> 000-BBM-960      102             100
> 000-BBM-985     113              112
> 000-BBM-994     130              132
> 000-BBN-007     136             138
> 000-BBM-993     132             134
> 
> What is the procedure? To whom would this be reported?
> 
> When documenting an observation, which labelling should be used, or 
> should I report the AUID?
> 
> Thanks
> George
> SGEO
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Aavso-photometry mailing list
> Aavso-photometry at mira.aavso.org
> http://www.aavso.org/mailman/listinfo/aavso-photometry

-- 

Aaron Price
Technical Assistant, Technology
American Association of Variable Star Observers
www.aavso.org