Re: Calculation of error ?
Posted by
karenacollins on
May 20, 2021; 2:29am
URL: http://astroimagej.170.s1.nabble.com/Calculation-of-error-tp1561p1565.html
Hi Pieter,
In your original post, you note:
These are some numbers for the first photo :
Source-Sky_T1
12.459513
Source_Error_T1
10.131787
Source_AMag_T1 9.374163
Source_AMag_Err_T1 0.737586
The Source_Error_T1 = 10.1 is almost as big as the actual number
of Source-Sky_T1 = 12.5 integrated counts in the aperture. Is the
signal in the T1 aperture really that small?
I can dig deeper if you can send my your measurements table file
(and plotcfg file if you've saved one) to karenacollins atata
outlook dodot com.
Karen
On 5/19/2021 5:27 PM, PieterVuylsteke
[via AstroImageJ] wrote:
Hi Karen,
Thank you for your answer.
I do find it bizare that the Amag error is indicated as being
0.7, whilst this is the curve of the star, with a "visible"
error of about 0.02mag. That is quite a difference ?
Or do I make a mistake in interpretation ?
Kind Regards,
Pieter.
Op wo 19 mei 2021 om 22:55
schreef karenacollins [via AstroImageJ] <
[hidden email]>:
Hi Pieter,
Yes, AMag error is in magnitude. However, Source_Error is in
ADU (or counts), rather than magnitude. The error will always
be given in the same units as the value.
Appendix D in the
AIJ paper here describes most or all of the data values
found in the measurements table.
Regarding your question: "Do I still have to enter values for
the readout and dark current noise, when treating them as in
Image Sequence in AstroImageJ ? I did enter the e/ADU value
for the gain of the camera, and left those two other values at
zero."
- AIJ will still work correctly if readout and dark current
are set to zero. However, the photometric errors/uncertainties
may be underestimated. This will be less of an issue for
bright targets, and more of an issue for faint targets. In
either case, only the calculated uncertainties will be
affected, not the nominal measured values.
Karen