Welcome to iraf.net Sunday, May 12 2024 @ 05:34 PM GMT
| rjvo |
09/06/2007 06:50PM (Read 3297 times)
|
|
|
Status: offline
Registered: 04/21/2007
Posts: 134
|
What are the reasons to use INVERTFIT method rather than EVALFIT for CCD photometry as IRAF HELP on MKCONFIG suggests?
|
| |
|
|
| valdes |
|
09/06/2007 06:50PM
|
|
|
 Status: offline
Registered: 11/11/2005
Posts: 728
|
The result of inverting a fit is what is usually needed to evaluate the functions for observed stars.Frank Valdes
|
| |
|
|
| rjvo |
|
09/06/2007 06:50PM
|
|
|
Status: offline
Registered: 04/21/2007
Posts: 134
|
OK. The form of the equations for the INVERTFIT really needs to invert the transformation as "a system". Preparing the same problem we can use the EVALFIT without any invert. But in general we get different results (not only for fit parameters, as it should usually be) but for solution (values, residuals, etc.). Is there any physical reason for choosing the method? For the photoelectic data the help (mkconfig) prefers the EVALFIT form but for CCD data - INVERTFIT form. Why is so?
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Content generated in: 0.08 seconds |
|
New Topic
Post Reply
INVERTFIT or EVALFIT for CCD
Quote
