[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

[vsnet-chat 6556] Re: Error reporting



Re: Error reporting

> I have a simple (& therefore no doubt dumb) problem about the recommended
> way of determining errors, as set out in the last CCD Views #314. It says:
>  - - -
> *Simple* error ranges can be computed with this easy formula:
> 
> 
>             error(mag) = 1.0857 / sqrt(net_counts*gain)
> 
> 
>  ...where net_counts is the count of electrons times the CCD gain.
> This provides a first order approximation.  This is usually available
> in your photometry software. So basically divide 1.0857 by the square
> root of the counts of the star as reported by your photometry
> software. Tada!

   This formula should be better understood as the "highest achievable
precision" of an ideal instrument, without no sky background, no instrumental
noise and all other degrading factors.  If this formula gives an error
better than 0.01 mag, you had better carefully use it, since it is well-known
other external errors can easily introduce a comparable source of errors
even in good conditions.  If this formula gives several tenth of a magnitude,
it would be often a reasonable estimate of your instrument's limitation.
However, under such difficult conditions, many commercial photometry
packages give incorrect (strongly biased) results.  The limit can be
only approximated when you use a suitable and reliable photometry package,
and adequately use it.

   In a number of cases, even professional astronomers take these results
at their face values, and write them in their papers as the "error estimates".
This sometimes resulted in "false positive" detections of variations
greater than the inadequately estimated errors.  It is often the case
that such authors tend to misuse (at least badly use) the photometry
package, and don't even question whether they have correctly measured
the true variation... X-)  The priority thing is to measure correctly,
rather than to estimate the (expected) error correctly.  The error estimate
should naturally come when the correctly measured data sets become
available.

Regards,
Taichi Kato


Return to Home Page

Return to the Powerful Daisaku Nogami

vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Powered by ooruri technology