Blinkers at the ready...

Two things Dave, while I start do this this,

1) Image 20071207_NGC0500.fit seems to be missing from your site. I keep getting a 404 error.

2) Could you in future rename the files so that they are in the following format NGC0500_20071207.fit. When I download these files using your current naming convention I have to spend a bit of time finding the matching file name. If you arrange them as suggested by the NGC number of the primary and latest image will be filed together and therefore much quicker to analyse.

JohnL

1) Image 20071207_NGC0500.fit seems to be missing from your site. I keep getting a 404 error.

Sorry John - that is now fixed...

Good call on the naming convention - I'll do that - tomorrow

Bart - sorry it didn't work out for you. We *are* and *will* endeavour to keep this project platform independent, but it may take some time. Please bear with us...

Cheers
Dave

Bart - sorry it didn't work out for you. We *are* and *will* endeavour to keep this project platform independent, but it may take some time. Please bear with us...

No bother ... I have time

2) Could you in future rename the files so that they are in the following format NGC0500_20071207.fit. When I download these files using your current naming convention I have to spend a bit of time finding the matching file name. If you arrange them as suggested by the NGC number of the primary and latest image will be filed together and therefore much quicker to analyse.

Good point - forgot to mention that in my email to you with my results and comments.

Another thing that would be helpful is if you could compress or group all the images to be compared (latest images) into a single arcive for download as this would save time to-ing and fro-ing from your webpage to grab each image set. You could also group all the index images similarly. I realise that could be painful for people not on broadband... but it would be useful!

Phil.

Folks - the web page has been updated and I've taken on board some of the feedback.

1. All images are now named NGC000_YYYYMMDD

2. NGC0500 has been fixed

3. Whilst the target galaxy is centered in most images, it may not always be the case. The target should however be close to the center. If you want to double check the galaxy location, this website will help: www.ngcic.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp

4. Where there is more than one galaxy in an image (there are a few), the target is the one closest to the center. Again, the website above will help if you really want to know what the target is. However, please blink and check all galaxies in the image - you never know.

5. The blink website ( www.astroshack.net/Blinkers.php ) has a list of target images. Each target image may have two additional images - the primary comparison and the secondary comparison. The primary comparison is the most recent image that shows no sign of a candidate. The secondary image is the oldest comaprsion image I have so far. You only need to blink the target image and the primary comparison. If you see a candidate, you can then blink the target and the secondary comparsion as a check. If you want to blink all three images, that's still OK.

6. It is important that the images are uploaded as soon as possible. Therefore, the only processing carried out on the images is to calibrate them using darks and biases. I have not "normalised" the targets and comparsions or carried out any real quality control. It may be that the quality of the target is too poor to blink. Please note this on the report form. Unfortunately, unless we move to Hawaii, its a cross we will have to bear

7. Related to above, all images are taken using the same parameters (binning and exposure time) so they are directly comparable. However, sky conditions (especially high cloud) can lead to quality issues between the two images. Since we need to act quickly, I'd rather put the latest target up even it the quality looks poor - you may just be able to use it. If not, just note it on the report form. Speed is of the essence in SN searching.

8. One issue that needs to be resolved (how, I don't know as yet) is image rotation. Some of the targets and comparsions are rotated with respect to each other. Astrometrica does not re-align them vertically or horixzontally - you will have to do this manually for now. We'll see if we can figure out how to fix this - perhaps at imaging time. But note that if you flip images in Astrometrica, it will flip all open images. So you may open both images and then figure one of them needs to be flipped. You'll need to close one of the images, flip the open one then re-open the second image.

9. In some images, the core is very bright, precluding the discovery of a SN in that region. Optionally, you can alter the levels using Astrometrica to lower the brightness. However, this is optional. Otherwise, just report the fact in your report.

10. It is really important you fill in the report form. The data can be used to identify poor quality images (and possibly do something with them), figure out what has and hasn't been blinked and determine what the next target list should look like. For example, if there is a poor quality image, I can simply add that to the next imaging run and make sure we get a better one next time the clouds part.

That'll do for now...

Cheers

Dave

Another thing that would be helpful is if you could compress or group all the images to be compared (latest images) into a single arcive for download as this would save time to-ing and fro-ing from your webpage to grab each image set. You could also group all the index images similarly. I realise that could be painful for people not on broadband... but it would be useful!
Phil.

A good point Phil. The issue with targets is that they need to be uploaded quickly so folks can start blinking ASAP. I was effectively uploading the targets last night pretty much as soon as they came off the CCD.

However, compressing the comparisons would be easy enough. Folks could then download them as a set. We may also be able to do this with targets too.

We need to think about how to avoid "revision" issues though. How would we ensure folks had the latest comparsion set? I'm certain there is a solution - my brain is only partially functioning at the moment. Perhaps this could be rolled into the software development activities hopefully underway soon...

Cheers
Dave