-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New "mask" to mark some pixels as "already modelled" #174
Comments
@ntessore just told me that there could be problems with the "sky" component which is automatically applied to all pixels. |
Indeed, it would be problematic because these pixels already contain all foreground sources such as the sky etc., but then it would be possible to simply not apply any foreground sources to them. In practice, I think it would be enough for these "copied" pixels to have their initial value set to the pixel value from the image, and those which should be calculated to some magic value. In pseudo-code:
We would have to see if that negatively affects the performance, but I think it's an easy implementation. |
I am not sure I understand what is wanted here. Doesn't simply fixed the sources that have |
Let's say I have a lens with two sets of multiple images (that is, two background sources). I may would like to see the constraints on the lens independently for each set. But even if I first fit only one of the two (say, the most luminous), there is no way I can fix it when I want to use only the other one, because the best parameters for the source will change depending on the lens. |
I think that it could be useful to give Lensed the information that some pixels should not be modelled, without actually masking them. When you mask a pixel you have actually no control on it, i.e. any flux can end up there. Instead, there are cases where some pixels are less interesting because they have already been modelled or because they belong to different sources with respect to the one you are studying. In this case, it would be plausible to make the model start from the observed pixel value, so that any addition of flux there is discouraged. It may not be theoretically very precise, but it could be effective in some practical cases. I don't know if it is indeed possible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: