| | 1 | = [wiki:TestCaseData]/2009-10-09_bandpass_interpolation = |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | Date the page with either today's date or the observation date of the problem dataset. |
| | 4 | The description text is optional. If you include it please use underscores ({{{_}}}) instead of spaces between words. |
| | 5 | |
| | 6 | == Description == |
| | 7 | Bjorn Emonts did some tests of how the new code that allows time-variable bandpass tables (ticket:90) improves things. |
| | 8 | |
| | 9 | Method: I observed a 2 Jy calibrator roughly every 20 minutes at 3cm.[[BR]] |
| | 10 | I divided the data in two parts (even and odd scans) and used one data-set to |
| | 11 | calibrate the other. Basically, I thus got a bandpass calibration roughly |
| | 12 | every 40 min and observed the 'target' in between the calibrator scans. |
| | 13 | The continuum in the resulting image is subtracted, so you only see the residuals. |
| | 14 | |
| | 15 | The 'entire' data-set used only 1 bandpass solution interval to calibrate |
| | 16 | the data (i.e. the old way). The spectral dynamic range that I get is only 1:100 (quite poor).[[BR]] |
| | 17 | The 'interpolate' data-set interpolated between the bandpass calibrator |
| | 18 | scans. It is clear that the spectral dynamic range improved significantly! |
| | 19 | |
| | 20 | === Data Set(s) === |
| | 21 | * 2009-04-12_2357.CX171 (ifsel=2) |
| | 22 | |
| | 23 | == Tickets == |
| | 24 | * {{{ticket:nn}}} - short description |
| | 25 | |
| | 26 | ---- |
| | 27 | [wiki:TestCaseData][[BR]] |
| | 28 | [wiki:WikiStart Wiki Home] |
