You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I don't know if it's an issue or not with the simulated spectra, but
I've just looked at a random spectra-**fits file and saw that the wavelength range (for the B camera for example)
doesn't match whats in real data
[3569.3, 3570.1, 3570.9, ..., 5946.9, 5947.7, 5948.5
vs
[3600. , 3600.8, 3601.6, ..., 5798.4, 5799.2, 5800. ]
Is this intended ?
(I was plannign to use one of those spectra-*fits file as part of my test-suite, but if the wavelength range is different, that won't work for me)
Thanks,
S
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
But it does look like the noiseless simulated targets have an odd wavelength range, 70 Angstroms bluer than the default (which is 3600-10000 A) and with an unusual pixel size:
In any case, these become DESI spectra via desisim.simexp.simulate_spectra (via desisim/scripts/newexp_mock), which I think (under the hood) uses the nominal camera-specific wavelengths in the desimodel throughput files.
Meanwhile and separately, the 3600-5800 A used in desispec during production runs are hard-coded somewhere that I can't find right now (hence desihub/desispec#1009 is a related issue), but the simulation infrastructure never sees those ranges.
Hi,
I don't know if it's an issue or not with the simulated spectra, but
I've just looked at a random spectra-**fits file and saw that the wavelength range (for the B camera for example)
doesn't match whats in real data
[3569.3, 3570.1, 3570.9, ..., 5946.9, 5947.7, 5948.5
vs
[3600. , 3600.8, 3601.6, ..., 5798.4, 5799.2, 5800. ]
Is this intended ?
(I was plannign to use one of those spectra-*fits file as part of my test-suite, but if the wavelength range is different, that won't work for me)
Thanks,
S
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: