Here is a plot of the data (cyan) and randoms (magenta) using the masks, and the method outlined in this post:
I'm a little confused as to why some of the data isn't represented in the randoms. It seems the mask is different than the data, perhaps this is because there is less completeness in the regions that aren't covered in the mask. I'll ask Shirley about this, but in the mean time, I'll apply the mask to both the data and the randoms, to insure the area covered are the same.
11/2 Update: Heard back from Shirley she says:
"This is deliberate. And your plot reflects it :)
There is a reason to cut out certain areas in the mask, and I never said that the data covers the same area as the mask :) ! I am testing things right now for different areas to cut out :) ! (due to extinction, stars and possible photometric calibration problems)"
So I looks like I should just apply the mask to both the data and the randoms before doing the cross correlation, as I suspected.
11/2 Update: Heard back from Shirley she says:
"This is deliberate. And your plot reflects it :)
There is a reason to cut out certain areas in the mask, and I never said that the data covers the same area as the mask :) ! I am testing things right now for different areas to cut out :) ! (due to extinction, stars and possible photometric calibration problems)"
So I looks like I should just apply the mask to both the data and the randoms before doing the cross correlation, as I suspected.
No comments:
Post a Comment