INVERT's 'fwhm' and 'robust' parameters play well together?
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 4:57 am
Hi guys,
I want to make a series of images at a whole bunch of different frequencies, but with the same final resolution. To date, I had been imaging with robust = -2, then cleaning, restoring, primary beam correcting and, finally, using CONVOL to convolve to the desired resolution.
It struck me that a nicer way to do this perhaps would just be to use the 'fwhm' parameter in INVERT to obtain the desired resolution in the images from the outset. However, since this effectively applies a visibility weighting scheme on the data, I was worried how this might 'play' together with my use of the robust weighting scheme. In other words, I was worried that I was applying two separate weighting schemes to the visibilities simultaneously, and that this might produce unpredictable results.
I was hoping you might be able to weigh in on whether or not this is a bad idea.
Cheers,
Craig.
I want to make a series of images at a whole bunch of different frequencies, but with the same final resolution. To date, I had been imaging with robust = -2, then cleaning, restoring, primary beam correcting and, finally, using CONVOL to convolve to the desired resolution.
It struck me that a nicer way to do this perhaps would just be to use the 'fwhm' parameter in INVERT to obtain the desired resolution in the images from the outset. However, since this effectively applies a visibility weighting scheme on the data, I was worried how this might 'play' together with my use of the robust weighting scheme. In other words, I was worried that I was applying two separate weighting schemes to the visibilities simultaneously, and that this might produce unpredictable results.
I was hoping you might be able to weigh in on whether or not this is a bad idea.
Cheers,
Craig.