> that seems to be broken quite badly (you should see a prompt for the
> OPTIMA parameter at this stage, by then not much else has gone on in
> AUTOPHOTOM, just the access of the NDF), so I'd guess you have a corrupt
> parameter file somewhere.
I've reproduced the error using Liam's data, so it's not the GLOBAL or
parameter file. It appears to be the catalogue has some tabs in the
entry for the PSF. Removing there generates some results including
gazillions of "Saturated pixels inside quick look box." warnings. I
also had to comment out star 10 then it got to star #1264. So I set the
parameters to match Liam's settings (notably the saturation level) and
it generate the following.
105.86 178.19 1.5156 2.1560 0.2793 OK 8.0 4.00 annulus
99.94 13.82 42.361 0.053 69.172 1136.934 OK annulus
103.15 10.88 41.731 0.035 69.197 2030.293 OK annulus
107.14 9.69 41.270 0.026 69.334 3105.453 OK annulus
374.68 11.32 41.347 0.028 75.492 2891.477 OK annulus
166.44 10.40 41.379 0.028 71.295 2807.364 OK annulus
338.10 10.64 42.416 0.059 75.190 1080.251 OK annulus
317.04 11.02 42.428 0.060 74.890 1068.725 OK annulus
277.46 10.60 43.198 0.105 75.033 525.857 OK annulus
429.89 7.02 43.546 0.141 77.577 381.749 OK annulus
51.31 7.60 43.610 0.142 69.413 359.718 S annulus
Segmentation fault
Commenting out the next objectionable star, I see
WARNING > After 18th iteration, lambda is becoming too big
The last fractional improvement in reduced chi-squared is 0.35
It may have converged!
303.01 6.75 50.000 99.999 74.664 nan ? annulus
The stability appears to be in question depending on the data and choice
of parameters. It's a moderately crowded field. I'm not a user of the
optimal photometry. Perhaps Peter would like to comment.
Malcolm Currie
|