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
We may want to add sensor-to-sensor quantum efficiency (QE) variations to obs-lsst based on our measurements.
Pixel to pixel response non-uniformity (a combination of pixel size variation and pixel to pixel QE variation) could also be modeled but we know from work from @aaronroodman and all that this is a very small effect on the LSST sensors.
@aaronroodman : The paper refers to a LSST sensor. Is it a E2V prototype and can we assume the same will be true for ITL?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The most interesting aspect for my work is the fact that (on average) the QE as a function of wavelength is different for each detector. The sub-detector variations are also interesting but higher order. See slides attached to https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-40164 for what things look like for LSSTCam.
We may want to add sensor-to-sensor quantum efficiency (QE) variations to obs-lsst based on our measurements.
Pixel to pixel response non-uniformity (a combination of pixel size variation and pixel to pixel QE variation) could also be modeled but we know from work from @aaronroodman and all that this is a very small effect on the LSST sensors.
@aaronroodman : The paper refers to a LSST sensor. Is it a E2V prototype and can we assume the same will be true for ITL?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: