allegrodrc:selfcal
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| allegrodrc:selfcal [2020/12/15 10:11] – immer | allegrodrc:selfcal [2021/01/12 12:58] (current) – intema | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| === First Iteration === | === First Iteration === | ||
| - | > Phase solutions for the first self-calibration step | + | {{ : |
| - | > | + | |
| - | > Continuum image of the original data (left) and after the first self-calibration (right). The two colour scales are aligned and highlight the improvement. | + | |
| As next step follows the gain calibration, | As next step follows the gain calibration, | ||
| Line 114: | Line 112: | ||
| solint = ' | solint = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| In this first iteration we use a solution interval of 2 minutes. Since the gain calibrator is observed every 6 minutes, we get three solutions per scan. These can be displayed with : | In this first iteration we use a solution interval of 2 minutes. Since the gain calibrator is observed every 6 minutes, we get three solutions per scan. These can be displayed with : | ||
| Line 125: | Line 124: | ||
| figfile = ' | figfile = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| As you see, the solutions generally group around a phase of zero, but there are some significant correction factors to see - particularly in the last two scans. | As you see, the solutions generally group around a phase of zero, but there are some significant correction factors to see - particularly in the last two scans. | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
| flagbackup = F) | flagbackup = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| The corrections are now written into the '' | The corrections are now written into the '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| We will now make a new image, where '' | We will now make a new image, where '' | ||
| Line 154: | Line 157: | ||
| interactive = F) | interactive = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| The improvement in image quality is obvious. The noise level goes down from around 5 mJy/beam to 0.9 mJy/beam. | The improvement in image quality is obvious. The noise level goes down from around 5 mJy/beam to 0.9 mJy/beam. | ||
| === Second iteration === | === Second iteration === | ||
| - | > Phase solutions for the first self-calibration step | + | {{ : |
| - | > | + | |
| - | > Continuum image after the first iteration (left) and the second iteration (right). The two colour scales are aligned and highlight the improvement. | + | |
| Again, we perform a gain calibration to find new correction factors. This time we use a solution interval of the integration time of a single data point '' | Again, we perform a gain calibration to find new correction factors. This time we use a solution interval of the integration time of a single data point '' | ||
| Line 171: | Line 173: | ||
| solint = ' | solint = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| The results are again displayed : | The results are again displayed : | ||
| Line 182: | Line 185: | ||
| figfile = ' | figfile = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| The corrections become less, but still they are up to around 50°. | The corrections become less, but still they are up to around 50°. | ||
| Line 191: | Line 195: | ||
| flagbackup = F) | flagbackup = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| So far, we have only corrected phases. In the next step, we are also correcting for variations in the amplitude gain. Again, we clean the image with the visibilities with the improvements from the last iteration : | So far, we have only corrected phases. In the next step, we are also correcting for variations in the amplitude gain. Again, we clean the image with the visibilities with the improvements from the last iteration : | ||
| Line 209: | Line 216: | ||
| interactive = F) | interactive = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| Again, the improvement can be nicely seen. The noise goes down from 0.9 mJy/beam to around 0.5 mJy/beam. | Again, the improvement can be nicely seen. The noise goes down from 0.9 mJy/beam to around 0.5 mJy/beam. | ||
| === Third Iteration === | === Third Iteration === | ||
| - | > Amplitude correction factors | + | {{ : |
| - | > | + | |
| - | > Continuum image after the second iteration (left, phase only) and the iteration (right). The two colour scales are aligned and highlight the improvement. | + | |
| Now we perform an amplitude gain calibration, | Now we perform an amplitude gain calibration, | ||
| Line 227: | Line 233: | ||
| solint = ' | solint = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| We display the amplitude correction factors (we are not displaying phase correction terms here, as these are indeed zero) : | We display the amplitude correction factors (we are not displaying phase correction terms here, as these are indeed zero) : | ||
| Line 237: | Line 244: | ||
| figfile = ' | figfile = ' | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| And again applying everything to get the corrected visibilities : | And again applying everything to get the corrected visibilities : | ||
| Line 244: | Line 252: | ||
| flagbackup = F) | flagbackup = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| Cleaning will show us again the improvement : | Cleaning will show us again the improvement : | ||
| Line 262: | Line 273: | ||
| interactive = F) | interactive = F) | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| + | |||
| And indeed, the noise goes down from 0.5 mJy/beam to around 0.2 mJy/beam. | And indeed, the noise goes down from 0.5 mJy/beam to around 0.2 mJy/beam. | ||
| We started off with a noise level of around 5 mJy/beam and ended up at 0.2 mJy/beam, which is an improvement of around a factor of 25. | We started off with a noise level of around 5 mJy/beam and ended up at 0.2 mJy/beam, which is an improvement of around a factor of 25. | ||
allegrodrc/selfcal.1608023495.txt.gz · Last modified: by immer
