![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thursday 16 December 2010 14:42:51 Mark Taylor wrote:
Although it doesn't say so explicitly, I presume since there's no indication otherwise that tables encoded in the way described by this document are still XTENSION = 'BINTABLE'. I think this is problematic, since a table reader which is unaware of this convention may encounter such a FITS extension, see that it's a BINTABLE, and believe that it can make sense of it. Hi Mark, I can second your concern. We have had the discussion before in the 80's with the blocking convention. I believe it to be important that old readers, not knowing new conventions, are not mislead. As a minimum, it should be trivial for the end user (e.g. by reading the header keywords) to understand why data are not read correctly. As a side comments, I participated in a meeting for general archives a few years ago. There they did not recommend to save compress data since the effect of single bit errors is more serious than for raw data, not justifying the gain of disk space. Preben Grosbol |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[fitsbits] Potential new compression method for FITS tables | Rob Seaman | FITS | 0 | October 30th 10 01:46 AM |
[fitsbits] FITS Image Compression Paper and Software | William Pence[_2_] | FITS | 0 | March 17th 09 08:07 PM |