But, even if there was a misconception about why the profile mismatch occurred, doesn the bottom line that the agreement *seems* better between the 1-D profiles argue for using uniform weights?
The answer is actually no, and we now discuss why by asking the following question. Is the disagreement between 1-D surface brightness profiles of the data and the 2-D model fit really a problem with 2-D fitting, or with the 1-D profile extraction? While the answer might seem very obvious (for, how can the data be “wrong”?), a closer look of 1-D profiles of Figure 7 will reveal why the answer is rather subtle: the blue line is the galaxy surface brightness profile when neighboring objects in the image are not properly masked out, whereas the square, discrete, data points are the profile with some amount of masking. After masking, it is clear that the excess wing drops considerably, but apparently not completely. So it is not hard to believe that at least part of the discrepancy between the data and the model may be due to incomplete masking. Still, it begs the questions: why shouldn’t GALFIT fit that excess flux by raising the sky further to achieve a better fit? The answer is that a
Related Questions
- But, even if there was a misconception about why the profile mismatch occurred, doesn the bottom line that the agreement *seems* better between the 1-D profiles argue for using uniform weights?
- How does NextStep recall profiles that have been in their database for over two months? Will my profile receive due consideration if vacancies become available at a later date?
- I know that I have several user profiles configured in Netscape, but Im not being given the option to select a profile when I launch Netscape. Whats wrong?
