Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Propose CEP 3: remove image parameters in camera frame #2405

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
.. _cep-003:


************************************************************
CEP 3 - Dropping support for image parameters in CameraFrame
************************************************************

* Status: draft
* Discussion: NA
* Date accepted: NA
* Last revised: 2023-09-22
* Author: Maximilian Linhoff
* Created: 2023-09-22

Abstract
========

Currently, ctapipe supports computing all image parameters in two variants:

* Using a ``CameraGeometry`` where pixel coordinates are expressed in ``CameraFrame``, i.e.
in length units (most commonly meters) on the camera focal plane.
* Using a ``CameraGeometry`` where pixel coordinates are expressed in ``TelescopeFrame``, i.e.
in angular units (most commonly degree) on sky.

We propose to drop support for the first, to simplify code in multiple places and reduce
possibility for confusing the two similar variants of the image parameters.

The overhead of supporting both ``TelescopeFrame`` and ``CameraFrame`` representations
of the image parameters is quite significant, as it e.g. requires dealing with both
possible definitions in all Hillas-style dl2 reconstructors.

Advantages of computation in TelescopeFrame
===========================================

Computing the image parameters in ``TelescopeFrame`` – angular units on the sky –
has the following advantages:

* Parameters are easier to compare across different telescope types.
* Pointing corrections can directly be applied in the conversion from ``CameraFrame``
to ``TelescopeFrame`` and are then automatically included in the image parameters,
which is much more straight forward than trying to correct image parameters that
are affected to different degrees after they have been computed.
* Conversion from ``CameraFrame`` to ``TelescopeFrame`` will include any necessary
special handling of the curved cameras of dual mirror telescopes.

kosack marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Previous discussions
====================
* Issue discussing the removal of the camera frame image parameters: `#2061 <https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/issues/2061>`_
* Original issue for introducing the computation of image parameters in telescope frame: `#1090 <https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/issues/1090>`_
* Pull Request implementing image parameters in telescope frame, also setting it as the default: `#1591 <https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/pull/1591>`_
* Adapting the reconstructors to also work with image parameters in telescope frame: `#1408 <https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe/pull/1408>`_