{
  "id": 535528,
  "title": "777145011, image 0, wavelength 43, column 9",
  "url": "/competitions/ariel-data-challenge-2024/discussion/535528",
  "author_name": "Tord Malmgren",
  "post_date": "2024-09-22T15:32:09.324000",
  "votes": 1,
  "comment_count": 1,
  "views": 0,
  "content": "<p>For planet 777145011, first image, I get \"nice\" values except for the pixel at column 9 for wavelength 43. Zero based. It is around 1000 while the rest is around 0. Are the non-linear correction constants right in my reading them?</p>\n<p>-2,3756186428678695E-21<br>\n1,3956017822785509E-15<br>\n-2,62795190318672E-10<br>\n1,7343069238816232E-05<br>\n0,6705605402720276<br>\n1086,491494834072</p>\n<p>Otherwise, should this not be picked up in the \"read\"? Or for \"hot\" pixels?</p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": 2996252,
      "postDate": "2024-09-23T08:54:07.423Z",
      "content": "<p>Sorted! I was analyzing short/long exposures separately. I do it on the difference instead, and it works. The 1086,49… can be ignored.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Sorted! I was analyzing short/long exposures separately. I do it on the difference instead, and it works. The 1086,49... can be ignored."
    },
    {
      "id": 2995789,
      "postDate": "2024-09-22T15:32:09.323Z",
      "content": "<p>For planet 777145011, first image, I get \"nice\" values except for the pixel at column 9 for wavelength 43. Zero based. It is around 1000 while the rest is around 0. Are the non-linear correction constants right in my reading them?</p>\n<p>-2,3756186428678695E-21<br>\n1,3956017822785509E-15<br>\n-2,62795190318672E-10<br>\n1,7343069238816232E-05<br>\n0,6705605402720276<br>\n1086,491494834072</p>\n<p>Otherwise, should this not be picked up in the \"read\"? Or for \"hot\" pixels?</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "For planet 777145011, first image, I get \"nice\" values except for the pixel at column 9 for wavelength 43. Zero based. It is around 1000 while the rest is around 0. Are the non-linear correction constants right in my reading them?\n\n-2,3756186428678695E-21\n1,3956017822785509E-15\n-2,62795190318672E-10\n1,7343069238816232E-05\n0,6705605402720276\n1086,491494834072\n\nOtherwise, should this not be picked up in the \"read\"? Or for \"hot\" pixels?\n"
    }
  ],
  "comments": [
    {
      "id": 2996252,
      "author_name": "Tord Malmgren",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2024-09-23T08:54:07.423000",
      "content": "<p>Sorted! I was analyzing short/long exposures separately. I do it on the difference instead, and it works. The 1086,49… can be ignored.</p>",
      "votes": 0,
      "replies": []
    }
  ],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "2996252": "Sorted! I was analyzing short/long exposures separately. I do it on the difference instead, and it works. The 1086,49... can be ignored.",
    "2995789": "For planet 777145011, first image, I get \"nice\" values except for the pixel at column 9 for wavelength 43. Zero based. It is around 1000 while the rest is around 0. Are the non-linear correction constants right in my reading them?\n\n-2,3756186428678695E-21\n1,3956017822785509E-15\n-2,62795190318672E-10\n1,7343069238816232E-05\n0,6705605402720276\n1086,491494834072\n\nOtherwise, should this not be picked up in the \"read\"? Or for \"hot\" pixels?\n"
  }
}