The function then runs as expected, (because it skips the line causing the UFuncTypeError). However, I would quite like the background subtraction. I wonder if this may just be as simple as changing line in radial_profile shown at 1163 to be flux = flux - sky_per_pix, rather than using -=?
I also notice this is similar to a problem with rimexam, with a similar fix suggested in issue #210:
I tried changing this in a new function and adding it with .register(), but I wasn't sure on exactly how to register the function, so wasn't able to check this myself.
~Additionally, when I have had it working (i.e. without the background subtraction), I am getting clearly inaccurate FWHM values (nearly 6 rather than nearly 2.5, measured in IRAF), similar to issue 165 .~
EDIT: Apologies, mistake on my half. IRAF was returning the half-FWHM, so the FWHM is being returned correctly. However, the main issue still persists.
I'm not using a viewer, so I have it set up that:
I then have an image, that I am attempting to generate the radial profile of, loaded in from a FITS as
img
.This outputs:
If I disable the background parameter in the radial_profile_pars dict (not done in the most Pythonic way, I admit):
The function then runs as expected, (because it skips the line causing the UFuncTypeError). However, I would quite like the background subtraction. I wonder if this may just be as simple as changing line in
radial_profile
shown at 1163 to beflux = flux - sky_per_pix
, rather than using-=
?I also notice this is similar to a problem with
rimexam
, with a similar fix suggested in issue #210:Originally posted by @karlglazebrook in https://github.com/spacetelescope/imexam/issues/210#issuecomment-671664422
I tried changing this in a new function and adding it with
.register()
, but I wasn't sure on exactly how to register the function, so wasn't able to check this myself.~Additionally, when I have had it working (i.e. without the background subtraction), I am getting clearly inaccurate FWHM values (nearly 6 rather than nearly 2.5, measured in IRAF), similar to issue 165 .~ EDIT: Apologies, mistake on my half. IRAF was returning the half-FWHM, so the FWHM is being returned correctly. However, the main issue still persists.