binary table sizes

Article View: sci.astro.fits

Article #18

#18

From: William Thompson, code 682.1, x2...
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:33

14 lines
1203 bytes

I've been following the WGAS mail forum, and there's been some discussion
lately about the size of FITS binary table files.  Several people have remarked
that binary tables take up more room than using the IMAGE extension.

I can't understand why that would be.  BINTABLE extensions use the same binary
representation as every other kind of FITS data units, and there is no wasted
space in packing the data together.  In fact, I would have said that data put
in a BINTABLE extension would take slightly less room than putting it in a
series of IMAGE extensions.

Is there something that I'm missing?  Or is this another one of those FITS
myths we need to stamp out?

Bill Thompson

Technical Details

Message-ID: <11SEP199210330556@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!dtix!mimsy!nsisrv!stars.gsfc.nasa.gov!thompson

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!dtix!mimsy!nsisrv!stars.gsfc.nasa.gov!thompson
From: thompson@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Thompson, code 682.1, x2040)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.fits
Subject: binary table sizes
Message-ID: <11SEP199210330556@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:33:00 GMT
Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Organization: NASA/GSFC-Laboratory for Astronomy and Solar Physics
Lines: 14
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Nntp-Posting-Host: stars.gsfc.nasa.gov