binary table sizes

Thread View: sci.astro.fits

1 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

1 total messages Started by William Thompson, code 682.1, x2... Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:33

#18

Author: 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

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads