TMPL1PHOT (aka DISA_IRASPH)
========= 

> = comments by SAM

> N.B. DISA_0002 is the ID used for the review.  The VOLUME_ID 
  for the archive is DISA_0004.  For other DI volume ids, see 
  http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/internal/doc/DI_stuff/di_volume_ids.html


The AO resolution question noted for DISA_0001 has a critical bearing on
this data set.  These data cannot be accepted until that answer is known
and the impact on this data set can be determined.  If the answer is 
simple and clear, there is no need for additional review on this point.
> Per Russell Walker, we must include the effective resolution tables
  (also known as the beamsize reports) in the AO FITS image archive.
  The IPAC software that Walker used to reconstruct the AO images
  required a default pixel size for processing.  Walker selected a
  size of 15 arcseconds/pixel because this was the best possible
  choice for these data.  However, this pixel size is not necessarily
  the effective resolution across the entire image.  Therefore, as
  each image was reprocessed, the software generated a table of that
  gives the actual, effective resolution for selected pixels in 
  across the image.  Per Walker, these tables "are the closest one 
  can get to an estimate of the actual beam size and how it varies 
  with position within the image".  Therefore, the effective 
  resolution/beamsize tables were included in the DISA_IRASIM data set.

The documentation contains a recipe for further processing.  Sykes 
questions the validity of the IRAS re-calibration procedure proposed.  The 
potentially controversial nature of the described procedure needs to be
clearly stated, at the least.  Preferably, the controversy should be 
solved and the ultimate solution documented.
> Lisse and Skyes discussed this issue after Lisse found more evidence
  that the proposed IRAS re-calibration procedure is valid.  However,
  it was decided that the version of the photometry tables that was 
  reviewd should be archived.  This version did not have the IRAS 
  re-calibration procedure applied.  Also, the photometry documentation 
  was modified to include the additional evidence for the validity
  of the IRAS re-calibration procedure.  The recipe for using the 
  process was not removed from the documentation.

In the explanatory document, amend the Figure 2 caption to indicate more
clearly that the data plotted have been further processed from the 
data obtained from Russ Walker.
> Amended

Add explicit reference to the "IRAS Explanatory Supplement". (Note that
this is available as HTML on line from www.ipac.caltech.edu.
> Added

Add horizontal bars in Figure 2 showing filter FWHM.
> Added

Page 2: change reference to "fields of view of bandpasses" to "fields of
view of detectors".
> Changed

Expand on the discussion of the technique used to subtract background from 
the various images.  Mark notes there might be additional survey data of 
the same area (in ISSA) without the comet in it that might be useful for
comparison.
> Expanded with additional information from Lisse