- #1
harvellt
- 95
- 0
title says it all...why..Why Use IRAF? The Benefits of This Powerful Image Processing Tool
- Thread starter harvellt
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the benefits and relevance of IRAF, an image processing tool used in astronomy. Participants explore its historical context, technical capabilities, and comparisons with modern software alternatives.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants recall the limitations of older software used before IRAF, highlighting its development in the late 80s for early 90s technology.
- There is a suggestion that IRAF may be older than commonly perceived, with references to its use with magnetic tape storage.
- Some participants express a preference for modern amateur software with graphical user interfaces (GUIs), questioning IRAF's superiority.
- Others argue that IRAF's main advantage lies in its programming environment, allowing for complex image processing tasks through scripting.
- It is noted that IRAF was originally developed for Kitt Peak National Observatory and later adopted by other institutions, emphasizing its longstanding utility despite its age.
- One participant mentions IRAF's complete compiled language (SPP) for development, suggesting it remains a productive tool for users.
- There is a discussion on the necessity of adopting universal standards in science, which may slow down technological advancement but offers benefits in usability and job creation.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a mix of viewpoints regarding IRAF's relevance and effectiveness compared to modern software. There is no clear consensus on whether IRAF is superior to newer alternatives.
Contextual Notes
The discussion reflects varying experiences with IRAF and modern software, with some participants emphasizing historical context while others focus on current usability and preferences. The limitations of IRAF in terms of user interface compared to modern tools are acknowledged but not resolved.
title says it all...why..- #2
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
You haven't seen the stuff we used to use on VMS before iraf!
Remember it was designed in the late 80s for machines in the early 90s, when 32mb of memory was a server and you had to book 300Mb of disk space weeks in advance.
Remember it was designed in the late 80s for machines in the early 90s, when 32mb of memory was a server and you had to book 300Mb of disk space weeks in advance.
- #3
harvellt
- 95
- 0
Really? I kind assumed IRAF was a little older than that and the first. I have read some user guides talking about images stored on magnetic tape... Guess I'm just jealous of some of the (all be it expensive) "amateur" software with the pretty GUIs. Is there a reason IRAF is better than those?
- #4
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
There are probably amateur astronomy packages that do better image display than saoimage these days.
The big advantage of iraf is that it's a programming environment, so if you need to background subtract, bias flat, merge and align, then extract photometry from 1000s of images you can write a script.
Iraf was developed for the Hubble Space Telescope
The big advantage of iraf is that it's a programming environment, so if you need to background subtract, bias flat, merge and align, then extract photometry from 1000s of images you can write a script.
Iraf was developed for the Hubble Space Telescope
- #5
mjfitzpatrick
- 1
- 0
Actually, it was developed for Kitt Peak National Observatory and then later adopted by STScI (and ROSAT as well as other ground-based observatories) as the platform for their analysis/reduction software. It's not just scriptable, it has a complete compiled language for development as well (SPP). Yeah it's an old system, but still one of the most productive around.
Say what you will about GUIs, but can they be used to http://iraf.net/article.php/20080124231526240"
Last edited by a moderator:
- #6
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,420
- 750
Adopting 'universal' standards is a necessary evil in science. It changes more slowly than technology. It trades speed for widespread acceptance, usability and cost effectiveness. Modern computers are still backwards compatible - or can be so adapted at little expense. Besides, it provides an endless supply of IT jobs.
Similar threads
- · Replies 19 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
Undergrad
IRAF can't deal with .fits files
- · Replies 7 ·
- · Replies 43 ·
Stargazing
A new and improved Eta Carina image
- · Replies 5 ·
- · Replies 226 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
Engineering
Image Processing: Convolution vs Filtering
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 125 ·