Thank you very much, Markus
     we are aware of your very interesting work on the analysis of STEREO data and your suggestion is very timely and appropriate. Sergio is busy with the analysis of Hinode/XRT data at the moment, but we hope to address STEREO data as next step.
Thank you again
Best regards
Fabio


On 02/16/2010 12:02 AM, Markus J. Aschwanden wrote:
Sergio and Fabio,

I like to encourage you to use STEREO EUVI data, which would provide
you the ultimate test to subtract the correct background, because you
see a loop from two different directions and have two independent
backgrounds. You can test the self-consistence of background subtraction,
if you obtain the same EM of the loop from two spacecraft. 
If you look into my recent STEREO paper, you see that one can
subtract the background with an accuracy of about 10%.
See Fig.8 therein.

Cheers,
Markus

 Aschwanden,M.J., Nitta,N.V., Wuelser,J.P., and Lemen,J.R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 1477-1495
URL1="http://www.lmsal.com/~aschwand/eprints/2008_stereo2.pdf" 
First 3D reconstructions of coronal loops with the STEREO A and B spacecraft: II. Electron Density and Temperature Measurements




On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Fabio Reale wrote:

Dear friends
   let me inform you about the following preprint on Astro-PH,

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2121

regarding:

the importance of background subtraction in the analysis of coronal loops observed with TRACE


by Sergio Terzo and Fabio Reale, accepted for publication on A&A

Abstract
In the framework of TRACE coronal observations, we compare the analysis and diagnostics of a loop after subtracting the background with two different and independent methods. The dataset includes sequences of images in the 171 A, 195 A filter bands of TRACE. One background subtraction method consists in taking as background values those obtained from interpolation between concentric strips around the analyzed loop. The other method is a pixel-to-pixel subtraction of the final image when the loop had completely faded out, already used by Reale & Ciaravella 2006. We compare the emission distributions along the loop obtained with the two methods and find that they are considerably different. We find differences as well in the related derive filter ratio and temperature profiles. In particular, the pixel-to-pixel subtraction leads to coherent diagnostics of a cooling loop. With the other subtraction the diagnostics are much less clear. The background subtraction is a delicate issue in the analysis of a loop. The pixel-to-pixel subtraction appears to be more reliable, but its application is not always possible. Subtraction from interpolation between surrounding regions can produce higher systematic errors, because of intersecting structures and of the large amount of subtracted emission in TRACE observations.



<reale.vcf>_______________________________________________
Loops mailing list
Loops@solar.physics.montana.edu
https://mithra.physics.montana.edu/mailman/listinfo/loops

____________________________________________
Dr. Markus J. Aschwanden
Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory
Lockheed Martin Advanced Techology Center
Org. ADBS, Bldg. 252
3251 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
Phone: 650-424-4001, FAX: 650-424-3994
_______________________________________
____________________________________



_______________________________________________ Loops mailing list Loops@solar.physics.montana.edu https://mithra.physics.montana.edu/mailman/listinfo/loops