Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 27 references

Geometric Distortion Calibration with Photo-lithographic Pinhole Masks for High-Precision Astrometry

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A photo-lithographic pinhole mask holds a square grid of holes to within 47 nanometres, precise enough for 30-meter-class telescope astrometry.

desk verdict Solid lab work and a genuinely useful warning about ordered mask distortions, but the 10.8 nm systematic error on the 47 nm mask distortion is not fully demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04504 v1 pith:UNIZRMXI submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.IM

Maxwell Service , Jessica R. Lu , Mark Chun , Ryuiji Suzuki , Matthias Schoeck , Jenny Atwood , David Andersen , Glen Herriot This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords geometricdistortionastrometrypinholemaskself-calibrationadaptiveopticsmanufacturingprecisionThirtyMeterTelescopephoto-lithography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that a photo-lithographic pinhole mask, the kind that could sit inside an adaptive-optics instrument as an artificial star field, keeps its holes on a square grid to 47.2 nm RMS across a 1788 square-millimetre area. The authors measure this by imaging the mask at six rotated positions and fitting a sixth-order distortion model that lets both the camera distortion and the pinhole positions float, a rotation-based self-calibration. They recover the mask pattern to about 4.5 nm random and 10.8 nm systematic error, and they show that the remaining optical distortion of their test camera is 39 nm. If this holds, a calibration unit built around such a mask can meet the 20 nm pinhole-position requirement for astrometry on Thirty Meter Telescope-class systems, with little or no on-sky calibration time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the prototype photo-lithographic pinhole mask: an 86 by 86 square array of chrome-on-fused-silica pinholes with 1 mm spacing, whose 56-micron holes are imaged at 1:1 onto a CCD. The argument is carried by a three-component model: a sixth-order bivariate Legendre polynomial describes the camera's nonlinear optical distortion; a separate linear transform per mask position absorbs placement, rotation, and scale drift of the lab setup; and a per-pinhole residual field describes the mask's own deviation from a perfect square grid. The fit alternates between these components, and the rotations of the mask break the degeneracy that would otherwise let mask errors masquerade as lens distortion. A one-dimensional worked example in the appendix shows the same degeneracy in miniature: with a free scale, a quadratic mask distortion can be absorbed almost entirely by a camera distortion model.

What would settle it

Measure the same pinhole mask with an independent nanometre-accuracy coordinate-measuring machine and compare the measured hole positions to the paper's recovered mask pattern; residuals clearly larger than the combined 4.5 nm random and 10.8 nm systematic error would falsify the quoted accuracy. A cheaper check is to re-run the lab sequence with the mask temperature deliberately changed and see whether the recovered 47 nm pattern shifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the manufacturing errors in a photo-lithographic pinhole mask are small enough, and measurable enough, to serve as an astrometric flat field for the most demanding ground-based telescopes. The nonlinear deviations of the mask's hole positions from a perfect square pattern are 47.2 nm RMS, with ±4.5 nm random and ±10.8 nm systematic uncertainty; the same experiment measured 857 nm RMS optical distortion in the imaging system and left a 39 nm residual, equivalent to 20 microarcseconds at the TMT focal plane. The paper concludes that these masks are more than ten times better than the pinhole masks used in first-generation adaptive optics systems, and sufficient for the distortion calibration requirements of Thirty Meter Telescope-class instruments. A second result is that spatially ordered mask distortions are easy to confuse with camera distortion, so translation-only calibration patterns fail while patterns that include rotation recover the mask pattern correctly.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes the pinhole mask's distortion pattern is perfectly static across all six rotated positions, and that the 23% error fraction measured in a worst-case simulation with 858 nm of input distortion applies unchanged to the much smaller 47.2 nm real measurement; if temperature gradients, mount flexure, or that amplitude scaling assumption fail, the quoted mask accuracy is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 47.2 nm mask measurement is right, a static calibration unit for Keck NIRC2 could reduce the systematic floor from the current >1000 microarcsecond distortion residuals to about 130 microarcseconds without any mask pre-calibration.
  • For TMT NFIRAOS, the 47.2 nm intrinsic mask error corresponds to about 23.6 microarcseconds, so the mask cannot simply be assumed perfectly square; it must be self-calibrated or independently measured to reach the 20 nm budget.
  • Calibration patterns that only translate the mask misidentify roughly 95% of an ordered mask distortion as camera distortion, so future calibration units need rotation, or a fixed and stable scale, to separate the two.
  • Simulations of astrometric calibration units should include spatially correlated mask distortions; simulations using only random mask errors overstate the recoverability by roughly an order of magnitude in the paper's comparison cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable implication the authors leave implicit is that the 23% fractional systematic error, scaled from an 858 nm worst-case simulation to the 47 nm real measurement, may not be amplitude-independent; measuring a second mask with independent nanometre-level metrology would check whether 10.8 nm is the right systematic error.
  • If photo-lithographic masks are repeatable across production runs, distortion calibration could become a factory-floor measurement: characterize the mask once, then install it in a static unit, eliminating per-instrument observing time for distortion mapping.
  • The alias result suggests a design rule for ELT calibration units: either include both a rotation and a translation stage, or add an independent scale reference, since free-scale fitting is what lets ordered mask errors leak into the camera distortion solution.
  • One could test the ordered-versus-random conclusion directly in simulation by generating masks with power spectra matched to real lithographic processes and mapping which dither patterns recover them; the paper only samples a few patterns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a laboratory characterization of a photo-lithographic pinhole mask for use in astrometric distortion calibration. Using six rotated positions of the mask, the authors fit a three-component model: a 6th-order bivariate Legendre camera distortion, per-catalog linear transformations, and per-pinhole mask offsets. They find 857 nm RMS optical distortion with 39 nm residuals, and 47.2 nm RMS deviations of pinhole positions from a perfect square pattern, with random error 4.5 nm and systematic error 10.8 nm. Simulations explore how dither patterns affect the recovery of mask distortion, showing that translation-only dithers alias ordered mask distortion into camera distortion, and that translation plus rotation works. The paper concludes that the mask is more than 10 times better than first-generation masks and sufficient for TMT-class distortion calibration.

Significance. If the measurement stands, the paper provides a valuable, quantitative data point for the design of astrometric calibration units: it demonstrates a lab-based self-calibration approach that reaches tens-of-nanometers precision, and it convincingly shows that ordered (spatially correlated) mask distortions are much harder to separate from optical distortion than random ones. The Allan-deviation stability analysis, the explicit simulation of self-calibration degeneracies, and the 1D worked example are useful contributions. The comparison with Rodeghiero et al. (2019) is fair and informative. However, the headline claim of TMT sufficiency is not yet supported: the systematic error on the mask distortion does not include a test of aliasing from unmodeled high-order camera distortion, and the paper itself later states that the 47.2 nm mask distortion is not intrinsically sufficient for the 20 nm TMT requirement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1] The estimate of a 23% fractional systematic error, scaled to 10.8 nm, is not demonstrated for the actual measurement. The worst-case simulation injects mask distortion constructed from a 6th-order Legendre fit to the total 858 nm deviations, so the input is band-limited to order 6; it does not include the O(>6) camera distortion that dominates the 39 nm fit residuals (37.8 nm in Table 2). With only six mask rotations and per-catalog linear transformations, high-order camera modes can alias into the recovered mask distortion, and the fractional error from an 858 nm input is linearly rescaled to the 47.2 nm measurement without any derivation that the misattribution fraction is amplitude-independent. The paper should run additional simulations with injected O(>6) camera distortion (including a radial mode centered on the rotation axis) and report the resulting bias in the recovered mask distortion; without this, the 47.2 ± 10.8 nm central value is not fully supported.
  2. [Abstract and §6] The abstract states that the masks "are sufficient to meet the distortion calibration requirements for the upcoming thirty meter class telescopes," but §6 states that the 47.2 nm mask distortion "is not intrinsically sufficient for the TMT requirement of 20 nm" and that static use would give 23.6 μas. These statements are in direct tension: sufficiency for TMT requires that the mask be pre-calibrated (as the paper's method does), not that the as-manufactured pattern alone meets the 20 nm requirement. The abstract and conclusion should be rephrased to avoid overstating the result.
  3. [§4.3] The attribution of the 39 nm residual entirely to "uncorrected high order distortion O(>6)" in Table 2 is not uniquely supported: the paper itself acknowledges that changing temperature gradients on the mask, or other non-linear instabilities, would alter the mask distortion between positions and appear in the residual. Since the model assumes a static mask distortion, such an effect would bias the recovered 47.2 nm mask distortion, and the 37.8 nm budget entry for O(>6) distortion would be an overestimate. The authors should either quantify the thermal stability of the mask during the run or add this term to the systematic error budget in Table 2.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 2] The mask distortion systematic error is listed as ±11 nm, while the text and abstract give ±10.8 nm; please make these consistent.
  2. [§4.2] In the first sentence after Eq. (6), "he dither position coordinates" appears to be missing the initial "T" of "The".
  3. [§5.2] In-text references to "Table 5.2" should be to "Table 3" (e.g., "as shown in Table 5.2" and "Simulation 2 in Table 5.2").
  4. [References] Reference 24: the author string contains garbled characters ("KÃ˝ user"); this should be corrected to a proper rendering of "Küser".
  5. [§5.1] The text reads "Strum et. al." but the cited work is by Sturm et al.; please correct the spelling.
  6. [§5.2] Appendix references are inconsistent: "Appendix 1" appears in §5.2, but the appendix is titled "Appendix A".
  7. [§5.2] The expression "N 2 step" should be typeset as N_step^2 for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mask distortion measurement comes from lab data, and the simulations are diagnostic uncertainty tests rather than predictions generated from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim (47.2 nm RMS of mask deviations with quoted random and systematic errors) is obtained from the self-calibration fit to the six laboratory catalogs via Eqs. (2)-(7), not from a simulated output. The Section 5.1 simulations are explicitly error diagnostics: the realistic simulation seeds the estimator with the best-fit mask and camera distortion and measures the recovery RMS (4.5 nm), which tests the pipeline and quantifies random error rather than producing the measured mask distortion itself. The worst-case simulation uses an 858 nm input mask distortion to derive a 23% fractional error, which is then scaled to the measured 47.2 nm to quote the 10.8 nm systematic term; this is an amplitude-scaling assumption and could be criticized as a correctness risk, but it is not a circular step in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Service et al. 2016, Yelda et al. 2010) provide comparison values and context for NIRC2 or Galactic Center astrometry and do not carry the derivation of the mask distortion. The degeneracy discussion, including the 1D appendix, explicitly tests the identifiability of the model instead of assuming its conclusion. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the paper is self-contained against its own lab data and benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the self-calibration separation of mask and camera distortion. The main unpaid assumptions are the static-distortion model, the 6th-order polynomial choice, the linear-alignment model, the PSF-fitting accuracy, and the amplitude scaling of the systematic error. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Legendre polynomial order R = 6
    The camera distortion model order is chosen as 6. A higher order would change the residual and could absorb more mask distortion, so this choice affects the measured 47 nm mask deviation.
  • Mask reference pitch = 166.7 pixels (1 mm)
    The mask coordinate frame assumes a perfect square grid with 1 mm spacing. All deviations are measured relative to this manufactured design, which is not independently verified at the nanometer level.
  • Pinhole selection threshold = at least 3 of 6 mask positions
    Pinholes detected in fewer than three positions are excluded (61 pinholes). This could bias the distortion estimate if the missing pinholes are not random.
  • 5-sigma clipping = 5 sigma
    Used when computing residual statistics in the worst-case simulation; this reduces the reported systematic error and is disclosed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Camera distortion is static with respect to the camera and mask distortion is static with respect to the mask during the six observations
    Basis of the self-calibration separation; if the mask deforms over time, the separation is biased. Acknowledged in §4.3.
  • domain assumption Optical distortion is well described by a sixth-order bivariate Legendre polynomial
    The 39 nm residual is attributed to orders >6; if real distortion contains non-polynomial or very high-order modes, the recovered mask distortion could be biased.
  • domain assumption Per-catalog 6-parameter linear transformations capture all mask-to-camera alignment changes
    Any non-linear instability beyond the linear parameters is absorbed into residuals or misattributed; the 1D appendix shows the scale degeneracy.
  • domain assumption StarFinder PSF fitting gives unbiased pinhole positions for the 56 micron pinholes
    Measurement precision is estimated from repeatability (9.2 nm), but no independent truth measurement validates PSF model accuracy; smaller pinholes showed a systematic ~100 nm error.
  • ad hoc to paper The fractional systematic error from the worst-case simulation (23%) scales linearly to the small 47 nm mask distortion
    The 10.8 nm systematic error is obtained by applying the fractional error from an 858 nm input simulation to the 47 nm measurement, with no derivation of amplitude scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric Distortion Calibration with Photo-lithographic Pinhole Masks for High-Precision Astrometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNIZRMXI

@misc{pith2026190804504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric Distortion Calibration with Photo-lithographic Pinhole Masks for High-Precision Astrometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNIZRMXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04504}
}
abstract

Adaptive optics (AO) systems deliver high-resolution images that may be ideal for precisely measuring positions of stars (i.e. astrometry) if the system has stable and well-calibrated geometric optical distortions. A calibration unit, equipped with back-illuminated pinhole mask, can be utilized to measure instrumental optical distortions. AO systems on the largest ground-based telescopes, such as the W. M. Keck Observatory and the Thirty Meter Telescope require pinhole positions known to 20 nm to achieve an astrometric precision of 0.001 of a resolution element. We characterize a photo-lithographic pinhole mask and explore the systematic errors that result from different experimental setups. We characterized the nonlinear geometric distortion of a simple imaging system using the mask; and we measured 857 nm RMS of optical distortion with a final residual of 39 nm (equivalent to 20 {\mu}as for TMT). We use a sixth order bivariate Legendre polynomial to model the optical distortion and allow the reference positions of the individual pinholes to vary. The nonlinear deviations in the pinhole pattern with respect to the manufacturing design of a square pattern are 47.2 nm +/- 4.5 nm (random) +/- 10.8 nm (systematic) over an area of 1788 mm$^2$. These deviations reflect the additional error induced when assuming the pinhole mask is manufactured perfectly square. We also find that ordered mask distortions are significantly more difficult to characterize than random mask distortions as the ordered distortions can alias into optical camera distortion. Future design simulations for astrometric calibration units should include ordered mask distortions. We conclude that photo-lithographic pinhole masks are >10 times better than the pinhole masks deployed in first generation AO systems and are sufficient to meet the distortion calibration requirements for the upcoming thirty meter class telescopes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Massari , E

    D. Massari , E. Dalessandro , F. R. Ferraro , P. Miocchi , A. Bellini , L. Origlia , B. Lanzoni , R. M. Rich , and A. Mucciarelli , `` Proper Motions in Terzan 5: Membership of the Multi-iron Subpopulations and First Constraint on the Orbit ,'' 810 , 69 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    M. W. Hosek , Jr., J. R. Lu , J. Anderson , A. M. Ghez , M. R. Morris , and W. I. Clarkson , `` The Arches Cluster: Extended Structure and Tidal Radius ,'' 813 , 27 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Platais , D

    I. Platais , D. J. Lennon , R. P. van der Marel , A. Bellini , E. Sabbi , L. L. Watkins , S. T. Sohn , N. R. Walborn , L. R. Bedin , C. J. Evans , S. E. de Mink , H. Sana , A. Herrero , N. Langer , and P. Crowther , `` HST Astrometry in the 30 Doradus Region. II. Runaway Stars from New Proper Motions in the Large Magellanic Cloud ,'' 156 , 98 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Rodet , M

    L. Rodet , M. Bonnefoy , S. Durkan , H. Beust , A.-M. Lagrange , J. E. Schlieder , M. Janson , A. Grandjean , G. Chauvin , S. Messina , A.-L. Maire , W. Brandner , J. Girard , P. Delorme , B. Biller , C. Bergfors , S. Lacour , M. Feldt , T. Henning , A. Boccaletti , J.-B. Le Bouquin , J.-P. Berger , J.-L. Monin , S. Udry , S. Peretti , D. Segransan , F. A...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    W. M. J. Best , M. C. Liu , T. J. Dupuy , and E. A. Magnier , `` The Young L Dwarf 2MASS J11193254-1137466 Is a Planetary-mass Binary ,'' 843 , L4 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Wertz , O

    O. Wertz , O. Absil , C. A. G \'o mez Gonz \'a lez , J. Milli , J. H. Girard , D. Mawet , and L. Pueyo , `` VLT/SPHERE robust astrometry of the HR8799 planets at milliarcsecond-level accuracy. Orbital architecture analysis with PyAstrOFit ,'' 598 , A83 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Q. M. Konopacky , C. Marois , B. A. Macintosh , R. Galicher , T. S. Barman , S. A. Metchev , and B. Zuckerman , `` Astrometric Monitoring of the HR 8799 Planets: Orbit Constraints from Self-consistent Measurements ,'' 152 , 28 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    T. J. Dupuy , M. C. Liu , K. N. Allers , B. A. Biller , K. M. Kratter , A. W. Mann , E. L. Shkolnik , A. L. Kraus , and W. M. J. Best , `` The Hawaii Infrared Parallax Program. III. 2MASS J0249-0557 c: A Wide Planetary-mass Companion to a Low-mass Binary in the Pic Moving Group ,'' 156 , 57 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    A. M. Ghez , S. Salim , N. N. Weinberg , J. R. Lu , T. Do , J. K. Dunn , K. Matthews , M. R. Morris , S. Yelda , E. E. Becklin , T. Kremenek , M. Milosavljevic , and J. Naiman , `` Measuring Distance and Properties of the Milky Way's Central Supermassive Black Hole with Stella...

    2008

  2. [10]

    J. R. Lu , A. M. Ghez , S. D. Hornstein , M. R. Morris , E. E. Becklin , and K. Matthews , `` A Disk of Young Stars at the Galactic Center as Determined by Individual Stellar Orbits ,'' 690 , 1463--1487 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Anderson and I

    J. Anderson and I. R. King , `` An Improved Distortion Solution for the Hubble Space Telescope's WFPC2 ,'' 115 , 113--131 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Lindegren , J

    L. Lindegren , J. Hern \'a ndez , A. Bombrun , S. Klioner , U. Bastian , M. Ramos-Lerate , A. de Torres , H. Steidelm \"u ller , C. Stephenson , D. Hobbs , U. Lammers , M. Biermann , R. Geyer , T. Hilger , D. Michalik , U. Stampa , P. J. McMillan , J. Casta \ n eda , M. Clotet...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Yelda, J

    S. Yelda, J. R. Lu, A. M. Ghez, W. Clarkson, J. Anderson, T. Do, and K. Matthews, `` IMPROVING GALACTIC CENTER ASTROMETRY BY REDUCING THE EFFECTS OF GEOMETRIC DISTORTION ,'' ApJ 725 , 331--352 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Service , J

    M. Service , J. R. Lu , R. Campbell , B. N. Sitarski , A. M. Ghez , and J. Anderson , `` A New Distortion Solution for NIRC2 on the Keck II Telescope ,'' 128 , 095004 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Maire , M

    A.-L. Maire , M. Langlois , K. Dohlen , A.-M. Lagrange , R. Gratton , G. Chauvin , S. Desidera , J. H. Girard , J. Milli , A. Vigan , G. Zins , P. Delorme , J.-L. Beuzit , R. U. Claudi , M. Feldt , D. Mouillet , P. Puget , M. Turatto , and F. Wildi , `` SPHERE IRDIS and IFS as...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Massari , G

    D. Massari , G. Fiorentino , E. Tolstoy , A. McConnachie , R. Stuik , L. Schreiber , D. Andersen , Y. Cl \'e net , R. Davies , D. Gratadour , K. Kuijken , R. Navarro , J.-U. Pott , G. Rodeghiero , P. Turri , and G. Verdoes Kleijn , `` High-precision astrometry towards ELTs ,''...

    2016

  9. [17]

    W. M. K. Observatory, ``Nirc2 pre-ship testing,'' (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    P. B. Cameron and S. R. Kulkarni , `` Astrometry of Galactic Compact Objects with Adaptive Optics ,'' in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts , Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 39 , 996 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Q. M. Konopacky , S. J. Thomas , B. A. Macintosh , D. Dillon , N. Sadakuni , J. Maire , M. Fitzgerald , S. Hinkley , P. Kalas , T. Esposito , C. Marois , P. J. Ingraham , F. Marchis , M. D. Perrin , J. R. Graham , J. J. Wang , R. J. De Rosa , K. Morzinski , L. Pueyo , J. K. Ch...

    2014

  12. [20]

    Patti and G

    M. Patti and G. Fiorentino , `` Unveiling the nature of Gemini multiconjugate adaptive optics system distortions ,'' 485 , 3470--3475 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Herriot , D

    G. Herriot , D. Andersen , J. Atwood , C. Boyer , P. Byrnes , K. Caputa , B. Ellerbroek , L. Gilles , A. Hill , Z. Ljusic , J. Pazder , M. Rosensteiner , M. Smith , P. Spano , K. Szeto , J.-P. V \'e ran , I. Wevers , L. Wang , and R. Wooff , `` NFIRAOS: first facility AO syste...

    2014

  14. [22]

    Diolaiti , O

    E. Diolaiti , O. Bendinelli , D. Bonaccini , L. M. Close , D. G. Currie , and G. Parmeggiani , `` StarFinder: A code for stellar field analysis .'' Astrophysics Source Code Library (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Sturm, ``A case against kruppa's equations for camera self-calibration,'' IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22 , 1199--1204 (2000)

    P. Sturm, ``A case against kruppa's equations for camera self-calibration,'' IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22 , 1199--1204 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    J. H. Brito, R. Angst, K. Köser, and M. Pollefeys, ``Radial distortion self-calibration,'' in 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 1368--1375 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Wu, ``Critical configurations for radial distortion self-calibration,'' in 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 25--32 (2014)

    C. Wu, ``Critical configurations for radial distortion self-calibration,'' in 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 25--32 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    u ck , E. Biancalani , M. H \

    G. Rodeghiero , M. Sawczuck , J.-U. Pott , M. Gl \"u ck , E. Biancalani , M. H \"a berle , H. Riechert , C. Pernechele , V. Naranjo , J. Moreno-Ventas , P. Bizenberger , S. Perera , and L. Lessio , `` Development of the Warm Astrometric Mask for MICADO Astrometry Calibration ,...

    2019

  19. [27]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.