#563 - Make the generation of correlated noise more efficient using Hermitian symmetry

Hi all,

This pull request was to make the generation of noise by the `BaseCorrelatedNoise` and derived classes more efficient, using the fact that we only desire real valued noise fields in the output.  It took me longer than I hoped to get right! (There is a script, part of this PR, in `devel/external/test_cf/` that I used as a sandbox to get this right.)

The main change then is this improvement, which happens almost exclusively within the `_generate_noise_from_rootps()` function in `galsim/correlatednoise.py`.  Since the cached variable `rootps` is now only ~half the size, this improvement also helps memory use and setup costs too.

Another, more minor change is that I no longer multiply the `rootps` values by the product of the original array shape when storing them internally within the `BaseCorrelatedNoise`.  This is necessary to do somewhere because of the asymmetry in the the `numpy.fft` convention for the DFT, and the fact that the power spectrum (PS) has the units of the square of a DFT of a noise field.  I opted to move this accounting into the `_generate_noise_from_rootps` function, simplifying `_get_update_rootps()` and `_get_update_rootps_whitening()` slightly, while on the downsise adding an additional instruction (do divide by an array dimension product) to the `CorrelatedNoise.__init__()` method.  It was a marginal call, but from working with the code this way of doing things seemed more natural, and less hidden.

I don't have a great deal to add to the discussion on #563 .  The current state of the noise realization generation code is described in the following comment: https://github.com/GalSim-developers/GalSim/issues/563#issuecomment-48053798 .
If the image is even-sized, then the +/- is just a checkerboard pattern.  So it would be possible to correct for that without rolling.  But for odd-sized images, the ps has a complex phase, so it's not so easy.

I think given this, it's probably best to not have the warning and just explain this phase as the reason for the abs (either rather than or in addition to the above reasoning), and leave it at that.  Especially since I think most users would not know what to do with the warning if it does come up.  Ignore it?  Mess with the interpolant (the docstring says this is possible, but no recommended)?  Change the image size (not convenient)?

So perhaps ignorance is better in the (probably rare) case that this would happen...