The photometric accuracy of the J and K band magnitudes of the saturated
stars by Johnson et al. (1966) and by Lee (1970) were claimed
to be on the
order of ~0.030 mag (1 sigma). Among the 209 saturated
stars, the H band magnitudes were found for 110 from the CIO catalog.
Given the heterogeneity of CIO, the 1 sigma error of the H band data
is likely
to be at least ~0.1 mag. Note that most of the variables are excluded
by the
selection criterion 1). For unsaturated stars, the J, H and Ks magnitudes
are
taken from 2MASS catalog. The accuracy of 2MASS magnitudes are better
than 0.1 mag.
i) For a given camera (e.g. the
J-band camera in northern observatory), counts
(DN) by
'good pixels' are proportional to the brightness of the star in question.
ii) The distribution of DN/pix is axial
symmetric (1-D model).
iii) The 1-D PSF has the following function
form (with 11 free parameters
f0, f1, f2, f3, r0, r1, r2, r3, p1, p2, q):
f=f0*exp(-(r/r0)^2) + f1*exp(-(r/r1)^p1) + f2*exp(-(r/r2)^p2) + f3/(1+(r/r3)^2)^q
.
iv) The reference magnitudes (e.g. from Johnson
et al. 1966) are accurate.
v) Stars are non variables.
i) Counts < 60 DN (the nominal
5 sigma rms).
ii) Counts > 40000DN (the nominal saturation
limit).
iii) When more than 20 percent of pixels in
an annulus (width=1pix) have
counts < 60DN, all the pixels in that annulus are `bad'.
iv) When more than 20 percent of pixels in
an annulus have
counts > 40000DN, all the pixels in that annulus are `bad'.
v) Pixels in the adjacent annulus next
to the one where more than 20
percent
pixels have counts > 40000DN, will also be 'bad'
(due to
asymmetry, these pixels are badly affected by the saturation).
vi) For a given annulus, pixels with the logarithm
of the counts higher
than mean+2sigma
or lower than mean-2sigma (i.e. '2sigma+' pixels) are `bad'.
The remaining pixels are `good pixels'.
The final analytic 1-D PSFs of six cameras are specified by the
parameters given in the Table 1.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
included |
(excluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Figure 7 we show the best-fit PSFs in
a single plot (the H band and Ks band
PSFs are shifted up by a factor of 10 and 100, respectively).
![]() |
| Figure 7 |
Standard dispersions are calculated for the deviation DMAG=(m_fit -
m_ref), where
for saturated stars in the J and K bands the m_ref is the magnitude
taken from
Johnson et al (1966) or Lee (1970), and in the H band the CIO
magnitude.
For unsaturated stars m_ref is the magnitude taken from 2MASS database.
Outliers of 3 sigma+ are excluded. Results are presented in Table 2.
The `sigma_total' is the one sigma deviation
of both saturated and unsaturated altogether. The `sigma_sat' is the
one sigma deviation
of saturated stars. The `sigma_seecor' is the one sigma deviation
of saturated stars after the
seeing correction. Values of sigma_seecor can be regarded as our
best estimates for
the one sigma errors of the magnitudes derived using the algorithm
presented here.
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parameters of seeing corrections, determined empirically, are listed
in Table 3.
|
|
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plots of magnitude deviations (DMAG), before and after seeing corrections,
versus see_shape are presented in the following figures. The corresponding
seeing corrections are given. Stars of different magntudes and seeing
correction
for different magnitudes are color coded.
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 8 | Figure 9 |
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 10 | Figure 11 |
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 12 | Figure 13 |
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 14 | Figure 15 |
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 16 | Figure 17 |
|
|
|
|---|---|
BEFORE SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
AFTER SEEING CORRECTION![]() |
| Figure 18 | Figure 19 |
Table 4 lists results for all individual stars investigated here. Values like 99.99 and 99.999 mean `no data'. Columns are:
(1) scan
number as in 2MASS data base.
(2) R.A.
(2000) in degrees.
(3) Dec. (2000) in degrees.
(4) -
(6) J_ref, H_ref and K_ref are reference magnitudes taken either
from the literature (for saturated stars) or from 2MASS database
(for unsaturated stars).
(7) -
(9) J_fit, H_fit and K_fit are results from the fitting algorithm
presented here.
(10) -
(12) d_J, d_H, d_K are deviations:
d_J = (J_fit - cor_J) - J_ref
where cor_J is the seeing correction (column (19)). The fitting plot
is attached to the deviation value of each band.
(13) -
(15) Xi_J, Xi_H, Xi_K are indicators of `goodness of fit'. The definition
of,
for example, Xi_J is the square root of the xi-square/N, where N is the
number of pixels involved in the fit, and xi-square is the quadratic
sum of deviations (in magnitudes) of individual pixels. Hence, Xi_J
indicates the average deviation (in mag) of individual pixels from the
theoretical fit. A residual plot is attached to the Xi of each band.
(16) - (18) Seeing shapes in J, H, K, respectively.
(19) - (21) Seeing corrections in mag. For a given star the final J magnitude,
for example, from the fitting algorithm presented here should be
J = J_fit - cor_J.
[Last Updated: 2001 Mar 21 by C. Xu.]