1: %

2: %                                                                 aa.dem

3: % AA vers. 5.2, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics

4: % demonstration file

5: %                                                 (c) Springer-Verlag HD

6: %                                                revised by EDP Sciences

7: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

8: %

9: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version

10: %

11: \documentclass{aa}

12: \usepackage{graphicx}

13: \usepackage{natbib}

14: \bibpunct{(}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}

15: \usepackage{psfig}

16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

17: %\usepackage{txfonts}

18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

19: % Nick's macros

20: % short cuts from defs.tex converted to newcommand style

21: \newcommand{\gamvel}{\thinspace\hbox{$\gamma$--velocity}}

22: %%

23: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

27: %\newcommand{\ni}{\noindent}

28: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

29: \newcommand{\eqa}{\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!}

30: \newcommand{\eqv}{\!\!\! &\equiv& \!\!\!}

31: \newcommand{\bfig}{\begin{figure}}

32: \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}

33: \newcommand{\bfigw}{\begin{figure*}}

34: \newcommand{\efigw}{\end{figure*}}

35: \newcommand{\bmp}{\begin{minipage}}

36: \newcommand{\emp}{\end{minipage}}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.~}

39: \newcommand{\etalc}{et al.}

40: \newcommand{\etc}{etc.}

41: %\def\etc{{\em \&c.}}

42: %\def\eg{{\em esdx.g.}}

43: %\def\ie{{\em i.e.}}

44: \newcommand{\eg}{{e.g.}}

45: \newcommand{\ie}{{i.e. }}

46: %\newcommand{\vs}{{\em vs}}

47: \newcommand{\bpic}{\begin{picture}}

48: \newcommand{\epic}{\end{picture}}

49: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}

50: %Added by Valerie (May 2004)

51: \newcommand{\sct}{Sect.~}

52: \newcommand{\scts}{Sects.~}

53: \newcommand{\fg}{Fig.~}

54: \newcommand{\fgs}{Figs.~}

55: \newcommand{\eq}{Eq.~} 

56: \newcommand{\eqs}{Eqs.~} 

57: %

58: %Peter's macros

59: %(no idea who he is!)

60: \newcommand{\dd}{\hbox{\rm d}}

61: %\newcommand{\spose#1}{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

62: %\newcommand{\approxlt}{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}        \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$<$}}}

63: %\newcommand{\approxgt}{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}        \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$>$}}}

64: %

65: %Journal abbreviations:

66: %

67: \newcommand{\AaA}{A\&A}

68: \newcommand{\AaAS}{A\&AS}

69: \newcommand{\AJ}{AJ}

70: \newcommand{\ApJ}{ApJ}

71: \newcommand{\ApJL}{ApJL}

72: \newcommand{\ApJS}{ApJS}

73: \newcommand{\ARAA}{ARA\&A}

74: \newcommand{\MN}{MNRAS}

75: \newcommand{\Nat}{Nat}

76: \newcommand{\PASA}{Publ.~astr.~Soc.~Aust.}

77: \newcommand{\PASJ}{PASJ}

78: \newcommand{\PASP}{PASP}

79: \newcommand{\PhD}{Ph.D.~thesis}

80: %

81: %ADS Journal abbreviations:

82: %

83: %\newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}

84: %\newcommand{\aaps}{A\&AS}

85: %\newcommand{\aapl}{A\&AL}

86: %\newcommand{\aj}{AJ}

87: %\newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}

88: %\newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}

89: %\newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}

90: %\newcommand{\apss}{APSS}

91: %\newcommand{\araa}{ARA\&A}

92: %\newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}

93: %\newcommand{\nat}{Nat}

94: %\newcommand{\pasa}{PASA}

95: %\newcommand{\pasj}{PASJ}

96: %\newcommand{\pasp}{PASP}

97: %\newcommand{\procspie}{SPIE Proc.}

98: %

99: %General abbreviations:

100: % -c versions are for use with a comma afterwards.

101: %

102: \newcommand{\xte}{{\em XTE }}

103: \newcommand{\xtec}{{\em XTE}}

104: \newcommand{\asca}{{\em ASCA }}

105: \newcommand{\ROSAT}{{\em ROSAT }}

106: \newcommand{\rosatc}{{\em ROSAT}}

107: \newcommand{\COBE}{{\em COBE }}

108: \newcommand{\cobec}{{\em COBE}}

109: \newcommand{\PSPC}{{\em PSPC }}

110: \newcommand{\pspc}{{\em PSPC }}

111: \newcommand{\pspcc}{{\em PSPC}}

112: \newcommand{\HRI}{{\em HRI }}

113: \newcommand{\hri}{{\em HRI }}

114: \newcommand{\ASCA}{{\em ASCA }}

115: \newcommand{\SAX}{{\em BeppoSX }}

116: \newcommand{\XMM}{{\em XMM }}

117: \newcommand{\AXAF}{{\em AXAF }}

118: \newcommand{\Chandra}{{\em Chandra }}

119: \newcommand{\Chandrac}{{\em Chandra}}

120: \newcommand{\ISO}{{\em ISO }}

121: \newcommand{\ISOc}{{\em ISO}}

122: \newcommand{\ISOPHOT}{{\em ISOPHOT }}

123: \newcommand{\ISOPHOTc}{{\em ISOPHOT}}

124: \newcommand{\ISOCAM}{{\em ISOCAM }}

125: \newcommand{\ISOCAMc}{{\em ISOCAM}}

126: \newcommand{\ROSATc}{{\em ROSAT}}

127: \newcommand{\ASCAc}{{\em ASCA}}

128: \newcommand{\SAXc}{{\em BeppoSAX}}

129: \newcommand{\XMMc}{{\em XMM}}

130: \newcommand{\AXAFc}{{\em AXAF}}

131: \newcommand{\MERLIN}{{\em MERLIN }}

132: \newcommand{\MERLINc}{{\em MERLIN}}

133: \newcommand{\VLA}{{\em VLA }}

134: \newcommand{\VLAc}{{\em VLA}}

135: \newcommand{\IRIS}{IRIS }

136: \newcommand{\IRISc}{IRIS}

137: %\def\IRIS{{\em IRIS }}

138: %\def\IRISc{{\em IRIS}}

139: \newcommand{\IRAS}{{\em IRAS }}

140: \newcommand{\IRASc}{{\em IRAS}}

141: %

142: %Units

143: %

144: \newcommand{\Ang}{{\rm\thinspace \AA}}

145: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm\thinspace cm}}

146: \newcommand{\mm}{{\rm\thinspace mm}}

147: \newcommand{\erg}{{\rm\thinspace erg}}

148: \newcommand{\Jy}{{\rm\thinspace Jy}}

149: \newcommand{\mJy}{{\rm\thinspace mJy}}

150: \newcommand{\uJy}{{\rm\thinspace \mu Jy}}

151: \newcommand{\Hz}{{\rm\thinspace Hz}}

152: \newcommand{\MHz}{{\rm\thinspace MHz}}

153: \newcommand{\GHz}{{\rm\thinspace GHz}}

154: \newcommand{\g}{{\rm\thinspace g}}

155: \newcommand{\K}{{\rm\thinspace K}}

156: \newcommand{\eV}{{\rm\thinspace eV}}

157: \newcommand{\keV}{\hbox{{\rm\thinspace keV}}}

158: \newcommand{\MeV}{{\rm\thinspace MeV}}

159: \newcommand{\km}{{\rm\thinspace km}}

160: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\rm\thinspace kpc}}

161: \newcommand{\m}{{\rm\thinspace m}}

162: \newcommand{\Mpc}{{\rm\thinspace Mpc}}

163: \newcommand{\pc}{{\rm\thinspace pc}}

164: \newcommand{\s}{{\rm\thinspace s}}

165: \newcommand{\ks}{{\rm\thinspace ks}}

166: \newcommand{\sr}{{\rm\thinspace sr}}

167: %\def\sr{{\rm\thinspace ster}}

168: \newcommand{\yr}{{\rm\thinspace yr}}

169: \newcommand{\Myr}{{\rm\thinspace Myr}}

170: %\newcommand{\mag}{{\rm\thinspace mag}}

171: \newcommand{\W}{{\rm\thinspace W}}

172: %       Compound units

173: \newcommand{\col}{\hbox{$\cm^{-2}$}}

174: \newcommand{\fluxerg}{\hbox{$\erg\cm^{-2}\s^{-1}\,$}}

175: \newcommand{\fluxerga}{\hbox{$\erg\cm^{-2}\s^{-1}\Ang^{-1}$}}

176: \newcommand{\fluxw}{\hbox{$\W\m^{-2}\sr^{-1}\,$}}

177: \newcommand{\ergpcmps}{\hbox{$\erg\cm^{-2}\s^{-1}\,$}}

178: %\def\ergps{\hbox{$\erg\s^{-1}$}}

179: \newcommand{\ergps}{\mbox{$\erg\s^{-1}$}}

180: \newcommand{\flux}{\hbox{$\keV\cm^{-2}\s^{-1}\st^{-1}\keV^{-1}\,$}}

181: \newcommand{\kmps}{\hbox{$\km\s^{-1}\,$}}

182: \newcommand{\mpsps}{\hbox{$\m\s^{-2}\,$}}

183: \newcommand{\kmpspMpc}{\hbox{$\km\s^{-1}\Mpc^{-1}\,$}}

184: %\newcommand{\pcm}{\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\,$}}

185: \newcommand{\pcm}{\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\,$}}

186: %\newcommand{\pcmK}{\hbox{$\cm^{-3}\K$}}

187: %

188: \newcommand{\zcut}{z_{{\it cut}}}

189: \newcommand{\zmax}{z_{{\it max}}}

190: \newcommand{\microns}{\hbox{$\mu {\rm m}$}}

191: \newcommand{\um}{\hbox{$\mu {\rm m}$}}

192: \newcommand{\Paa}{{\rm Pa}_\alpha}

193: \newcommand{\Ha}{{\rm H}_\alpha}

194: \newcommand{\Hb}{{\rm H}_\beta}

195: \newcommand{\Hg}{{\rm H}_\gamma}

196: \newcommand{\Hd}{{\rm H}_\delta}

197: \newcommand{\Lya}{{\rm Ly}_\alpha}

198: \newcommand{\AAA}{\hbox{\accent'27A}}

199: \newcommand{\Msun}{{\rm\thinspace M_\odot}}

200: %

201: \newcommand{\bband}{$B$--\,band~}

202: \newcommand{\vband}{$V$--\,band~}

203: \newcommand{\rband}{$R$--\,band~}

204: \newcommand{\kband}{$K$--\,band~}

205: \newcommand{\iband}{$I$--\,band~}

206: \newcommand{\jband}{$K$--\,band~}

207: \newcommand{\hband}{$I$--\,band~}

208: \newcommand{\uband}{$U$--\,band~}

209: % radio stuff

210: \newcommand{\uv}{{\it uv }}

211: \newcommand{\uvc}{{\it uv}}

212: \newcommand{\kl}{k\lambda}

213: \newcommand{\aips}{{\sc aips }}

214: \newcommand{\imagr}{{\sc imagr }}

215: \newcommand{\calib}{{\sc calib }}

216: \newcommand{\dbcon}{{\sc dbcon }}

217: \newcommand{\sad}{{\sc sad }}

218: \newcommand{\immod}{{\sc immod }}

219: \newcommand{\setjy}{{\sc setjy }}

220: \newcommand{\getjy}{{\sc getjy }}

221: \newcommand{\jmfit}{{\sc jmfit }}

222: 

223: \newcommand{\vtess}{{\sc vtess }}

224: \newcommand{\ltess}{{\sc ltess }}

225: \newcommand{\flatn}{{\sc flatn }}

226: \newcommand{\vtessc}{{\sc vtess}}

227: \newcommand{\ltessc}{{\sc ltess}}

228: \newcommand{\flatnc}{{\sc flatn}}

229: \newcommand{\jmfitc}{{\sc jmfit}}

230: %

231: \newcommand{\aipsc}{{\sc aips}}

232: \newcommand{\imagrc}{{\sc imagr}}

233: \newcommand{\calibc}{{\sc calib}}

234: \newcommand{\dbconc}{{\sc dbcon}}

235: \newcommand{\sadc}{{\sc sad}}

236: \newcommand{\immodc}{{\sc immod}}

237: \newcommand{\setjyc}{{\sc setjy}}

238: \newcommand{\getjyc}{{\sc getjy}}

239: %

240: \newcommand{\mch}{M$\rm^{c}$Hardy }

241: \newcommand{\mchc}{M$\rm^{c}$Hardy} 

242: %

243: %sky coordinates 

244: \newcommand{\asec}{\hbox{\rm\thinspace arcseconds}}

245: \newcommand{\amin}{\hbox{\rm\thinspace arcminutes}}

246: %\newcommand{\deg}{\hbox{\rm\thinspace degrees}}

247: %

248: %\psdraft

249: \begin{document}

250:   %

251:   \title{A 12$\um$ \ISOCAM Survey of the ESO-Sculptor Field

252:     \thanks{Based on observations collected at the European Southern 

253:       Observatory (ESO), La Silla, Chile, and on observations with \ISOc, 

254:       an ESA project with instruments 

255:       funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, 

256:       Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and with the 

257:       participation of ISAS and NASA.}}

258:   

259:   \subtitle{Data Reduction and Analysis\thanks{Table 4 is only available in 

260:       electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr 

261:       (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/}}

262:   

263:  \titlerunning{12$\mu$m \ISOCAM of the ESS}

264:   

265:   \author{Nick Seymour\inst{1,2}, Brigitte Rocca-Volmerange\inst{1,3} and 

266:     Val\'erie de Lapparent\inst{1}}

267:   

268:   \authorrunning{Seymour, Rocca-Volmerange and de Lapparent}

269:   

270:   \offprints{Nick Seymour, email: seymour@ipac.caltech.edu}

271:   

272:   \institute{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS / Univ. Pierre \&    Marie Curie, 98 bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France.

273:     \and

274:     {\it Spitzer} Science Center, California Institute of Technology,

275:     Mail Code 220-6, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA.

276:     \and 

277:     Universit\'e Paris-Sud, B\^at. 121, F-91405 Orsay cedex, France.}

278:   

279:   \date{Received ; accepted 24/05/2007}

280:   

281:   

282:   \abstract{ 

283:     We present a detailed reduction of a mid-infrared 12$\,\mu$m (LW10 filter) 

284:     \ISOCAM open time observation performed on the ESO-Sculptor Survey field 

285:     \citep{arnouts97}. A complete catalogue of 142 sources (120 galaxies and 

286:     22 stars), detected with high significance (equivalent to 5$\sigma$), 

287:     is presented above an integrated flux density of 0.24$\mJy$. Star/galaxy 

288:     separation is performed by a detailed study of colour-colour diagrams. 

289:     The catalogue is complete 

290:     to 1$\mJy$ and below this flux density the incompleteness is corrected 

291:     using two independent methods. The first method uses stars and the second 

292:     uses optical counterparts of the {\it ISOCAM} galaxies;

293:     these methods yield consistent results. We also apply

294:     an empirical flux density calibration using stars in the field. For each 

295:     star, the 12\,$\mu$m flux density is derived by fitting optical colours 

296:     from a multi-band $\chi^2$ 

297:     to stellar templates  (BaSel-2.0) and using empirical optical-IR 

298:     colour-colour relations. This article is 

299:     a companion analysis to \citet{rocca07} where the $12\,\um$ faint galaxy 

300:     counts are presented and analysed per galaxy type with the evolutionary code P\'EGASE.3.

301:     \keywords{Infrared: galaxies - Galaxies: photometry} }

302:   

303:   \maketitle

304:   

305:   \section{Introduction}

306:   

307:   Deep infrared surveys performed with \ISOCAM \citep{cesarsky96}

308:   aboard ESA's \ISO satellite \citep{kessler96} have greatly increased

309:   our knowledge of the faint IR background (\eg\space\citealp{aussel99}).  

310:   From dust emission, the

311:   mid-infrared (MIR) is an ideal wavelength domain to study

312:   the fundamental process of star formation at cosmological 

313:   distances. There is also evidence for strong evolution of sources in the 

314:   MIR including recent results from \ISO and {\it Spitzer} satellites 

315:   \citep{appleton04,pozzi04}. However, progress in this 

316:   area has been complicated by technical difficulties in reducing the 

317:   \ISOCAM data. Despite the recent advances of {\it Spitzer}, there is still 

318:   a great deal of information to be extracted from the \ISOCAM data.

319:     

320:   When examining faint sources with \ISOCAMc, to be confident in the

321:   reliability of a source, one must be sure to have removed all

322:   sources of flux variation above the background noise which are not

323:   due to astronomical objects. Principle amongst these are

324:   `glitches' caused by cosmic ray impacts on the SiGa

325:   detector. There is additional transient behavior

326:   comprising long term transients which are effectively slow

327:   variations in the background, and short term transients which occur

328:   when a pixel moves on and off a source causing an upward or downward

329:   transient respectively.  This memory effect is an unfortunate

330:   property of the type of detectors available at the time of

331:   \ISOCAMc's development. The temporal shape of this

332:   lagged response after a flux step has been corrected by a technique

333:   developed by \citet{abergel96} which successfully removes 

334: transients due to 

335:   strong sources or changes in illumination. Then the software developed by 

336:   \citet{starck99} known as PRETI (Pattern REcognition Technique for 

337:   \ISOCAM data) was designed to identify and remove the other artifacts 

338:   due to cosmic rays effects and residual low frequency variations.

339:   

340:   The ultimate flux density calibration of \ISOCAM has also been subject of 

341:   much research.

342:   Great care is not only needed to distinguish real astronomical

343:   sources from other transient effects in the detectors, but also in

344:   calculating the true flux density of these objects.  A detailed analysis of

345:   the behavior of the detector was applied to \ISO observations of

346:   the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) which used the LW2 ($6.75\um$) and LW3

347:   ($15\um$) filters \citep{aussel99} and was found to be successful at 

348:   removing most types of transients significantly above the noise. 

349:   The results of this analysis,

350:   although largely consistent at bright flux densities, are considerably

351:   different at fainter flux densities from those previously derived by

352:   \cite{serjeant97} from the same observations (there is however

353:   reasonable consistency with a further analysis of

354:   \citealt{desert99}). The method of Aussel et al. (1999) involved 

355:   PRETI to identify and correct the cosmic rays effects as well as to  

356:   removing the low frequency variation of the background left after applying

357:   the Abergel method; many simulations were

358:   performed to test the completeness and flux density calibration of these

359:   data.  Another approach, which is empirical and does not depend on

360:   simulations, is that of \citet{efstathiou00} who used stars to

361:   calibrate their \ISOPHOT $90\um$ survey. \citet{vaisanen02} and

362:   \citet{oliver02} also used stars to calibrate their \ISOCAM LW2 and 

363:   LW3 observations. Furthermore \citet{clements99} used 

364:   observations of stars to verify their flux density calibration.

365:   

366:   Over the last few years, the {\it Lari} method \citep{lari01} has 

367:   been successfully applied to other surveys 

368:   \citep{gruppioni02,pozzi03,vaccari05}. This technique involves a 

369:   full analysis of the history of each pixel and much simulation. 

370:   We did not use this method in our desire to avoid simulations, but 

371:   we note that several of these papers \citep{gruppioni02,vaccari05}, 

372:   as well as the more recent work of \cite{rodighiero04}, use the well known 

373:   IR properties of normal stars to verify their flux density calibration.

374: 

375:   Here, we present \ISOCAM observations which were designed to cover

376:   the portion of the ESO-Sculptor  faint galaxy redshift survey 

377:    (ESS; \citealt{arnouts97}) which

378:   is least affected by the cirrus confusion noise. {The \ISOCAM 

379:   area was selected using the IPAC/IRSKY software which measured a mean sky 

380:   flux density of 18.78 mJy/arcmin$^2$ at $12\,\um$ and a rms of 5.42 mJy/arcmin$^2$;

381:   these values were measured in 1.5 arcmin pixels in a large field of view 

382:   of $90'\times90'$ centered on the ESS field. 

383:   We also estimate the colour excess as $0.014<E_{B-V}<0.022$ on the survey area 

384:   \citep{schlegel97}.  The ESO-Sculptor Survey

385:   is located close to the South Galactic Pole, 

386:   and covers a strip of approximately $0.24\times1.53\deg=0.37$

387:   deg$^2$ with CCD photometry complete to Johnson-Cousins $B=24.5$,

388:   $V=24.0$ and $R_\mathrm{c}=23.5$.  The ESS also provides a nearly

389:   complete redshift sample to $R_\mathrm{c}=20.5$

390:   \citep{lapparent03a,lapparent04} over a sub-region of

391:   $0.24 \times 1.02\deg = 0.25$ deg$^2$. \ISOCAMc-ESS 

392:   thus provides a unique

393:   complement to the other existing surveys in its combination of i)

394:   $\sim700$ square arcminute sky area, ii) $BVR_\mathrm{c}$ CCD

395:   photometry and NIR (DENIS and 2MASS) photometry, and iii)

396:   spectroscopic completeness to $R_\mathrm{c}=20.5$.

397:   

398:   In the following, we present the data reduction and calibration of

399:   \ISOCAMc-ESS. The observations were 

400:   performed with the $\sim12\,\um$ LW10 \ISOCAM filter which was designed to 

401:   have a similar passband as the \IRAS $12\,\um$ band. This similarity allows us  

402:   to take advantage of the flux density calibration of the \IRAS data. 

403:   In \sct 2, we first

404:   describe the adopted procedure for source extraction (\sct 2.1) and

405:   astrometry (\sct 2.2). This analysis is followed by the flux density 

406:   re-calibration in

407:   the \sct 3. We provide the complete source catalogue in \sct 4. 

408:   

409:   \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

410:   \label{sec:dred}

411:   

412:   \begin{table*}

413:     \caption[]{\ISO observation log for 10 raster pointings: target

414:       name, coordinates, observation number (ION), calculated on-target

415:       time (CoTT), number of stabilizing exposures ($N_\mathrm{stab}$),

416:       and number of exposures ($N_\mathrm{exp}$).}

417:     \label{tab:fields}

418:     $$

419:     \begin{tabular}{@{}cccccccccccccc@{}}

420:       \hline

421:       \noalign{\smallskip}

422:       Target     &  RA (J2000)  &  Dec (J2000) & ION & CoTT & $N_\mathrm{stab}$  & $N_\mathrm{exp}$ \\

423:       & h\ \ m\ \ s  & $\deg$\ \ $'$\ \ $''$&     &      &           &         \\

424:       \noalign{\smallskip}

425:       \hline

426:       \noalign{\smallskip}

427:       SC\_LW10\_1 & 00 23 33.06  & -30 01 07.8  & 86  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

428:       SC\_LW10\_2 & 00 22 58.06  & -30 01 07.8  & 87  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

429:       SC\_LW10\_3 & 00 22 23.06  & -30 01 07.8  & 88  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

430:       SC\_LW10\_4 & 00 21 48.06  & -30 01 07.8  & 89  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

431:       SC\_LW10\_5 & 00 21 13.06  & -30 01 07.8  & 90  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

432:       SC\_LW10\_6 & 00 21 13.06  & -30 08 44.8  & 91  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

433:       SC\_LW10\_7 & 00 21 48.06  & -30 08 44.8  & 92  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

434:       SC\_LW10\_8 & 00 22 23.06  & -30 08 44.8  & 93  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

435:       SC\_LW10\_9 & 00 22 58.06  & -30 08 44.8  & 94  & 4832 & 10   & 13   \\

436:       SC\_LW10\_10 & 00 23 33.06  & -30 08 44.8  & 95  & 4512 & 10   & 12   \\

437:       \noalign{\smallskip}

438:       \hline

439:     \end{tabular}

440:     $$

441:     \end{table*}

442:     

443:     

444:     The \ISOCAM observations consist of 10 overlapping raster

445:     observations arranged in a $5\times2$ configuration centered on RA

446:     (J2000) 00$^\mathrm{h}$ 22$^\mathrm{m}$ 23.06$^\mathrm{s}$ and Dec

447:     (J2000) $-30^\circ$ 04$'$ 55.65$''$. Each of the 10 rasters (see

448:     Table~\ref{tab:fields}) is composed of $M\times N$ pointings 

449:     (with $M=N=8$) of the

450:     long wavelength (LW) detector of \ISOCAMc, each offset by $dM=dN=60''$

451:     along the axis of the detector. Table~\ref{tab:param} shows the

452:     parameters which were constant for all observations.  Each pointing

453:     of the $32\times32$ pixel detector used the $6''$ pixel field of

454:     view (PFOV) mirror so that the detector's view at each pointing was

455:     a $192''\times 192''$ area of the sky. The total field of view of the

456:     \ISOCAM survey is therefore approximately $0.3 \times 0.8$ deg$^2$\

457:     intersecting over $\sim80\%$ of the ESS spectroscopic area.  For

458:     \ISO observations it was not possible to request a particular

459:     orientation of the camera. In the event our observations were

460:     performed at $\sim45\deg$ to the axes of the $5\times2$ arrangement

461:     of the observations (see \fg\ref{fig:largemap}). 

462: 

463:     This arrangement left four very small patches of $\sim20''$ diameter 

464:     unobserved by

465:     ISOCAM, which are aligned at the middle declination of the ISO

466:     pointings Dec(J2000) $-30^\circ 04'50''$ and have the following

467:     values of RA(J2000): $0^\mathrm{h}23^\mathrm{m}15.4^\mathrm{s}$,

468:     $0^\mathrm{h}22^\mathrm{m}40.2^\mathrm{s}$,

469:     $0^\mathrm{h}22^\mathrm{m}5.2^\mathrm{s}$,

470:     $0^\mathrm{h}22^\mathrm{m}30.2^\mathrm{s}$ 

471:     (these 4 patches are barely visible in \fg\ref{fig:largemap}).

472: 

473:     \bfigw

474:     \centering

475:     \includegraphics[height=17cm,angle=270]{figures/snr.ps}

476:     \caption{{\bf [modified from journal version due to size of image]} 

477:       Signal-to-noise map of the combined ten \ISOCAM rasters. The two 

478:       horizontal lines mark the region covered by the ESS.}

479:     \label{fig:largemap}

480:     \efigw

481:     

482:     We used the latest version of

483:     the original raw data files obtained from the \ISO Data 

484:     Archive\footnote{http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/ida}, 

485:     corresponding to the 10 raster pointings with the most up-to-date 

486:     FITS header information. The data reduction was largely done with 

487:     the \ISOCAM Interactive Users Analysis System, called  CIA \citep{Ott97}.

488:     

489:     At this stage, PRETI \citep{starck99} was run within the CIA/IDL

490:     environment to remove the cosmic rays effects and residual variation 

491:     of the background, 

492:     after subtracting the transients, to perform the flat correction and to 

493:     suppress the time-varying baseline. We used the transient correction for 

494:     the on-source detector response as described in \citet{abergel96}. The 

495:     flux density of each pixel may be converted from ADUs to $\mJy$ using the 

496:     conversion given in CIA: 1 ADU$=0.242\mJy$ (more details are given in 

497:     \sct\ref{sec:fc} on the flux density calibration). The 64 

498:     independent pointings of each raster were then projected onto the 

499:     sky allowing for 

500:     the known distortion of the sky due to the optics of \ISOCAMc. 

501: 

502:     Although the original pixel size of the individual exposures was $6''$, 

503:     each raster image was finely re-sampled to $2''$ in order to increase 

504:     the accuracy of the sky projection.  Finally, the 10 raster pointing 

505:     images were combined on the sky plane producing an image map and a map 

506:     of the associated rms error at each pixel (henceforth referred to as 

507:     the ``noise'' map). The final pixel size of these maps, from the 

508:     re-projection of the ten raster images, was chosen to be $3''$ as a 

509:     compromise between retaining the accurate high resolution of the sky 

510:     projection and possible lightly over-sampling the PSF whose FWHM is of 

511:     order of the original $6''$ pixels. We note that some additional 

512:     correlated noise and potential small positional errors maybe introduced 

513:     by a second re-sampling of the image.

514: 

515:     \begin{table}

516:       \caption[]{\ISO observation parameters which are common to all rasters}

517:       \label{tab:param}

518:       $$

519:       \begin{tabular}{@{}cc@{}}

520: 	\hline

521: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

522: 	Parameter     &  Value\\

523: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

524: 	\hline

525: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

526: 	Filter & LW10 \\

527: 	Band Centre & 12\,$\um$ \\

528: 	Gain & 2 \\

529: 	$T_{int}$ & 5.04 s \\

530: 	PFOV  & $6''$ \\

531: 	M,N & 8,8 \\

532: 	dM,dN & $60''$ \\

533: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

534: 	\hline

535:       \end{tabular}

536:       $$

537:     \end{table}

538:     

539:     \subsection{Source Extraction}

540:     

541:     

542:     \ISOCAM observations require specifically designed source extraction

543:     algorithms, as the noise in raster data is correlated and varies

544:     across the field. This effect is especially noticeable near the edge of a raster

545:     where there are fewer readouts per sky position; as a result, the

546:     border regions of the survey are noisier than the central part. One must

547:     therefore use the corresponding ``noise'' map to determine the

548:     significance level of a source and to avoid false detections on the border

549:     of the survey.

550:     

551:     In order to extract the \ISOCAM faint sources of the ESS field, we use

552:     the multi-scale vision model (MVM, \citealt{br95}) as applied to

553:     \ISOCAM data of the Hubble Deep Field by \citet{starck99}, and which

554:     is implemented in their {\it Multi-Resolution} (MR) software. This

555:     method searches for objects on different scales in wavelet space

556:     using the so called `\`a trous' algorithm (we refer the reader to

557:     \citealt{starck99} for full details).

558:     

559:     We apply the {\it Multi-Resolution} software with a detection

560:     threshold of $5\tau_w$ where $\tau_w$ is the noise level in wavelet

561:     space. $\tau_w$\ is not directly equivalent to the dispersion 

562:     of Gaussian data but gives a qualitative idea of the

563:     significance of our detection. The ultimate limit to the detection

564:     of sources is the rate at which false detections occur due to

565:     residual glitches in the noise which are too faint to be removed by

566:     PRETI. \citet{starck99} performed simulations to assess the

567:     reliability of their data and obtained a $2\%$ false detection rate

568:     at the completeness limit ($5\tau_w$).  Here we choose to perform the

569:     simple test of applying the source extraction to the negative of our

570:     sky image for different thresholds. We detect no sources in the

571:     negative images above $4.5\tau_w$. Hence we believe our detections

572:     to be quite robust, although we cannot quantify our false detection rate.

573:     We note, though, that we find optical counterparts to all

574:     our $12\,\um$ sources covered by the ESS within $6''$ and 

575:     with $R<25$ (see \sct 3). If randomly distributed we would have expected 

576:     only $30\%$ to have had optical counterparts within $6''$.

577: 

578:     Using the {\sc mrdetect} task from MR with a PSF model sampled at

579:     $3''$, and a detection threshold of $5\tau_w$, we search for

580:     objects down to the 4th wavelet scale and obtain 142 sources to a

581:     detection limit of $\sim 0.24\mJy$. This limit corresponds to the

582:     integrated flux density, reconstructed by the wavelet detection program,

583:     of the faintest object detected. The final source catalogue, after

584:     astrometry and flux density re-calibration, is presented in

585:     \sct\ref{sec:cat}.

586:     

587:     With the final goal of validating the adopted extraction method

588:     suited to raster data with ISO, we also investigate the application of 

589:     {\sc SExtractor} \citep{ba96} to our field. For a high,

590:     approximately equivalent detection threshold of $\sim5\sigma$, {\sc

591:     SExtractor} finds far fewer sources than MR. Of those sources

592:     found by {\sc SExtractor}, only $90\%$ are also found by MR. This

593:     percentage then decreases rapidly with lower thresholds (\ie $75\%$

594:     at $\sim3\sigma$).  Additionally, the consistent sources in both

595:     catalogues are found to have a random rms offset of $\sim1.5''$ in their

596:     position. These offsets are most likely due to the different strategies 

597:     of the two different codes, as MR searches for structure in wavelet space 

598:     and {\sc SExtractor} searches the standard sky-plane.

599:     When compared to the list of ESS optical sources, we

600:     find that the {\sc SExtractor} positions are marginally more

601:     accurate than those measured by MR (rms of $2.0''$ instead of

602:     $2.75''$). 

603:     This comparison thus confirms that a standard source extraction

604:     algorithm such as {\sc SExtractor} cannot compete with an extraction

605:     technique specifically designed for \ISOCAM data, such as MR.

606: 

607:     \subsection{Astrometry}

608:     

609:     A first check of the astrometry is obtained by cross-correlation of

610:     our \ISOCAM source list with the ESS bright objects

611:     ($R_{\rm c}<21$) located within $6''$. We obtain an rms offset

612:     of $2''$ with no systematic offset, thus indicating that the

613:     absolute astrometry for both \ISOCAM and ESS catalogues are

614:     reliable.  

615:     

616:     To obtain an independent astrometric calibration, we also searched

617:     for another infrared catalogue. The closest available data in

618:     wavelength is the 2 Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) which includes

619:     $J$, $H$ and crucially \kband at $2\um$. As the 2MASS and \ISOCAM

620:     observations were taken within a few years of each other, the proper

621:     motion of stars (which make up most of the sources used for the astrometry)

622:     is unlikely to be a problem.  We cross-correlate our \ISOCAM list

623:     with the 2MASS Point Source Catalogue to search for objects within

624:     $3''$ of each other. This correlation yields 34 \ISOCAM objects with firm

625:     detections and provisional flux densities above $0.6\mJy$ which were also

626:     detected in the $K_s$-band. We then use these sources with the {\sc

627:       xtran} task in \aips to modify the header of the FITS file of the

628:     image and rms map.  This modification leads to a maximum change of $0.3''$ to the

629:     positions of the 142 final catalogue objects across the field and a 

630:     $0.1''$ improvement in the rms offset with respect to the ESS catalogue.

631:     

632:     

633:     \section{Flux Density Calibration}

634:     \label{sec:fc}

635:     

636:     \begin{table} \caption[]{Sub-sample of 13 stars selected for

637: 	stellar fitting. The first column lists the source number from

638: 	Table~\ref{tab:cat}. The next column contains the observed

639: 	$I-\,$band magnitude from USNO (further photometry of these sources 

640:         is presented in table~\ref{tab:cat}). 

641: 	The final 4 columns contain the

642: 	results of the template fitting: the log surface gravity

643: 	(\mpsps), the log metallicity ($Z/Z_0$), the effective

644: 	temperature in Kelvin, and $\chi^2$ of the fit.}

645:       \label{tab:stars}

646:       $$

647:       \begin{tabular}{@{}rcccccccccccccc@{}}

648: 	\hline

649: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

650: 	Source & $I_{USNO}$   &$\log(g)$&$\log(Z/Z_0)$&$T_\mathrm{eff}$& $\chi^2$ \\

651: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

652: 	\hline

653: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

654: 	1  & 10.260   & 3.00 & -1.7 & 6000 &  1.30 \\

655: 	4  & 11.336   & 4.00 & -3.7 & 4500 &  0.66 \\

656: 	5  & 10.601   & 3.00 & -2.0 & 6000 &  1.01 \\

657: 	6  & 11.525   & 2.50 & -3.2 & 4500 &  1.48 \\

658: 	18 & 11.898   & 4.00 & -4.0 & 5000 &  1.16 \\

659: 	20 & 12.103   & 2.50 & -4.0 & 5500 &  1.68 \\

660: 	34 & 12.594   & 5.00 & -2.7 & 4250 &  0.56 \\

661: 	43 & 12.088   & 5.00 & -3.7 & 5250 &  0.44 \\

662: 	46 & 12.338   & 5.00 & -0.7 & 5250 &  1.21 \\

663: 	50 & 12.490   & 3.00 & -0.7 & 5500 &  0.51 \\

664: 	53 & 12.917   & 5.00 & -2.2 & 4500 &  1.04 \\

665: 	91 & 13.624   & 5.00 & -1.4 & 3750 &  1.04 \\

666: 	130& 13.385   & 5.00 & -0.7 & 5750 &  1.10 \\

667: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

668: 	\hline

669:       \end{tabular}

670:       $$

671:     \end{table}

672: 

673:     Although selected to be far from the galactic plane, the relatively 

674:     large area of the ESS field provides a sample of stars of

675:     various types sufficient to estimate the empirical flux density

676:     calibration of the \ISOCAM observations. This areal size is a significant

677:     advantage compared to most other medium/deep \ISOCAM surveys (\eg\space

678:     the \ISO Hubble Deep Field North which covers only $\sim27$ square

679:     arcminutes of the sky and thus contains only a few calibrating

680:     stars\footnote{We note that the HDF South \citep{oliver02}, which

681:     is of a similar size, was calibrated using seven stars due to it's

682:     low galactic latitude.}).

683: 

684:     The following analysis uses a series of colour-colour diagrams and 

685:     relationships involving optical, NIR and $12\,\um$ colours. Due to the 

686:     high galactic latitude of our survey, the low extinction $E(B-V)\sim0.02$ 

687:     affects very little these colour-colour relations. For example, the $B$ to 

688:     \rband flux density ratio varies by less than $5\%$, and this percentage 

689:     is lower for flux density ratios of longer wavelength bands.

690: 

691:     In the following sub-sections, we describe the various stages of our

692:     calibration procedure. We first obtain for the detected \ISOCAM

693:     sources optical and NIR magnitudes by cross-identification with the

694:     ESS and various other existing catalogues (\sct \ref{sec:cross}).

695:     We then use colour-colour diagrams to identify stars among the

696:     \ISOCAM sources (\sct\ref{sec:star}).  The core of the calibration

697:     strategy uses a fitting procedure (D. Le Borgne, private communication) 

698:     to search for the best fit stellar template from the P\'EGASE

699:     library (\sct\ref{sec:fit}). We use the colours of the best fit 

700:     templates to predict $12\,\um$ flux densities from known IRAS 

701:     colour-colour relations \citealt[][(hereafter WCA)]{wca87} and then 

702:     convert to an ISO flux density.

703: 

704:     \subsection{Optical and NIR cross-identification}

705:     \label{sec:cross}

706:     

707:     The optical and NIR magnitudes are taken from a variety of sources:

708:     

709:     \begin{enumerate} 

710:     \item{Deep $B$, $V$ and $R_\mathrm{c}$-band data from ESS (including the 

711:       {\sc Sextractor} \citep{ba96} stellarity index - an indication of 

712:       how similar a 

713:       source is to the point-spread function, i.e. star-like or extended like 

714:       a galaxy} (see \citealp{arnouts97} for more details).

715:     \item{$B$, $R$ and \iband data from the USNO B catalogue (when $B$

716:       and \rband data are unavailable due to either saturation in the ESS,

717:       or masking of ESS diffraction spikes, or because the object is

718:       outside the ESS field). It should be noted that USNO

719:       magnitudes are $photographic$, but for convenience} we use them later 

720:       with the labels $B$, $R$ and \iband.  

721:     \item{\iband data from the DENIS Survey\footnote{http://www-denis.iap.fr/} 

722:        Extended Source Catalogue (ESC). We use the ESC as DENIS is deep enough 

723:        to detect more galaxies than stars.} 

724:     \item{$J$, $H$ and $K_s$-band from the 2MASS Point Source Catalogue 

725:       (PSC). We use the PSC as only the brighter \ISOCAM sources will be 

726:       detected and will mainly be stars.} 

727:     \end{enumerate}

728:     

729:     We first correlate the $12\,\um$ source list with the ESS catalogue

730:     using a $6''$ search radius which gives 111 objects out of 142

731:     with one or more potential optical counterparts. For sources 

732:     with one or 

733:     more optical counterpart we took the nearer the counterpart which in 11 

734:     out of 12 times was the brighter of two. The other source with two 

735:     counterparts seemed to be an interacting pair of equal brightness in the

736:     optical images.

737: 

738:  

739:     The remaining 31 objects are correlated with the USNO B catalogue in 

740:     a similar fashion. This correlation 

741:     leads to 23 further optical counterparts which include objects

742:     either outside the ESS field, or cut out of the ESS due to saturation

743:     or masking. This list of 134 optical sources is then correlated with

744:     the 2MASS data using the optical position and a $1''$ search radius,

745:     yielding 41 cross-identifications. \iband magnitudes from DENIS

746:     are also found for 79 sources with the same search radius. The more 

747:     accurate DENIS \iband is used in preference to the USNO 

748:     {\it photographic} \iband when available. There remains 7 objects 

749:     which are too faint to be detected in either USNO, 2MASS or DENIS 

750:     catalogues: sources 100 \& 110 are masked by diffraction spikes in the ESS

751:     and sources 12, 51, 81, 114 \& 137 are not coincident with the ESS 

752:     area. One source (source 44) is only detected in 2MASS.

753:     Hence all \ISOCAM sources covered by ESS 

754:     have optical counterparts with $R<25$. 

755:         

756:     \subsection{Star/galaxy separation and normal star selection}

757:     \label{sec:star}

758:      

759:     \subsubsection{$H-K_s$ versus $J-K_s$}

760:     We use the following colour/colour diagrams to separate stars from galaxies. 

761:     For all 41 objects with 2MASS counterpart, we select stars by

762:     examining their NIR colours using the criteria 

763:     

764:     \be

765:     \label{eq:bb1}

766:     H-K_s < 0.30

767:     \ee

768:     

769:     \be

770:     \label{eq:bb2}

771:     J-K_s < 1.0 

772:     \ee

773:     for normal stars from \cite{bb88}. This selection is illustrated in 

774:     \fg\ref{fig:ircol} and yields a separated sub-group of 22 objects.

775:     Note the ESS misidentified galaxy with $H-K_s\sim0.1$ in this plot 

776:     and others (object 13 in Table~\ref{tab:cat}). In \fg\ref{fig:ircol2}

777:     this object has a quite extreme position and is likely a very cool star 

778:     with a large MIR excess.

779: 

780:     

781:     \subsubsection{$H-K_s$ versus $K_s-[12]$} 

782:     

783:     To check for MIR excess due to dust and circumstellar material, we 

784:     examine $H-K_s$ versus $K_s-[12]$. The IRAS Explanatory

785:     Supplement\footnote{http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tchester/exp.sup/}

786:     provides a zero magnitude flux density of $28.3\Jy$ for the 12\,$\um$

787:     magnitude. However, this value is not technically correct as it was obtained 

788:     by assuming that Vega is a blackbody from 10.6 $\um$ to 12\,$\um$, whereas 

789:     Vega has quite a large IR excess which affects both the 10.6 $\um$ flux 

790:     density and the spectrum. Here we adopt a value of $40.141\,\Jy$ from 

791:     \citet{cohen92}. Therefore:

792:     

793:     \begin{equation}

794:       \label{eq:iras}

795: 	    [12]=-2.5\times\log\bigg(\frac{\mathrm F_{\Jy}}{40.141}\bigg)

796:     \end{equation}

797:     

798:     Among the 41 2MASS counterparts, 19 of the 22 stars selected previously 

799:     are in a cloud defined by 

800:     $0<H-K_s<0.3$ and $-0.5<K_s-[12]<0.5$ (see \fg\ref{fig:ircol1}) 

801:     and are unambiguously detected with a single optical/NIR counterpart 

802:     within $3''$. The other 5 objects with $H-K<0.4$, but $K-[12]>1.5$ 

803:     are stars from the group of 22 with MIR excess. 

804:     

805:     \subsubsection{$\log(f_{12}/f_R)$ versus $\log(f_B/f_R)$}

806:     

807:     To extend the analysis to objects too faint to be detected by

808:     2MASS (for which we have no NIR data) we examine the positions of

809:     all objects in a optical-MIR colour-colour diagram, shown

810:     in \fg\ref{fig:ircol2}. On this diagram is marked the loci of 

811:     blackbodies with a temperature ranging from 3000K (upper

812:     right) to $10^4$K (lower left). The 14 objects near the blackbody

813:     line are normal stars without IR excess; they define the 

814:     subsample that we analyse with the fitting procedure. All the

815:     14 objects belong to the subset of 19 objects with $K_s-[12]\sim0$

816:     and $H-K_s\sim0-0.25$ in \fg\ref{fig:ircol1}. The remaining 5

817:     objects are: i) 4 of the 5 {\sc Sextractor} stars identified in

818:     the ESS which lie immediately above the blackbody line and ii) the

819:     misidentified galaxy to the right of the graph with

820:     $\log(f_B/f_R)\sim3$. The fifth star in the row above the

821:     blackbody line (with $\log(f_B/f_R)=0.1$) has $K_s-[12]\sim1.5$ and

822:     hence does not satisfy the NIR/MIR colour selection criteria.

823:     Note that there are no objects previously not identified as stars

824:     in the lower part of \fg\ref{fig:ircol2}. 

825:     Therefore, among all the objects with optical counterparts, we

826:     identify from the colour-colour diagrams only 22 stars (i.e. all 

827:     and only those selected in \fg\ref{fig:ircol}). 

828:     With no further information available the 7 \ISOCAM sources without 

829:     either an optical or NIR counterpart are assumed to be galaxies.

830: 

831:     At this stage we change the DENIS $i-\,$band magnitudes from 

832:     the ESC to the PSC for all 22 sources found to be stars.

833: 

834:     \bfig

835:     \centering

836:     \includegraphics[height=8.5cm,angle=270]{figures/ir_colb2y.ps}

837:     \caption{NIR colour-colour diagram of 40/41 objects with 2MASS 

838:       counterparts (minus one objects with extreme $H-K$ colour, $\sim2$, 

839:       which lies off the plot). 

840:       The symbols refer to the stellarity index from the ESS 

841:       (see text): circles are galaxies, open stars are stars and crosses are 

842:       objects without counterpart in the ESS. The solid lines represent 

843:       the selection criteria of stars from \eqs\ref{eq:bb1} \& \ref{eq:bb2}.}

844:     \label{fig:ircol}

845:     \efig

846:     

847:     \bfig

848:     \centering

849:     \includegraphics[height=8.5cm,angle=270]{figures/ir_colb2x.ps}

850:     \caption{NIR-MIR colour-colour diagram of 40 objects with 2MASS 

851:       counterparts. The symbols are the same as in  \fg\ref{fig:ircol}}

852:     \label{fig:ircol1}

853:     \efig

854:     

855:     \bfig

856:     \centering

857:     \includegraphics[height=8.5cm,angle=270]{figures/ir_colz2b.ps}

858:     \caption{Optical-MIR colour-colour diagram of all objects with optical 

859:       (ESS/USNO) counterparts. The symbols are the same as in 

860:       \fgs\ref{fig:ircol} \& \ref{fig:ircol1}, but with the caveat that 

861:       $R$ and \bband magnitudes with no stellarity index are from the USNO

862:       catalogue (\ie the crosses). 

863:       The solid line represents the loci of blackbodies with a temperature 

864:       ranging from 3000K to 10000K for the Johnson-Cousins system. We note 

865:       this line would vary by $<0.1dex$ for the USNO filter system. 

866:       Furthermore, there are 7 \ISOCAM sources (three misidentified, open 

867:       stars, and four unknown, crosses) not in the ESS 

868:       with $\log f_{12}/f_R\sim10$ which are assumed to be galaxies.}

869:     \label{fig:ircol2}

870:     \efig

871:     

872:     \subsection{Template fitting}

873:     \label{sec:fit}

874:     

875:     For the template fitting we use the stellar library from the P\'EGASE.2  

876:     (http://www2.iap.fr/pegase) code. This  library  has a  significant

877:     coverage  of the HR  diagram. It  is based  on the  Kurucz library

878:     rearranged by \cite{lejeune97}: BaSel-2.0 (see Fioc \& 

879:     Rocca-Volmerange 1987, for details). The chi-squared fitting routine is 

880:     applied to the 14 objects of the selected subsample, all

881:     have $BRIJHK_s$ magnitudes with the $B$, $R$ and \iband magnitudes from

882:     the USNO catalogue, {\it not} the ESS catalogue, as they were all

883:     saturated or off the ESS field. 

884:     The 2MASS pass-bands come from the 2MASS

885:     web-page\footnote{www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/index.html}. 

886:     The USNO pass-bands (from the Palomar Sky Survey and approximately 

887:     equivalent to Johnson $B$, $R$ and $I$--\,band) were taken from 

888:     \cite{reid91}. We remind the reader that the extinction is low enough 

889:     in this area of sky that its effect on the current analysis is small, 

890:     $\la5\%$ in the optical and less at longer wavelengths.

891:     

892:     The chi-squared fitting of the sample of 14 normal stars is carried out 

893:     in a 3 dimensional parameter

894:     space: effective temperature ($T_\mathrm{eff}$), surface gravity

895:     ($g$) and metallicity ($Z/Z_0$). The fits are constrained by the

896:     errors of each magnitude: 0.05 mag for 2MASS, $\sim0.05$ mag for

897:     DENIS, and 0.25 mag for USNO. The $\chi^2$ exhibit a sharp

898:     minimum as a function of $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and with a reasonable

899:     dependence on the surface gravity. For 13 out of the 14 stars,

900:     best-fit templates have $\chi^2 < 1.7$ (the 14th star has

901:     $\chi^2=4.0$ so we exclude it from our sample). 

902:     We show in \fg\ref{fig:fit} the

903:     stellar fit with the largest $\chi^2$ ($\chi^2 = 1.68$). The input

904:     magnitudes of the 13 stars are listed in Tables~\ref{tab:stars} and~\ref{tab:cat},

905:     along with the best fit values of the gravity, the metallicity, the

906:     effective temperature, and corresponding value of $\chi^2$. 

907:     

908:     Figure~\ref{fig:fit} illustrates that the NIR region of the SED is

909:     more constrained due the higher accuracies of the NIR magnitudes

910:     ($IJHK_s$).  This wavelength range corresponds to the region in which 

911:     the effective

912:     temperature is essentially defined, as it is the Wien-tail of the

913:     blackbody spectrum. From \fg\ref{fig:fit}, one might expect that

914:     there would be many other stellar templates consistent with this

915:     fit, but with a different SED below $0.8\um$. Although these different 

916:     optical SEDs would

917:     probably not change the effective temperature by much it could

918:     considerably affect the optical colours, $B-V$ and $R-I$, which the

919:     WCA colour-colour relations use (see \scts\ref{sec:pred}). To

920:     investigate this effect, we reran the fitting procedure to all 14

921:     stars without using the $B$ and \rband magnitudes (\ie without

922:     constraining the fit below \iband wavelengths). In all cases but

923:     one, the effective temperatures changes by only one step in

924:     parameter space ($200-250K$) and the SEDs below \iband are generally

925:     consistent with those derived using the $B$ and \rband magnitudes;

926:     similar values of $B-V$ and $R-I$ colours are also obtained.  The

927:     one case which has a considerably different effective temperature

928:     and SED is found to be almost degenerate with 2 sharp troughs in

929:     $\chi^2$ parameter space, the slightly higher of the $\chi^2$

930:     corresponding to the original 6 band fit; the other fit can easily

931:     be discarded as it is inconsistent with the observed $B$ and \rband

932:     magnitudes.  Therefore, we conclude that the large errors of the

933:     $B$ and \rband magnitudes do not significantly deteriorate the 

934:     quality of the fits.

935:     

936:     \bfig

937:     \centering

938:     \includegraphics[height=6.3cm,angle=0]{figures/star7_9.out_1.ps}

939:     \caption{Result of the stellar fitting to \ISOCAM source 20 from 

940:       Table~\ref{tab:cat}. The open diamonds with error bars are the 

941:       observation magnitudes ($BRIJHK_s$ bands) whilst the solid circles are 

942:       the magnitudes of the best fit template (line) with $\chi^2 = 1.68$.

943:       Details of this fit are given in the panel below the plot.

944:       Although the fit is less constrained at shorter wavelengths due to

945:       the larger photometric errors in the USNO survey, it depends only weakly

946:       on this part of the spectrum (see text).}

947:     \label{fig:fit} 

948:     \efig

949: 

950:     \subsection{Predicted Flux}

951:     \label{sec:pred}

952:     

953:     Although the BaSeL-2.0 stellar libraries do extend to MIR 

954:     wavelengths they have not be widely tested, and then only at brighter 

955:     flux densities (\eg~ Cohen et al. 2003, using the Kurucz templates for

956:     certain A0-AV5 stars). We decide to use empirical stellar colours 

957:     to verify the calibration of our flux densities and use the 

958:     long-wavelength part of the stellar template as a consistency check.

959:     We use the two colour-colour relationships of WCA to derive 

960:     $12\,\um$ flux densities. These WCA relations are for IRAS $12\,\um$ flux 

961:     densities of stars which specifically relate the $V-[12]$ colour 

962:     with $B-V$ and $R-I$:

963: 

964:     \begin{eqnarray}

965:       \label{eq:col0}

966:       \begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}

967: 	$V-[12]=0.05$ &$\!\!\!+~~3.13(B-V)$    &$-~~1.26(B-V)^2$ \\

968:                       &$\!\!\! +~~0.29(B-V)^3$ &$+~~0.16(B-V)^4$

969:       \end{tabular}

970:     \end{eqnarray}

971:     

972:     and

973:     

974:     \be

975:     \label{eq:col1}

976:     V-[12]=4.33(R-I)+0.14$  for $(R-I)<0.72

977:     \ee

978:     

979:     \be

980:     \label{eq:col2}

981:     V-[12]=2.69(R-I)+1.40$  for $(R-I)>0.72

982:     \ee

983:     

984:     These relationships were derived from \IRAS observations of bright normal 

985:     stars. We convert from magnitudes to flux density using the 40.141\,Jy 

986:     IRAS $12\,\um$ zero point of \citet{cohen92}. This zero point is very 

987:     similar to the value used in Cohen et al. (1987) who obtained $V-[12]$ 

988:     colours in agreement with the WCA colours. The \ISOCAM LW10 filter was 

989:     designed to have a

990:     similar wavelength-dependent response as the \IRAS $12\,\um$

991:     band\footnote{see http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/users/handbook/}, 

992:     but they are not identical. The ISO $12\,\um$ filter has a redder

993:     blue cutoff than the the IRAS $12\,\um$ filter. Using these 

994:     relationships we obtain predicted IRAS flux densities and which we can 

995:     then convert to ISO flux densities, by the ratios of the colour 

996:     corrections for the stars. The ratio of colour corrections, 

997:     $K_{12\um}^{IRAS}/K_{12\um}^{ISO}$, as defined in the respective 

998:     handbooks\footnote{IRAS: 

999:     {\tt irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/IRASdocs/exp.sup/ }

1000:     and ISO: {\tt www.iso.esac.esa.int/manuals/HANDBOOK/}.}

1001:     is computed by the authors to be 1.11 for stars of temperatures 2000-10000\,K.

1002:     Hence we convert the IRAS to ISO flux densities by dividing

1003:     the predicted WCA flux densities by this factor.    

1004: 

1005:     The $V$ magnitudes and $B-V$, $R-I$ colours which we use when

1006:     applying \eqs\ref{eq:col0}, \ref{eq:col1} and \ref{eq:col2} to the

1007:     13 stars listed in Table~\ref{tab:stars}, are those derived directly

1008:     from best-fit template spectra. We apply for each star both

1009:     relationships, thus yielding 2 estimates of the $12\,\um$ magnitude. 

1010:     \eq~\ref{eq:iras} subsequently gives us 2 estimates of the flux density, 

1011:     from which we derive an average flux density.  The ratio of this

1012:     predicted \ISOCAM flux density to the initially measured \ISOCAM flux 

1013:     density, i.e. the {\it observed} flux density, is plotted in 

1014:     \fg\ref{fig:ratio}. We find a mean value of $1.01\pm0.17$ which 

1015:     we also mark in \fg\ref{fig:ratio}. This mean value of the flux density 

1016:     ratios includes the factor of 1.11 due to the colour corrections.

1017:     The ratios presented in 

1018:     \fg\ref{fig:ratio} indicate that, for our observational setup

1019:     at least, the flux densities are systematically overestimated for the

1020:     normal stars, with no apparent systematic variation in the offset

1021:     value with $12\,\um$ flux density.  Due to the large PSF of these \ISOCAM

1022:     observations, $6''$, slightly extended sources (galaxies) have a

1023:     similar response to the detector as unresolved (stars) and hence we

1024:     apply this correction to our entire catalogue (see

1025:     Table~\ref{tab:cat}).

1026:     Furthermore, the $1.01$ correction factor is not too dissimilar to the 

1027:     combined flux density correction found by \cite{rodighiero04} 

1028:     of 0.84 (from the combination of their projection bias, mosaic bias and

1029:     stellar flux density correction: $0.84\times0.915\times1.097=0.84$).

1030: 

1031:     

1032:     We are confident we have successfully excluded all stars which exhibit

1033:     unusual properties (\eg~Be-stars or those with dust around

1034:     them). As a test, we also calculate the ratio of predicted to observed 

1035:     flux density using using the $12\,\um$ flux density derived from the Kurucz 

1036:     stellar template. The ratio for the Kurucz template flux density is 

1037:     $1.05\pm0.18$. We note that the Kurucz value is within good agreement 

1038:     with the 

1039:     value from our template fitting procedure, given the error bars,

1040:     suggesting that the Kurucz models are not too far off at MIR wavelengths. 

1041: 

1042:     \bfig

1043:     \centering

1044:     \includegraphics[height=8.5cm,angle=270]{figures/correction3.ps}

1045:     \caption{Ratio of predicted \ISOCAM $12\,\um$ flux density (from template 

1046:       fitting and the relationships of WCA) to ``observed'' \ISOCAM 

1047:       flux density plotted against observed $12\,\um$ magnitude. The mean ratio 

1048:       is indicated by the horizontal solid line.}

1049:     \label{fig:ratio}

1050:     \efig

1051:     

1052:     \section{The $12\,\um$ Source Catalogue}

1053:     \label{sec:cat}

1054:     

1055:     Table~\ref{tab:cat} lists the full flux density-calibrated $12\,\um$

1056:     catalogue of 142 sources detected by \ISOCAM above the minimum

1057:     integrated flux density of $0.24\mJy$. All

1058:     available optical and NIR data are also given as well as

1059:     classification (star/galaxy) and the source of the optical

1060:     data. This catalogue is used to compute the faint galaxy

1061:     counts at 12$\mu$m in the companion paper  \citep{rocca07}. A

1062:     complementary paper on the luminosity function at 12\,$\mu$m is in

1063:     preparation.

1064:     

1065:     The uncertainties in the 12\,$\mu$m flux density

1066:     in Table~\ref{tab:cat} (column $[16]$) are obtained using: 

1067: 

1068:     \be

1069:     \frac{\delta S_{12}}{S_{12}}\simeq\sqrt{\bigg(\frac{\mathrm dS}{\mathrm S}\bigg)^2

1070:     +\bigg(\frac{0.047}{1.01}\bigg)^2} 

1071:     \ee 

1072:     The first term in the quadratic sum is the original relative

1073:     uncertainty in flux density provided by the source count

1074:     extraction with the MR software. The second term results from the

1075:     uncertainty in the $1.01$ mean correction factor applied to the MR 

1076:     flux density (see \sct\ref{sec:pred}): as the $1.01$

1077:     factor is measured over 13 data points (see

1078:     \fg\ref{fig:ratio}) with an rms dispersion of $0.17$ around the

1079:     mean, we approximate its uncertainty to $0.17/\sqrt{13}=0.047$.

1080:    

1081:     Only the first 10 lines of the catalogue are presented here. The full 

1082:     catalogue is available on the online version of this article.

1083: 

1084:     \begin{table*}

1085:       \caption[]{First ten lines of the complete $12\,\um$ source catalogue. 

1086:         The full catalogue will be available in the online version. The first 

1087:         column contains the source number. The second column contains the 

1088:         IAU designated naming with the prefix IES (ISO ESO-Sculptor). The third 

1089:         and fourth columns contain the 

1090: 	RA and Dec (J2000). The fifth column indicates the classification of 

1091: 	each source (G=galaxy, S=star). The sixth column indicates the source 

1092: 	of the $BVR$ magnitudes (ESS = ESS, USNO = USNO survey, OFFF = 

1093: 	off ESS area and not detected by USNO, SPIK = hidden by a 

1094: 	diffraction spike in ESS and not detected by USNO and SATD = 

1095: 	saturated in ESS and not detected by USNO. The following 10 

1096:         columns are, respectively the $BVRIJHK_s$ and the $12\,\um$ flux 

1097:         density and its uncertainty in mJy. The $B_{U}$ \& $R_{U}$ magnitudes 

1098:         from USNO, $BVR$ from ESS, \iband from DENIS and $JHK_s$ from 2MASS.}

1099:       \label{tab:cat}

1100:       \tiny

1101:       \begin{tabular}{@{}rccccccccccccccc@{}}

1102: 	\hline

1103: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

1104: 	ID & name & RA (J2000)  & Dec (J2000) & S/G & U/E/S &$B_{U}$&$B$&$V$&$R_{U}$&$R$&$I$&$J$&$H$& $K_s$&$S_{12}$ \\

1105: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

1106: 	\hline

1107: 	\noalign{\smallskip}

1108:  1 & IES J002337-295713 & 00 23 37.53 & -29 57 13.39 & S & USNO & 11.30 &       &       & 10.81 &       & 10.61 & 09.88 & 09.63 & 09.55 & $5.31\pm0.28$\\

1109:  2 & IES J002350-300559 & 00 23 50.09 & -30 05 59.72 & G & ESS  &       & 23.24 & 22.86 &       & 22.34 &       &       &       &       & $4.95\pm0.30$\\

1110:  3 & IES J002235-300430 & 00 22 35.59 & -30 04 30.96 & G & ESS  & 17.92 &       & 16.99 &       & 16.42 & 15.69 & 16.05 & 15.23 & 14.90 & $4.63\pm0.27$\\

1111:  4 & IES J002234-301115 & 00 22 34.51 & -30 11 15.51 & S & USNO & 13.10 &       &       & 12.12 &       & 11.58 & 10.69 & 10.16 & 10.00 & $3.73\pm0.21$\\

1112:  5 & IES J002333-301427 & 00 23 33.52 & -30 14 27.07 & S & USNO & 11.53 &       &       & 10.79 &       & 10.48 & 10.15 & 09.89 & 09.82 & $3.22\pm0.23$\\

1113:  6 & IES J002057-295728 & 00 20 57.72 & -29 57 28.86 & S & USNO & 13.19 &       &       & 12.31 &       & 11.54 & 10.79 & 10.28 & 10.16 & $3.18\pm0.52$\\

1114:  7 & IES J002305-300408 & 00 23 05.78 & -30 04 08.17 & G & ESS  &       & 17.46 & 16.36 &       & 15.82 &       & 15.73 & 15.05 & 14.67 & $3.14\pm0.19$\\

1115:  8 & IES J002104-295913 & 00 21 04.34 & -29 59 13.49 & G & ESS  &       & 20.75 & 19.57 &       & 18.92 & 18.39 & 17.29 & 16.20 & 15.29 & $2.31\pm0.15$\\

1116:  9 & IES J002302-300718 & 00 23 02.90 & -30 07 18.09 & G & ESS  &       & 19.49 & 18.67 &       & 18.27 & 17.95 &       &       &       & $2.24\pm0.15$\\

1117: 10 & IES J002113-301300 & 00 21 13.00 & -30 13 00.94 & G & ESS  & 20.42 &       &       &       & 18.98 & 18.45 &       &       &       & $2.08\pm0.15$\\

1118:       \noalign{\smallskip}

1119:       \hline

1120:     \end{tabular}

1121:   \end{table*}

1122:   

1123:   

1124:   

1125:   \section{Survey completeness}

1126:   

1127:   In order to use our \ISOCAM source catalogue to derive galaxy numbers 

1128:   counts, one needs to evaluate the completeness of the catalogue as a 

1129:   function of flux density.

1130:   We use two independent empirical methods. Firstly, we use the same method as

1131:   used in the previous section to determine the flux density of stars

1132:   (\sct\ref{sec:fc}), which we extend to those stars not detected by \ISOCAMc. 

1133:   The second method is based on the optical counterparts to galaxies

1134:   associated with \ISOCAM sources, but detected with lower

1135:   significance, in the interval $3\tau_w$ to $5\tau_w$.

1136:   

1137:   \subsection{Completeness from stars}

1138:   \label{sec:comp}

1139:   

1140:   The method is based on the following stages: i) selecting stars from

1141:   the 2MASS catalogue using their NIR colours, ii) confirming that

1142:   they are stars by template fitting (as in \sct\ref{sec:fit}) and

1143:   iii) using the results of the fitting to predict the $12\,\um$ flux

1144:   density from the optical colours.

1145:   

1146:   We select stars from the 2MASS catalogue as all objects with $H-K<0.3$,

1147:   $J-K<1$ and $K<14$ within the area of the \ISOCAM field. The two

1148:   colour criteria are the same as were used earlier (\eqs\ref{eq:bb1} 

1149:   \& \ref{eq:bb2}) and are typical of normal stars \citep{bb88,allen}. 

1150:   The limiting magnitude criterion

1151:   is intended to avoid selecting objects significantly fainter than the 

1152:   detection limit of the \ISOCAM survey ($F_{12\um}\sim0.2\mJy$ is 

1153:   approximately equivalent to $K\sim13$ mag), 

1154:   but is faint enough to allow for stars with some MIR excess to be included. 

1155:   The resulting catalogue contains

1156:   51 stars. We discuss possible selection effects at the end of this

1157:   section, especially the impact of stars with infrared excess.

1158:   

1159:   Using all available magnitudes from ESS, 2MASS, DENIS and USNO for each of

1160:   the 51 stars, we find the best fit template spectrum from the

1161:   library of \citet{lejeune97}, in the same fashion as in

1162:   \sct\ref{sec:fit} for the 22 stars detected by \ISOCAM.

1163:   We then use the optical-$12\,\um$ relations of WCA in \eqs\ref{eq:col1}

1164:   and~\ref{eq:col2} to estimate the $12\,\um$ flux density. Three of the 51 stars

1165:   which have predicted $F_{\rm 12\,\um}>0.2\mJy$ have fits with

1166:   $3<\chi^2<10$. For these 3 stars, we use instead the relation:

1167:   

1168:   \be

1169:   K-[12]=0.03\pm0.1 

1170:   \label{eq:k12}

1171:   \ee

1172:   

1173:   \noindent derived from the 13 well fitted stars of \sct\ref{sec:fit}.

1174:   For all other stars, we find a well fit spectrum with low $\chi^2$ ($<3$). 

1175:   

1176:   Of the 51 stars, 18 (including the 3 stars with $\chi^2>3$) have

1177:   predicted $12\,\um$ flux density above the detection limit, but were not found

1178:   by the MR source extraction software. 

1179:   This sample, including the 22 flux density calibrated, \ISOCAMc-detected 

1180:   stars is then used to determine the fraction of 2MASS stars detected 

1181:   by \ISOCAM at $12\,\um$ as a function of flux density. This result provides us 

1182:   with a first estimate of the completeness, presented in \fg\ref{fig:comp2} 

1183:   (red dotted line). The bins in \fg\ref{fig:comp2} have

1184:   equal sizes in log flux density space and the errors for each bin are

1185:   assumed to be Poisson.

1186:   

1187:   We now consider the possible selection effects. It is unlikely that

1188:   we have missed stars due to the colour criteria (\eqs\ref{eq:bb1} 

1189:   \& \ref{eq:bb2}) which are robust for normal stars, even those 

1190:   with a MIR excess. It is also unlikely that we

1191:   have included any galaxies as they would be poorly fitted by the

1192:   stellar templates.  {\it But it is possible that some} of the selected

1193:   stars have infrared excess and hence their true $12\,\um$ flux density is

1194:   larger than that predicted. An excess of $K-[12] \sim 1-4$ would be

1195:   equivalent to an increase of flux density equivalent to

1196:   $\Delta\log(F_{\rm 12\,\mu m})\sim0.4-1.6$. Hence if our field contains stars

1197:   with infrared excesses, then the completeness estimated here

1198:   represents an upper limit. We note however that only 3 out of the 22

1199:   stars detected by \ISOCAM have $12\,\um$ excesses. Therefore, we

1200:   estimate that the completeness may be overestimated by 15\% at most,

1201:   which is well inside the Poisson error bars. 

1202:   

1203:   Because the pixels are relatively large, $6''$, most galaxies 

1204:   appear unresolved to \ISOCAMc.  We can then assume that the

1205:   sensitivity of the detector is the same for unresolved objects,

1206:   \ie stars, as for resolved objects like galaxies. Hence the

1207:   completeness in galaxies is likely similar to that of stars and can

1208:   be used as such. If the completeness for galaxies is however affected by

1209:   the non-detection of low surface brightness objects, then again the

1210:   estimate plotted in \fg\ref{fig:comp2} is an upper limit. We also

1211:   suspect that this effect is smaller than the plotted Poisson errors.

1212:   

1213:   \subsection{Completeness from low significance sources}

1214:   \label{sec:weak}

1215:   

1216:   The second method provides an independent correction to the source

1217:   counts.  It is based on the association of \ISOCAM sources detected

1218:   at low significance with optically detected galaxies. A priori, some

1219:   of the \ISOCAM sources detected with a detection threshold located

1220:   in the interval $3\tau_w$ to $5\tau_w$ may be real. By examining

1221:   their association with the ESS optical sources, we can evaluate

1222:   their reality in a statistical way. We use PRETI as in 

1223:   \sct\ref{sec:dred}, but with a

1224:   detection threshold in wavelet space of $3\tau_w$. This threshold leads to

1225:   detection of 328 sources, to be compared with the $5\tau_w$ list of

1226:   142 objects presented in Table~\ref{tab:cat}. After

1227:   correcting the flux density of each object by the correction found in

1228:   section~\ref{sec:pred}, and removing the sources with a flux density below

1229:   the detection limit of $0.24\mJy$, we end up with 292 potential

1230:   sources (\ie the 142 sources of the original catalogue and 150 new 

1231:   sources of lower significance). 

1232:   

1233:   We then cross-correlate the 150 new $3\tau_w$ \ISOCAM

1234:   sources with the ESS catalogue. Using a $3''$ ($6''$) search radius

1235:   we find 74 (110) optical counterparts. From $f_{12}/f_R$ versus $f_B/f_R$ 

1236:   diagrams, like \fg\ref{fig:ircol2}, all these sources are found to 

1237:   be galaxies. As some of

1238:   these matches are by chance, due to the size of our search radius

1239:   and the space density of optical sources, we evaluate the excess

1240:   matches by offsetting the positions of the 2 data sets by increasing

1241:   multiples of half an arcsecond in RA and Dec. At large offsets

1242:   ($\ga6''$), the number of matches becomes roughly constant with a

1243:   value around 20 (55) for the $3''$ ($6''$) search radius. These numbers are

1244:   comparable with the theoretical numbers of 17 (70) sources expected

1245:   within the $3''$ ($6''$) search radius if one uses the sky density

1246:   of objects and assumes a random distribution. 

1247:   

1248:   We now assume that adding the sources from either the $3''$ or $6''$

1249:   list to the high-significance list of 142 sources, yields a nearly

1250:   `complete' source catalogue. This assumption is reasonable because

1251:   there is a large excess of \ISOCAM coincidences with the ESS above

1252:   the theoretical and empirical random values. A `real' object,

1253:   detected with $[12]<13$ (corresponding to the $12\,\um$ detection

1254:   limit), must have $V<22.5$ if it is a star-forming galaxy at $z\la1$. 

1255:   This selection is derived from typical, maximum $K_s-[12]$ colours ($\sim5$, 

1256:   see \fg\ref{fig:ircol1}) and 

1257:   typical, maximum $V-K_s$ colour ($\sim4.5$). The possibility

1258:   that some sources are not real is taken into account in the errors 

1259:   on the source counts which are derived in \citet{rocca07}.

1260: 

1261:   The resulting completeness, defined as the ratio of the uncorrected

1262:   number counts from the $5\tau_w$ list to the counts from the `complete' 

1263:   list, is plotted as a function of flux density in \fg\ref{fig:comp2} 

1264:   (solid line). The bins again have equal sizes in log flux 

1265:   density space, albeit smaller than before, and the errors

1266:   are simply Poisson. Note that the curve corresponding to a search

1267:   radius of $3''$ is indistinguishable from that with $6''$ plotted in

1268:   \fg\ref{fig:comp2}. 

1269: 

1270:   The sources counts extended to $3\tau_w$ are subject to several

1271:   biases: they probably include some sources which are false and might

1272:   still miss some real sources which would be above our $0.24\mJy$ detection

1273:   threshold. The former would lead to an over-estimation of the source

1274:   counts (although we include it in our error), and the

1275:   latter, to an under-estimation.  It is nevertheless significant that

1276:   the source counts from both the low-significance lists (with $3''$

1277:   and $6''$ search radii) yield a consistent incompleteness with that

1278:   derived from stars in the previous section (see \fg\ref{fig:comp2}).

1279:   Although difficult to quantify, the agreement of these 2 independent

1280:   methods for estimating the completeness indicates that these 2 

1281:   selection effects affecting the low-significance sources cancel out

1282:   to a certain extent. 

1283: 

1284:   Therefore both the full and dotted lines on \fgs\ref{fig:comp2} show 

1285:   that our \ISOCAM catalogue is complete to $\sim1$mJy, with a linearly

1286:   decreasing completeness in log flux density down to the our flux 

1287:   density detection

1288:   limit of $0.24$mJy.  A complete analysis of the \ISOCAMc-ESS

1289:   galaxy number-counts along with the fitting of theoretical models

1290:   are presented in the companion paper \citep{rocca07}.

1291:   

1292:   \bfig

1293:   \centerline{\psfig{figure=figures/completeness_gal.ps,height=6.3cm,angle=270}}

1294:   \caption{Completeness of the \ISOCAM catalogue as derived from both methods:

1295:     stellar template fitting to the 2MASS stars in the ESS field and the 

1296:     inclusion of lower significance \ISOCAM sources with a 

1297:     detection threshold between $3\tau_w$ and $5\tau_w$ and ESO-Sculptor 

1298:     optical counterparts detected within $6''$. The dotted red line shows 

1299:     the fraction of detected stars as a function of predicted flux density, 

1300:     with Poisson errors. The solid line shows the fraction of

1301:     galaxies detected with a high significance ($5\tau_w$) from all

1302:     galaxies detected with a lower significance ($3\tau_w$) as a function 

1303:     of predicted flux density, with Poisson errors.}  

1304:   \label{fig:comp2} 

1305:   \efig

1306:   

1307:   \section{Conclusions}

1308:   

1309:   We present the data reduction of \ISOCAM observations performed with

1310:   the LW10 filter centered near $12\,\um$, mostly in the field of the optical

1311:   ESO-Sculptor survey \citep{arnouts97,lapparent03a}.  The data reduction of the

1312:   \ISOCAM rasters is performed as by \citet{aussel99}: we use the

1313:   multi-scale vision model of \citet{br95} implemented into the MR

1314:   software \citep{starck99}, along with the PRETI algorithm aimed at

1315:   removing all image artifacts above the noise level.  Using a

1316:   detection threshold of $5\tau_w$ where $\tau_w$ is the noise level 

1317:   in wavelet space, we reach a detection limit of $\sim 0.24\mJy$. 

1318:   

1319:   The final catalogue contains 142 \ISOCAM sources with optical

1320:   counterparts in the ESO-Sculptor survey, which we complement by

1321:   optical and NIR magnitudes from the USNO B catalogue, and the 2MASS

1322:   and DENIS surveys.  Optical, near-infrared and  mid-infrared 

1323:   colour-colour diagrams

1324:   subsequently allow us to identify 22 sources as stars and 120 as

1325:   galaxies, which dominate at faint flux densities. By template fitting of 13

1326:   of these stars, we derive their predicted $12\,\um$ flux density using the

1327:   template optical colours combined with the optical-mid-infrared colour

1328:   relations of \citet{wca87}. By comparison with the observed \ISOCAM

1329:   flux densities normalized using the \IRAS $12\,\um$ zero-point, we measure

1330:   that the observed flux densities systematically overestimate the theoretical

1331:   flux densities by a factor of 1.16 (1/0.86). We use this offset to correct 

1332:   all flux densities (\ie stars

1333:   and galaxies).  We use a similar method (predicting the $12\,\um$ flux density

1334:   of stars) to determine the completeness of our survey as a function

1335:   of flux density. This completeness function is found to be in good agreement

1336:   with that from a statistical study of the coincidence of low

1337:   significance \ISOCAM sources with the ESO-Sculptor optical sources.

1338:   

1339:   The \ISOCAMc-ESO-Sculptor-Survey catalogue obtained here is used to analyse

1340:   the mid-infrared galaxy number counts in \citet{rocca07}. By using

1341:   the available ESO-Sculptor redshifts \citep{lapparent03a}, we will also

1342:   derive the $12\,\um$ luminosity function, which is a valuable tool for

1343:   interpreting the deep mid-infrared source counts and performing a

1344:   detailed study of the evolution of galaxies at $12\,\um$, a wavelength

1345:   range unavailable to the {\it MIPS} and {\it IRAC } instruments

1346:   aboard {it Spitzer} \citep{gallagher03}.

1347:   

1348:   \begin{acknowledgements}

1349:     We thank the referee for the many constructive comments improving the 

1350:     quality of this paper.

1351:     We give much thanks to Ren\'e Gastaud, Jean-Luc Starck, David Elbaz 

1352:     (SAp/CEA), Carlos del Burgo (Heidelberg) and Emmanuel Bertin (IAP).

1353:     We are also grateful to Damien Le Borgne (CEA) 

1354:     for aiding us in the use of his software. We thank Herv\'e Aussel for 

1355:     useful discussions. Part of this work (NS) was supported by the

1356:     \emph{Probing\- the Origin\- of the\- Extragalactic\- background

1357:       (POE)\/}, European Network number HPRN-CT-2000-00138.  This

1358:     publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky

1359:     Survey, which is a joint project of the University of

1360:     Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis

1361:     Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National

1362:     Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science

1363:     Foundation. Additionally this research uses the USNOFS Image and

1364:     Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory,

1365:     Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/). We also

1366:     thank Gary Mamon for kind permission to use data from the DENIS

1367:     survey. The DENIS project has been partly funded by the SCIENCE 

1368:     and the HCM plans of the European Commission under grants CT920791 

1369:     and CT940627. It is supported by INSU, MEN and CNRS in France, by 

1370:     the State of Baden-W\"u rttemberg in Germany, by DGICYT in Spain, by CNR 

1371:     in Italy, by FFwFBWF in Austria, by FAPESP in Brazil, by OTKA grants 

1372:     F-4239 and F-013990 in Hungary, and by the ESO C\&EE grant A-04-046.

1373:     The ISOCAM data presented in this paper were analysed using 

1374:     `CIA', a joint development by the ESA Astrophysics Division and the 

1375:     ISOCAM Consortium. The ISOCAM Consortium is led by the ISOCAM PI, 

1376:     C. Cesarsky.

1377:     

1378:   \end{acknowledgements}

1379:   

1380:   \bibliographystyle{aa}

1381:   

1382: \begin{thebibliography}{33}

1383: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[{{Abergel} {et~al.}(1996){Abergel}, {Bernard}, {Boulanger},

1386:   {Cesarsky}, {Desert}, {Falgarone}, {Lagache}, {Perault}, {Puget}, {Reach},

1387:   {Nordh}, {Olofsson}, {Huldtgren}, {Kaas}, {Andre}, {Bontemps}, {Burgdorf},

1388:   {Copet}, {Davies}, {Montmerle}, {Persi}, \& {Sibille}}]{abergel96}

1389: {Abergel}, A., {Bernard}, J.~P., {Boulanger}, F., {et~al.} 1996, \aap, 315,

1390:   L329

1391: 

1392: \bibitem[{{Allen}(1976)}]{allen}

1393: {Allen}, C.~W. 1976, {Astrophysical Quantities} (Astrophysical Quantities,

1394:   London: Athlone (3rd edition), 1976)

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[{{Appleton} {et~al.}(2004){Appleton}, {Fadda}, {Marleau}, a~{Frayer},

1397:   {Helou}, {Condon}, {Choi}, {Lacy}, {Wilson}, {Armus}, {Chapman}, {Fang},

1398:   {Heinrichson}, {Im}, {Jannuzi}, {Storrie-Lombardi}, {Shupe}, {Soifer},

1399:   {Squires}, \& {Teplitz}}]{appleton04}

1400: {Appleton}, P.~N., {Fadda}, D.~T., {Marleau}, F.~R., {et~al.} 2004, \apjs

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[{{Arnouts} {et~al.}(1997){Arnouts}, {de Lapparent}, {Mathez},

1403:   {Mazure}, {Mellier}, {Bertin}, \& {Kruszewski}}]{arnouts97}

1404: {Arnouts}, S., {de Lapparent}, V., {Mathez}, G., {et~al.} 1997, \aaps, 124, 163

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[{{Aussel} {et~al.}(1999){Aussel}, {Cesarsky}, {Elbaz}, \&

1407:   {Starck}}]{aussel99}

1408: {Aussel}, H., {Cesarsky}, C.~J., {Elbaz}, D., \& {Starck}, J.~L. 1999, \aap,

1409:   342, 313

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}(1996)}]{ba96}

1412: {Bertin}, E. \& {Arnouts}, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393

1413: 

1414: \bibitem[{{Bessell} \& {Brett}(1988)}]{bb88}

1415: {Bessell}, M.~S. \& {Brett}, J.~M. 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134

1416: 

1417: \bibitem[{{Cesarsky} {et~al.}(1996){Cesarsky}, {Abergel}, {Agnese}, {Altieri},

1418:   {Augueres}, {Aussel}, {Biviano}, {Blommaert}, {Bonnal}, {Bortoletto},

1419:   {Boulade}, {Boulanger}, {Cazes}, {Cesarsky}, {Chedin}, {Claret}, {Combes},

1420:   {Cretolle}, {Davies}, {Desert}, {Elbaz}, {Engelmann}, {Epstein},

1421:   {Franceschini}, {Gallais}, {Gastaud}, {Gorisse}, {Guest}, {Hawarden},

1422:   {Imbault}, {Kleczewski}, {Lacombe}, {Landriu}, {Lapegue}, {Lena}, {Longair},

1423:   {Mandolesi}, {Metcalfe}, {Mosquet}, {Nordh}, {Okumura}, {Ott}, {Perault},

1424:   {Perrier}, {Persi}, {Puget}, {Purkins}, {Rio}, {Robert}, {Rouan}, {Roy},

1425:   {Saint-Pe}, {Sam Lone}, {Sargent}, {Sauvage}, {Sibille}, {Siebenmorgen},

1426:   {Sirou}, {Soufflot}, {Starck}, {Tiphene}, {Tran}, {Ventura}, {Vigroux},

1427:   {Vivares}, \& {Wade}}]{cesarsky96}

1428: {Cesarsky}, C.~J., {Abergel}, A., {Agnese}, P., {et~al.} 1996, \aap, 315, L32

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[{{Clements} {et~al.}(1999){Clements}, {Desert}, {Franceschini},

1431:   {Reach}, {Baker}, {Davies}, \& {Cesarsky}}]{clements99}

1432: {Clements}, D.~L., {Desert}, F.-X., {Franceschini}, A., {et~al.} 1999, \aap,

1433:   346, 383

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[{{Cohen} {et~al.}(1992){Cohen}, {Walker}, {Barlow}, \&

1436:   {Deacon}}]{cohen92}

1437: {Cohen}, M., {Walker}, R.~G., {Barlow}, M.~J., \& {Deacon}, J.~R. 1992, \aj,

1438:   104, 1650

1439: 

1440: \bibitem[{{D{\' e}sert} {et~al.}(1999){D{\' e}sert}, {Puget}, {Clements}, {P{\'

1441:   e}rault}, {Abergel}, {Bernard}, \& {Cesarsky}}]{desert99}

1442: {D{\' e}sert}, F.-X., {Puget}, J.-L., {Clements}, D.~L., {et~al.} 1999, \aap,

1443:   342, 363

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[{{de Lapparent} {et~al.}(2004){de Lapparent}, {Arnouts}, {Galaz}, \&

1446:   {Bardelli}}]{lapparent04}

1447: {de Lapparent}, V., {Arnouts}, S., {Galaz}, G., \& {Bardelli}, S. 2004, \aap,

1448:   submitted

1449: 

1450: \bibitem[{{de Lapparent} {et~al.}(2003){de Lapparent}, {Galaz}, {Bardelli}, \&

1451:   {Arnouts}}]{lapparent03a}

1452: {de Lapparent}, V., {Galaz}, G., {Bardelli}, S., \& {Arnouts}, S. 2003, \aap,

1453:   404, 831

1454: 

1455: \bibitem[{{Efstathiou} {et~al.}(2000){Efstathiou}, {Oliver}, {Rowan-Robinson},

1456:   {Surace}, {Sumner}, {H{\' e}raudeau}, {Linden-V{\o}rnle}, {Rigopoulou},

1457:   {Serjeant}, {Mann}, {Cesarsky}, {Danese}, {Franceschini}, {Genzel},

1458:   {Lawrence}, {Lemke}, {McMahon}, {Miley}, {Puget}, \&

1459:   {Rocca-Volmerange}}]{efstathiou00}

1460: {Efstathiou}, A., {Oliver}, S., {Rowan-Robinson}, M., {et~al.} 2000, \mnras,

1461:   319, 1169

1462: 

1463: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(2003){Gallagher}, {Irace}, \&

1464:   {Werner}}]{gallagher03}

1465: {Gallagher}, D.~B., {Irace}, W.~R., \& {Werner}, M.~W. 2003, in IR Space

1466:   Telescopes and Instruments. Edited by John C. Mather . Proceedings of the

1467:   SPIE, Volume 4850, pp. 17-29 (2003)., 17--29

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[{{Gruppioni} {et~al.}(2002){Gruppioni}, {Lari}, {Pozzi}, {Zamorani},

1470:   {Franceschini}, {Oliver}, {Rowan-Robinson}, \& {Serjeant}}]{gruppioni02}

1471: {Gruppioni}, C., {Lari}, C., {Pozzi}, F., {et~al.} 2002, \mnras, 335, 831

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[{{Kessler} {et~al.}(1996){Kessler}, {Steinz}, {Anderegg}, {Clavel},

1474:   {Drechsel}, {Estaria}, {Faelker}, {Riedinger}, {Robson}, {Taylor}, \&

1475:   {Ximenez de Ferran}}]{kessler96}

1476: {Kessler}, M.~F., {Steinz}, J.~A., {Anderegg}, M.~E., {et~al.} 1996, \aap, 315,

1477:   L27

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[{{Lari} {et~al.}(2001){Lari}, {Pozzi}, {Gruppioni}, {Aussel},

1480:   {Ciliegi}, {Danese}, {Franceschini}, {Oliver}, {Rowan-Robinson}, \&

1481:   {Serjeant}}]{lari01}

1482: {Lari}, C., {Pozzi}, F., {Gruppioni}, C., {et~al.} 2001, \mnras, 325, 1173

1483: 

1484: \bibitem[{{Lejeune} {et~al.}(1997){Lejeune}, {Cuisinier}, \&

1485:   {Buser}}]{lejeune97}

1486: {Lejeune}, T., {Cuisinier}, F., \& {Buser}, R. 1997, \aaps, 125, 229

1487: 

1488: \bibitem[{{Oliver} {et~al.}(2002){Oliver}, {Mann}, {Carballo}, {Franceschini},

1489:   {Rowan-Robinson}, {Kontizas}, {Dapergolas}, {Kontizas}, {Verma}, {Elbaz},

1490:   {Granato}, {Silva}, {Rigopoulou}, {Gonzalez-Serrano}, {Serjeant},

1491:   {Efstathiou}, \& {van der Werf}}]{oliver02}

1492: {Oliver}, S., {Mann}, R.~G., {Carballo}, R., {et~al.} 2002, \mnras, 332, 536

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[{{Ott} {et~al.}(1997){Ott}, {Abergel}, {Altieri}, {Augueres},

1495:   {Aussel}, {Bernard}, {Biviano}, {Blommaert}, {Boulade}, {Boulanger},

1496:   {Cesarsky}, {Cesarsky}, {Claret}, {Delattre}, {Delaney}, {Deschamps},

1497:   {Desert}, {Didelon}, {Elbaz}, {Gallais}, {Gastaud}, {Guest}, {Helou}, {Kong},

1498:   {Lacombe}, {Li}, {Landriu}, {Metcalfe}, {Okumura}, {Perault}, {Pollock},

1499:   {Rouan}, {Sam-Lone}, {Sauvage}, {Siebenmorgen}, {Starck}, {Tran}, {van

1500:   Buren}, {Vigroux}, \& {Vivares}}]{Ott97}

1501: {Ott}, S., {Abergel}, A., {Altieri}, B., {et~al.} 1997, in ASP Conf. Ser. 125:

1502:   Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G.~{Hunt} \&

1503:   H.~{Payne}, 34

1504: 

1505: \bibitem[{{Pozzi} {et~al.}(2003){Pozzi}, {Ciliegi}, {Gruppioni}, {Lari}, {H{\'

1506:   e}raudeau}, {Mignoli}, {Zamorani}, {Calabrese}, {Oliver}, \&

1507:   {Rowan-Robinson}}]{pozzi03}

1508: {Pozzi}, F., {Ciliegi}, P., {Gruppioni}, C., {et~al.} 2003, \mnras, 343, 1348

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[{{Pozzi} {et~al.}(2004){Pozzi}, {Gruppioni}, {Oliver}, {Matute}, {La

1511:   Franca}, {Lari}, {Zamorani}, {Serjeant}, \& {Rowan-Robinson}}]{pozzi04}

1512: {Pozzi}, F., {Gruppioni}, C., {Oliver}, S., {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 609, 122

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1991){Reid}, {Brewer}, {Brucato}, {McKinley},

1515:   {Maury}, {Mendenhall}, {Mould}, {Mueller}, {Neugebauer}, {Phinney},

1516:   {Sargent}, {Schombert}, \& {Thicksten}}]{reid91}

1517: {Reid}, I.~N., {Brewer}, C., {Brucato}, R.~J., {et~al.} 1991, \pasp, 103, 661

1518: 

1519: \bibitem[{{Rocca-Volmerange} {et~al.}(2007){Rocca-Volmerange}, {de Lapparent},

1520:   \& {Seymour}}]{rocca07}

1521: {Rocca-Volmerange}, B., {de Lapparent}, V., \& {Seymour}, N. 2007, \aap,

1522:   accepted, astroph/0705.2031

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{{Rodighiero} {et~al.}(2004){Rodighiero}, {Lari}, {Fadda},

1525:   {Franceschini}, {Elbaz}, \& {Cesarsky}}]{rodighiero04}

1526: {Rodighiero}, G., {Lari}, C., {Fadda}, D., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 427, 773

1527: 

1528: \bibitem[{{Ru{\' e}} \& {Bijaoui}(1996)}]{br95}

1529: {Ru{\' e}}, F. \& {Bijaoui}, A. 1996, Vistas in Astronomy, 40, 495

1530: 

1531: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&

1532:   {Davis}}]{schlegel97}

1533: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1534: 

1535: \bibitem[{{Serjeant} {et~al.}(1997){Serjeant}, {Eaton}, {Oliver}, {Efstathiou},

1536:   {Goldschmidt}, {Mann}, {Mobasher}, {Rowan-Robinson}, {Sumner}, {Danese},

1537:   {Elbaz}, {Franceschini}, {Egami}, {Kontizas}, {Lawrence}, {McMahon},

1538:   {Norgaard-Nielsen}, {Perez-Fournon}, \& {Gonzalez-Serrano}}]{serjeant97}

1539: {Serjeant}, S.~B.~G., {Eaton}, N., {Oliver}, S.~J., {et~al.} 1997, \mnras, 289,

1540:   457

1541: 

1542: \bibitem[{{Starck} {et~al.}(1999){Starck}, {Aussel}, {Elbaz}, {Fadda}, \&

1543:   {Cesarsky}}]{starck99}

1544: {Starck}, J.~L., {Aussel}, H., {Elbaz}, D., {Fadda}, D., \& {Cesarsky}, C.

1545:   1999, \aaps, 138, 365

1546: 

1547: \bibitem[{{V{\" a}is{\" a}nen} {et~al.}(2002){V{\" a}is{\" a}nen}, {Morel},

1548:   {Rowan-Robinson}, {Serjeant}, {Oliver}, {Sumner}, {Crockett}, {Gruppioni}, \&

1549:   {Tollestrup}}]{vaisanen02}

1550: {V{\" a}is{\" a}nen}, P., {Morel}, T., {Rowan-Robinson}, M., {et~al.} 2002,

1551:   \mnras, 337, 1043

1552: 

1553: \bibitem[{{Vaccari} {et~al.}(2005){Vaccari}, {Lari}, \& {Angretti}}]{vaccari05}

1554: {Vaccari}, M., {Lari}, C., \& {Angretti}, L. 2005, \mnras, 358, 397

1555: 

1556: \bibitem[{{Waters} {et~al.}(1987){Waters}, {Cote}, \& {Aumann}}]{wca87}

1557: {Waters}, L.~B.~F.~M., {Cote}, J., \& {Aumann}, H.~H. 1987, \aap, 172, 225

1558: 

1559: \end{thebibliography}

1560: 

1561: \end{document}

1562: 

1563: