1:
2: %\documentstyle[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: % manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
6:
7: % preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
9:
10: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in AJ, 16 March 2008}
11:
12: \shorttitle{GO-10775 Reductions}
13: \shortauthors{Anderson}
14:
15: \def\hst{{\it HST}}
16: \def\subr #1{_{{\rm #1}}}
17: \def\supr #1{^{{\rm #1}}}
18: \def\minspt{$\buildrel{\prime}\over .$}
19: \def\secspt{$\buildrel{\prime\prime}\over .$}
20: \def\spt{$\buildrel{\rm s}\over .$}
21: \font\bital=cmbxti10
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25:
26: \title{An ACS Survey of Globular Clusters V: Generating a Comprehensive
27: Star Catalog for Each Cluster\footnote{
28: Based on observations with the NASA/ESA
29: {\it Hubble Space Telescope}, obtained at the
30: Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by
31: AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.}}
32:
33: \author{Jay Anderson}
34: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute,
35: Baltimore, MD 21218, USA; jayander@stsci.edu}
36:
37: \author{Ata Sarajedini}
38: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida,
39: Gainesville, FL 32611, USA; ata@astro.ufl.edu}
40:
41: \author{Luigi R. Bedin}
42: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute,
43: Baltimore MD 28218, USA; bedin@stsci.edu}
44:
45: \author{Ivan R. King}
46: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington,
47: Seattle, WA 98195-1580, USA; king@astro.washington.edu}
48:
49: \author{Giampaolo Piotto}
50: \affil{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova,
51: 35122 Padova, Italy; giampaolo.piotto@unipd.it}
52:
53: \author{I. Neill Reid}
54: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute,
55: Baltimore MD 28218, USA; inr@stsci.edu}
56:
57: \author{Michael Siegel}
58: \affil{University of Texas, McDonald Observatory,
59: Austin, TX 78712, USA; siegel@astro.as.utexas.edu}
60:
61: \author{Steven R. Majewski}
62: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia,
63: Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325, USA; srm4n@virginia.edu}
64:
65: \author{Nathaniel E. Q. Paust}
66: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute,
67: Baltimore MD 28218, USA; npaust@stsci.edu}
68:
69: \author{Antonio Aparicio}
70: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias, V\'ia L\'actea s/n,
71: E-38200 La Laguna, Spain; antapaj@iac.es}
72:
73: \author{Antonino P. Milone}
74: \affil{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a di Padova,
75: 35122 Padova, Italy; antonino.milone@unipd.it}
76:
77: \author{Brian Chaboyer}
78: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College,
79: Hanover, NH 03755, USA; chaboyer@heather.dartmouth.edu}
80:
81: \author{Alfred Rosenberg}
82: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias,
83: E-38200 La Laguna, Canary Islands, Spain; alf@iac.es}
84:
85: \affil{March 16, 2008}
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: The ACS Survey of Globular Clusters has used HST's Wide-Field Channel to
89: obtain uniform imaging of 65 of the nearest globular clusters to provide
90: an extensive homogeneous dataset for a broad range of scientific
91: investigations. The survey goals required not only a uniform observing
92: strategy, but also a uniform reduction strategy. To this end, we
93: designed a sophisticated software program to process the cluster data in
94: an automated way. The program identifies stars simultaneously in the
95: multiple dithered exposures for each cluster and measures them using the
96: best available PSF models. We describe here in detail the program's
97: rationale, algorithms, and output. The routine was also designed to
98: perform artificial-star tests, and we run a standard set of $\sim$10$^5$
99: tests for each cluster in the survey. The catalog described here will
100: be exploited in a number of upcoming papers and will eventually be made
101: available to the public via the world-wide web.
102: \end{abstract}
103:
104: % keywords:
105: {\em KEYWORDS:
106: Globular clusters: general ---
107: catalogs ---
108: techniques: image processing, photometric}
109:
110:
111:
112: % ********************************************************
113: % ********************************************************
114: % *****
115: % ***** SECTION 1. OBSERVATIONS
116: % *****
117: % ********************************************************
118: % ********************************************************
119:
120:
121: % S1
122: \section{INTRODUCTION}
123: \label{s.INTRO}
124: %
125: The Galaxy's globular clusters hold important clues to a large number of
126: scientific questions, ranging from star formation to stellar structure,
127: galaxy evolution, and cosmology. Many of these questions can be
128: answered only by surveying a significant fraction of the clusters and
129: studying the cluster system as an ensemble. Initial globular cluster
130: surveys (e.g., Zinn 1980, Armandroff 1989) focused on integrated-light
131: properties such as total brightness, colors, metallicity, and reddening.
132: Many subsequent ``surveys'' have been constructed by assembling various
133: data from the multitude of independent observations of individual
134: clusters (e.g., Djorgovski \& King 1986, Djorgovski \& Meylan 1993,
135: Trager et al.\ 1995, Lee et al.\ 1996, and Harris 1996). However, since
136: each cluster is typically observed with a different instrument and under
137: different conditions, there are limits to how homogeneous such a
138: patched-together data set can be.
139:
140: In an effort to construct a more homogeneous sample, Rosenberg
141: et al.\ (2000a, 2000b) surveyed 56 clusters from the ground, producing
142: star catalogs and color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) that can be directly
143: intercompared to yield relative ages and relative horizontal-branch
144: morphologies. Piotto et al.\ (2002) used WFPC2 snapshots to image
145: the central regions of 74 clusters and construct CMDs in a uniform
146: photometric system. These surveys have allowed clusters to be studied
147: on a more even footing than ever before, but the data in these surveys
148: still suffer from severe crowding in the cluster cores, irregularities
149: in the sampling, and gaps in the field of view. Thanks to its fine
150: sampling, large dynamic range and wide, contiguous field of view, the
151: Advanced Camera for Survey's (ACS's) Wide-Field Channel (WFC) on board
152: the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is the first instrument that can
153: improve dramatically on all of these shortcomings.
154:
155: The ACS Survey of Globular Clusters presented here was designed to
156: provide a nearly complete catalog of all the stars present in the
157: central two arcminutes of 65 targeted clusters. Such a uniform data set
158: has many scientific applications, and we are currently in the process of
159: using the catalog for broad studies of:\ binary-star distributions,
160: absolute and relative ages, horizontal-branch morphology, blue
161: stragglers, isochrone fitting, mass functions, and dynamical models. We
162: are also measuring internal motions and orbits for those clusters that have
163: sufficient archival data. In addition to addressing these major
164: scientific issues, one of the main legacies of this survey will be to
165: provide the community with a definitive catalog of stars in the central
166: regions of these clusters. This data base will serve as a touchstone
167: for studies of these clusters for many years to come, and as such it
168: should be as accurate and comprehensive as possible.
169:
170: The images that make up this survey consist almost entirely of point
171: sources, but each cluster has a different central concentration and density
172: profile. So, to construct a definitive catalog, we needed a star-finding
173: and measuring routine that works in a variety of crowding situations,
174: often across the same cluster field. With this in mind, we developed a
175: sophisticated computer program that simultaneously analyzes all of the
176: survey exposures for each cluster (one short exposure plus four to five
177: deep exposures for each of the F606W and F814W filters), to construct a
178: single list of detected stars and their measured parameters. The routine
179: was designed to deal well with both crowded and uncrowded situations,
180: and as such it is able to find almost every star that a human could find.
181: At the same time, the routine uses the independence of the pointings and
182: knowledge of the PSF to avoid including image artifacts in the list.
183:
184: This paper describes the data-reduction procedure we developed and the
185: resulting catalog we produced for each cluster. It is organized as
186: follows: We begin by describing the observations we have available for
187: each cluster (\S\ \ref{s.OBSNS}) and the preliminary set-up steps required
188: before the finding program could be run on the images (\S\ \ref{s.SETUP}).
189: Before diving into the details of our procedures, we first give an overview
190: of the general considerations that are involved in finding and measuring
191: stars in dithered, undersampled images of globular clusters
192: (\S\ \ref{s.OVERVIEW}). We then describe in detail our automated finding
193: and measuring program and use it to construct a catalog of the real
194: stars for each cluster (\S\ \ref{s.KSYNC}). We use the same program
195: to perform a standard battery of artificial-star tests for each cluster
196: (\S\ \ref{s.ASTEST}). We also consider the photometric errors that are
197: present in an ACS data set such as that collected here
198: (\S\ \ref{s.PHOTO_ERRORS}). Finally, we describe the photometric and
199: astrometric calibration and the assembly of the final catalog of positions,
200: magnitudes, quality characterizations, etc., for the detected stars
201: for each cluster field (\S\ \ref{s.CATALOG}). We end with a summary of
202: upcoming scientific results and additional studies that will complement
203: this survey (\S\ \ref{s.SUMMARY}).
204:
205:
206: %
207: % ********************************************************
208: % ********************************************************
209: % *****
210: % ***** SECTION 2. OBSERVATIONS
211: % *****
212: % ********************************************************
213: % ********************************************************
214:
215: % S2
216: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
217: \label{s.OBSNS}
218:
219: The goal of the ACS Survey of Globular Clusters (GO-10775, PI-Sarajedini)
220: was to image the central regions of a large number of globular clusters
221: in order to generate a homogeneous set of star catalogs. The clusters
222: are all at different distances and all have different central densities and
223: radial profiles, so there is of course no way to obtain identical data
224: for every cluster, but our aim was to come as close to this ideal as
225: possible.
226:
227: Each cluster was observed for one orbit in F606W ($V$) and one orbit in
228: F814W ($I$), except for M54, which was observed for 2 orbits in each filter.
229: In each orbit, we took one short exposure and either four or five deeper
230: exposures, depending on how many we could fit into the orbit. We chose the
231: exposure times for each cluster so that the horizontal-branch stars would
232: be unsaturated in the short exposure and the turn-off and subgiant branch
233: stars would be unsaturated in the deep exposures. For the typical cluster,
234: we reach about 6 magnitudes below the turn-off, to about 0.2 $M_{\odot}$.
235: Table~\ref{tab01} provides the details of our observations for each cluster.
236:
237: \input{tab01.tex}
238:
239: To give the survey as much spatial uniformity as possible, we stepped
240: our observations so that no star would fall in the inter-chip gap in more
241: than one of the deep exposures. Since the WFC field-of-view is actually
242: quite rhombus-shaped, we also made sideways steps so that the resulting
243: field would be as square as possible. Figure~\ref{fig01} shows the
244: coverage for a typical cluster that had four deep exposures.
245:
246: \begin{figure}
247: %\plotone{FIG01/ds9.ps}
248: \plotone{fig01.ps}
249: \caption{{\it Left}: the depth of the deep stack in the case of four
250: deep images. Most parts of the field are covered by all four
251: images. We dithered the observations to ensure that a star
252: will fall in the gap in at most one deep exposure; hence we
253: have at least three images covering all areas but the very
254: edges. {\it Right}: the depth of the short stack (1 or 0).
255: Some bright stars will fall in the gap of the short-exposure
256: image and can be measured (albeit poorly) only in the deep
257: exposures.
258: \label{fig01}}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261:
262: % ********************************************************
263: % ********************************************************
264: % *****
265: % ***** SECTION 3. PRELIM SET UP
266: % *****
267: % ********************************************************
268: % ********************************************************
269:
270: % S3
271: \section{PRELIMINARY SET-UP}
272: \label{s.SETUP}
273:
274: The HST pipeline generates two main types of output image. The {\tt
275: flt} images have been flat-fielded and bias-subtracted, but are
276: otherwise left in the raw WFC CCD frame, which suffers from a lot of
277: distortion. The standard pipeline also generates a {\tt drz} image for
278: each set of associated exposures. This is a drizzled, composite image
279: of all the exposures that were taken in the same visit through the same
280: filter. The {\tt drz} images have been resampled into a standard
281: distortion-free frame and tied to an absolute astrometric frame via the
282: guide stars. A careful photometric calibration has also been worked out
283: for them (Sirianni et al.\ 2005). Thus, the {\tt drz} images can serve
284: to establish both our astrometric reference frame and photometric zero
285: points. However, because they have been resampled, they are not well
286: suited for high-accuracy PSF-fitting analysis. For this reason, we used
287: the {\tt drz} images for calibration, but our final measurements came
288: from careful analysis of the individual {\tt flt} images.
289:
290: The first step in reducing the data for each cluster was to construct
291: a reference frame and relate each {\tt flt} exposure to this frame, both
292: astrometrically and photometrically.
293:
294:
295: % SS3.1
296: \subsection{Constructing a reference frame for each cluster}
297: \label{ss.ref_frame}
298:
299: To construct an astrometric frame for each cluster, we first measured
300: simple centroid positions for the bright, isolated stars in the F606W
301: {\tt drz} image. Using the WCS header information, we converted these
302: positions into a reference frame that has the targeted cluster center at
303: coordinate [3000,3000], the $y$ axis aligned with North, and a scale of
304: 50 mas/pixel. For all cluster orientations, this allows the entire observed
305: field to fit conveniently within a frame that is 6000$\times$6000 pixels.
306:
307: The next step was to relate each of the individual {\tt flt} exposures
308: to this reference frame. We started by measuring positions and fluxes
309: for all of the reasonably bright stars in each {\tt flt} exposure with
310: the program {\tt img2xym\_WFC.09x10}, documented in Anderson \& King
311: (2006, AK06). Briefly, the program starts with a library PSF, which was
312: constructed empirically for each filter using GO-10424 observations of
313: the outskirts of NGC~6397. These library PSFs account for the spatial
314: variations in the WFC PSF due to the telescope optics and the variable
315: charge diffusion present in the CCD (see Krist 2005). The PSF in each
316: exposure can differ from this library PSF due to spacecraft breathing or
317: focus changes, so we fitted the library PSF to bright stars in each
318: image and came up with a spatially constant perturbation to the PSF that
319: better represents the star images in each individual exposure. Using
320: the improved PSF, the program then went through each exposure and
321: measured positions and fluxes for the bright, isolated stars. The
322: exposure-specific, improved PSFs were saved for later in the analysis.
323:
324: We next found the common stars between the reference list and the star list
325: for each exposure. This allowed us to define a general, 6-parameter linear
326: coordinate transformation from the distortion-corrected frame of each
327: exposure into the reference frame. Since the photometry and astrometry are
328: more accurately measured in the {\tt flt} frames than in the {\tt drz}
329: frame, we improved the internal quality of the reference frame by
330: iteration. The final reference-frame positions and fluxes for the bright
331: stars should be internally accurate to better than 0.01 pixel and
332: 0.01 magnitude.
333:
334: Using this reference list of stars for each cluster, we computed
335: the final astrometric transformations and photometric zero points from
336: each short and deep exposure into the reference frame. The photometric
337: system at this stage was kept in instrumental magnitudes,
338: $-2.5\,{\rm log}_{10}({\rm flux}_{\rm DN})$, where the flux corresponds
339: to that measured in the deep {\tt flt} images for the cluster at hand.
340: It was convenient to keep our photometry in this instrumental system until
341: calibration at the very end (\S~\ref{ss.photo_calib}), because instrumental
342: magnitudes make it easier to assess errors in terms of the expected
343: signal to noise.
344:
345: % S3.2
346: \subsection{Stack construction}
347: \label{ss.stacks}
348:
349: The transformations from the individual exposures into the reference
350: frame allowed us to construct a stacked representation of each field.
351: We did not use these stacks in the quantitative analysis, but they were
352: an invaluable tool which enabled us to inspect star lists and evaluate
353: the star-finding algorithm. (It is worth noting that the {\tt drz}
354: images which were produced in the ACS pipeline were not adequate for
355: this for several reasons:
356: [1] the pipeline uses the commanded POS-TARGs to register the exposures in
357: a common frame, whereas our empirical star-based transformations allow
358: a much more accurate mapping from the exposures into the reference frame;
359: [2] the pipeline is set up to deal with an arbitrary set of images with
360: different exposure times, whereas our stacking algorithm could be
361: optimized for the 3 to 5 deep exposures plus one shallow exposure
362: that we have for each filter; and
363: [3] we wanted the image to be in our reference frame, but did not want
364: to resample the {\tt drz} image and thus degrade the resolution even
365: further.)
366:
367:
368: There is no unique way to construct a stacked image from a dithered set
369: of exposures. Our construction of the stacks was analogous to using
370: {\tt drizzle} (Fruchter \& Hook 2002) with {\tt pixfrac} = 0. We went
371: through the reference frame pixel by pixel and used the inverse
372: coordinate transformations and inverse distortion corrections to map the
373: center of each reference-frame pixel into the frame of each of the
374: individual F606W exposures. We then identified the closest pixel in each
375: of the 3 to 5 exposures and computed a sigma-clipped mean of these pixel
376: values.
377: %(It may seem strange to talk of sigma-clipping a sample as small as 3 to
378: %5 in size, but in fact we know how much the points should spread, and
379: %made extensive Monte Carlo tests to establish our rejection procedures.)
380: Finally, we set the value of the reference-frame pixel to this mean, and
381: moved on to the next pixel in the reference frame. This produced a
382: stack of the deep exposures.
383:
384: To deal with pixels that were saturated in the deep exposures, we
385: generated a similar stack from the short exposure (actually, a stack
386: from just one image is better called a resampling). We then constructed a
387: composite stack by starting with the deep-exposure stack and replacing
388: any pixel that was within 3 pixels of a saturated pixel with the
389: exposure-time-scaled value from the short-exposure stack. Finally,
390: we put the WCS header information into this composite stack for each
391: filter. Figure~\ref{fig02} shows an example of the stacked images for
392: a 100$\times$100-pixel region at the center of 47 Tuc.
393:
394: \begin{figure}
395: \plotone{fig02.ps}
396: \caption{({\it Left}) A 100$\times$100-pixel (5$\times$5-arcsecond)
397: region in the stack from the deep F606W
398: exposures of 47 Tuc;
399: ({\it middle}) same for the short F606W exposure;
400: ({\it right}) the combination of the long and short exposures.
401: \label{fig02}}
402: \end{figure}
403:
404:
405: We constructed such a composite stack for the F606W and the F814W
406: exposures for each cluster. These stacks were not used directly in
407: the reductions discussed in the next sections, but because they are a
408: simple representation of the scene without regard to the locations of
409: stars, they provide a critical sanity test of our finding and measuring
410: routines. They will also serve as excellent finding charts for future
411: spectroscopic projects.
412:
413: % ********************************************************
414: % ********************************************************
415: % *****
416: % ***** SECTION 4. OVERVIEW OF THE REDUCTION
417: % *****
418: % ********************************************************
419: % ********************************************************
420:
421: % S4
422: \section{GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FINDING AND MEASURING PROCEDURE}
423: \label{s.OVERVIEW}
424:
425: In the previous section, we constructed a calibrated reference frame
426: for each cluster and found the photometric and astrometric transformation
427: from each exposure into this frame. These transformations allowed us
428: to construct a composite stacked image for each cluster. The next step
429: was to construct a composite list of stars for each cluster.
430:
431: Our strategy for finding and measuring stars had to be tailored to the
432: scientific goals of the project and to the specifics of the detector and
433: fields. In this section, we discuss some of the issues involved in
434: constructing a catalog of stars from moderately undersampled images of
435: globular clusters, where the stellar density can vary by orders of
436: magnitude, and where there are both bright giants and faint main-sequence
437: stars together in the same field. In this section, we provide an overview
438: of the reduction; the details will be given in Section \ref{s.KSYNC}.
439:
440: \subsection{The goals of the survey}
441: \label{ss.GOALS}
442: %
443: There are many different scientific objectives for this data set:
444: luminosity-function analysis, isochrone fitting, binary studies, etc.
445: Many of these different applications would benefit from different sampling
446: strategies. For instance, luminosity-function (LF) studies do not require
447: precise photometry to sift stars into 0.5-magnitude-wide bins, but LF
448: studies {\it do} depend on high completenesses and reliable completeness
449: corrections. On the other hand, when fitting isochrones to CMDs, we do
450: not need a particularly complete sample of stars, but we do need a sample
451: with the smallest possible photometric errors. In order to satisfy these
452: competing requirements, we pursued a two-pronged strategy. Our primary goal was
453: to identify as many stars as possible, so that no future searches would be
454: necessary on these images. At the same time we sought to document which
455: stars were more likely to be better measured. This way, each application can
456: cull from the catalog the sample of stars that is best suited for the
457: analysis at hand.
458:
459:
460: \subsection{The need for automation}
461: \label{ss.AUTOMATION}
462: %
463: While we wanted our catalogs to be as comprehensive as possible, because
464: of crowding and signal-to-noise limitations we could not hope to identify
465: every star in every cluster field. The best we could hope for was to find
466: all the stars that could be found by a careful human.
467: There are hundreds of thousands of stars in many of these fields, so
468: finding stars by hand was not very practical. Add to this the need
469: to run artificial-star tests and it was clear that we had to come up
470: with a completely automated finding and measuring procedure. This
471: procedure had to:
472: (1) be optimized for the WFC detector and globular-cluster fields,
473: (2) find almost everything that a person would find,
474: (3) misidentify a minimum of artifacts as stars, and
475: (4) measure each star as accurately as possible. Below we discuss our
476: general approach to dealing with these issues. In the next section, we
477: will deal with the specifics.
478:
479: % S4.1
480: \subsection{Finding stars in undersampled images}
481: \label{ss.finding_undersam}
482: %
483: In well-sampled images, it can be useful to convolve the image with a PSF
484: in order to highlight the signal from the point sources over the random
485: pixel-to-pixel noise. In undersampled images, however, much of the flux
486: of a point source is concentrated in its central pixel. This undersampling
487: makes it counterproductive to convolve the image before finding, because
488: the stars already stand out as starkly as they can in the raw frames
489: (or in frames in which the brighter stars have been subtracted out).
490: An additional complication of undersampling
491: is that it is often difficult to determine from a single undersampled
492: image whether or not a given detection is stellar, so we need some
493: independent way to establish which detections are really stars.
494:
495: The best way to find stars in undersampled images, then, is to take
496: a set of dithered exposures and look for significant local maxima
497: (or ``peaks'') that occur in the same place in the field in several
498: independent exposures. The dithering is critical because it allows
499: us to differentiate real sources from warm pixels or cosmic rays.
500:
501:
502: % S4.2
503: \subsection{Iterative finding}
504: \label{ss.finding_human}
505: %
506: The stars used in \S\ \ref{ss.ref_frame} to relate the individual exposures
507: to the reference frame were found with a single pass through each image.
508: The finding routine found only stars that had no brighter neighbors
509: within four pixels. Such an algorithm finds almost all of the bright
510: stars in a field, but it misses many of the obvious faint stars in the
511: wings of the bright ones. If after finding the bright stars, we were then
512: to subtract them out and search for more stars in the subtracted images,
513: we could both find more faint stars and at the same time improve the
514: photometry for the brighter stars (by subtracting the fainter stars before
515: our final measurement of the brighter ones).
516:
517: There are two ways to perform such an iterative search. The first approach
518: is to make multiple passes through the entire field. This has the advantage
519: that it treats the field as a contiguous unit, but it is extremely memory
520: intensive and requires maintaining many large, intermediate images (the raw
521: images, subtracted images, model images, etc).
522:
523: An alternative strategy is to reduce one patch of the field at a time, doing
524: multiple passes on that patch before moving on to the next patch. Such a
525: patch must be larger than the distance over which stars can influence
526: each other, but it can be small enough to allow the transformations
527: to be linear and to treat the PSFs as spatially constant within the patch.
528: The patch approach also has an advantage for doing artificial-star (AS)
529: tests. When reducing the entire field as a unit, AS tests must be done
530: in parallel. To ensure that artificial-stars will not affect the crowding
531: they are intended to measure, we can add at most one test star
532: every 20$\times$20 pixels and are thus limited to about $\sim$40,000 stars
533: per run. On the other hand, with a patch-based approach we can do
534: AS tests in series, one after another, with no worry of them ever
535: interfering with each other. This allows the number of tests per run
536: to be limited only by computing time. For all these reasons, we
537: chose to reduce each field using a mosaic of local patches.
538: The details of this will be fleshed out in \S~\ref{ss.patch}.
539:
540: % S4.3
541: \subsection{Avoiding artifacts}
542: \label{ss.avoiding_artifacts}
543: %
544: One of the complications of studying globular clusters is that there are
545: almost always very bright stars and very faint stars in the same field,
546: and we want to study them both. The bright stars affect the faint stars
547: in two ways. First, they dominate the region closest to them, making it
548: hard to find faint stars that are too close. But the extremely bright
549: stars also affect an even larger region around them because of the mottled
550: wings of the PSF, which are very hard to model accurately.
551:
552:
553: To ensure that false detections, such as PSF artifacts or residuals from
554: imperfect subtraction of bright stars, would not enter into our sample, we
555: ended up insisting that any new stellar detection must stand above a
556: conservative estimate of the error in the subtraction of the previously
557: identified brighter stars. In practice, this means that there is a limit
558: to how close to a brighter star a given fainter star can be reliably
559: found. We determined that while such a requirement does exclude a small number
560: of stars that could have marginally been found by hand, it does an
561: excellent job of excluding non-stellar artifacts from the sample
562: (see Fig.~\ref{fig03} and \S~\ref{ss.setting_up}). The region of
563: exclusion as a function of brightness can easily be quantified by
564: artificial-star tests.
565:
566: \begin{figure}
567: \plotone{fig03.eps}
568: \caption{The stars found in a 120$\times$160-pixel region of NGC~6715 in
569: the vicinity of a bright star. The left panel shows the scene
570: without any stars indicated. The middle panel shows all the
571: ``stars'' that would be found if we did not consider the influence
572: of the bright star. The right panel shows the stars that were
573: found to be bright enough to be distinct from the profile of the
574: bright star (see \S\ \ref{ss.setting_up}). The different colors
575: and sizes of the circles correspond to the different passes through
576: the data. The large yellow circles are stars that were found in
577: the first pass. These stars are saturated in the deep exposures.
578: The red symbols were found in the first deep-exposure pass, with
579: the increasingly smaller green, cyan, and magenta symbols indicating
580: stars found in subsequent passes.
581: \label{fig03}}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: % S4.4
585: \subsection{Measuring stars in undersampled images}
586: \label{ss.measuring_undersam}
587: %
588: Once stars were found, we had to measure fluxes and positions for them,
589: and our measuring algorithms also had to be tailored to the particulars
590: of the detector and fields. Most of the signal from stars in undersampled
591: images is concentrated in the stars' central few pixels, so our fits
592: clearly had to focus on those pixels.
593:
594: There are two ways to measure stars in multiple exposures. We can
595: either measure each star independently in each exposure and later combine
596: these observations, or we can fit for a single flux and position for each
597: star simultaneously to all the pixels in all the exposures. The first
598: approach is generally better for bright stars, where each exposure presents
599: a well-posed problem with an obvious stellar profile to fit. The latter
600: approach is better for very faint stars, which cannot always be
601: robustly found and measured in every individual exposure. In our
602: procedures, we ended up computing the flux for each star both ways.
603: The vast majority of stars we found were bright enough to be measured
604: well using the first approach, so our basic catalog reports just the
605: independently fitted fluxes. We did, however, save the simultaneous-fitted
606: fluxes in auxiliary files.
607:
608: It is worth noting that although our aim was to construct a uniform sample,
609: it was not possible to measure all stars with the same quality. Some stars
610: were bright and isolated and could be measured with a large, generous
611: fitting radius. Other stars were crowded or faint, and only
612: their core pixels could be fitted. In a sense, each star presented a special
613: circumstance, and our general measuring algorithm had to be able to adapt
614: as much as possible to minimize the most relevant errors for each star.
615: The PSF provided the unifying measuring stick that enabled us to evaluate
616: a consistent flux for all the stars, even though the fit to different stars
617: sometimes had to focus on different pixels.
618:
619: \subsection{Summary of the considerations}
620: \label{ss.consid_summy}
621: %
622: In summary, our finding and measuring strategy had to take into account
623: the nature of the data set and the goals of the survey. We clearly needed
624: an automated procedure that could find stars simultaneously in multiple
625: dithered exposures. The procedure would have to be able to use multiple
626: iterative passes to identify faint stars in the midst of brighter ones,
627: and it would also have to be robust against inclusion of PSF artifacts or
628: subtraction residuals as stars. Finally, we needed to come up with a way
629: to measure a flux and position for each star, taking into consideration
630: its particular local environment.
631:
632:
633: % ********************************************************
634: % ********************************************************
635: % *****
636: % ***** SECTION 5. THE REDUCTION PROGRAM
637: % *****
638: % ********************************************************
639: % ********************************************************
640:
641: % S5
642: \section{THE REDUCTION PROGRAM}
643: \label{s.KSYNC}
644: %
645: We designed a sophisticated computer program ({\tt multi\_phot\_WFC})
646: that could deal with all of the above requirements in a generalized way,
647: so that the same program could be used to reduce the data for every
648: cluster in the sample, no matter how much crowding or saturation the
649: cluster might suffer at its center. The program takes as input the
650: 10 to 12 raw {\tt flt} images in each cluster's data set and the
651: background information about how each exposure is related to the
652: reference frame. It then analyzes the images simultaneously and
653: outputs a list of stars that it found, including a position, $V$ and $I$
654: photometry, and some data-quality parameters for each star. It
655: was set up to run in two different modes: finding real stars and
656: running artificial-star (AS) tests. In this section we describe the
657: mechanics of the real-star search. In \S\ \ref{s.ASTEST} we discuss
658: the AS operation, which differs only in the set-up and the output stages.
659:
660:
661: % S5.1
662: \subsection{The patch}
663: \label{ss.patch}
664: %
665: We chose to reduce each cluster field one patch at a time, both to
666: conserve memory and to facilitate artificial-star tests. The size of
667: the patch was a compromise between the desire to cover as much field as
668: possible in each patch in the real-star runs without covering too much
669: unnecessary field in the artificial-star runs. We thus arrived at a
670: patch size of 25$\times$25 pixels. Since stars at the edge of a patch
671: often have significant neighbors outside of the patch, each patch
672: allowed us to fully treat only its central 11$\times$11-pixel region.
673: We centered a patch every 10$\times$10 pixels, so the entire
674: 6000$\times$6000-pixel reference frame for each cluster was covered by an
675: array of 600$\times$600 patches.
676:
677: To set up each patch for analysis, we used the transformations from
678: \S\ \ref{ss.ref_frame} to map the location of the central pixel of the patch
679: into each of the exposures, and extracted a local 25$\times$25-pixel raster from
680: each exposure. We constructed a PSF model for each exposure using the
681: appropriate library PSF for that location on the chip and the perturbation
682: component found in \S\ \ref{ss.ref_frame}.
683:
684: We also determined the linear transformation from the patch frame into
685: the raster for each exposure. Using these transformations, we
686: intercompared the pixels for the individual $F606W$ and $F814W$ rasters
687: and flagged as bad any pixels that were discordant by more than
688: $5\sigma$ with the other images for that filter. We inspected a large
689: sample of the resulting rasters and verified that the obvious cosmic
690: rays and warm pixels were identified. This procedure enabled us to do
691: simultaneous fits to all the exposures without having to check each time
692: for bad pixels.
693:
694:
695: % S5.2
696: \subsection{Setting up the bright-star mask}
697: \label{ss.setting_up}
698:
699: One of the challenges in constructing a catalog from this
700: data set was to avoid including PSF artifacts as stars.
701: Stars brighter than an instrumental magnitude of $-12.5$
702: ($10^5$ $e^-$ total) often have knots and ridges in their
703: PSFs that can be confused with stars. These features are
704: hard to model accurately, and therefore cannot be
705: subtracted off well. The best we could do was to
706: conservatively estimate their contaminating influence
707: and make sure that the stars we found stood out clearly
708: above the bright-star halos.
709:
710: To do this, we identified several bright, isolated stars that
711: were highly saturated in the deep exposures and examined
712: their radial profiles. Since we had a flux for each bright star
713: from the short exposures, we could examine the radial profile
714: for the star with a scaling matched to the PSF. Ignoring
715: for now the diffraction spikes, we looked at the envelope of the
716: trend with radius and drew by eye a curve that encompassed all
717: of the obvious halo structure. Since the halo structure is
718: largely due to scattered light, it should have the same level
719: in F606W and F814W, though the detailed structure will be
720: different for the different filters.
721: Table~\ref{tab02} gives the upper-envelope profile we found
722: in the $f_{\rm any}$ column.
723:
724: \input{tab02.tex}
725:
726: To make use of this profile,
727: before we began the finding procedure for each patch, we
728: first identified all the bright stars that might generate
729: artifacts that could be confused with stars in the patch
730: by determining which stars in the bright reference list
731: (\S~\ref{ss.ref_frame}) were within 100 pixels of the patch.
732: For each of these nearby bright stars, we used Table~\ref{tab02}
733: to evaluate this upper-limit estimate for each pixel in the
734: raster for each exposure, based on the radial distance and
735: total flux of the bright star. This was recorded in a
736: separate raster called the ``mask'' raster. Later, when we
737: searched for stars, we required that a star stand out above this
738: level to be considered a possible stellar detection.
739:
740: The above treatment did not address the diffraction spikes.
741: Without masking them out also, an automated, multi-pass
742: routine would tend to find beads of false stars along the
743: spikes. The spikes are complicated to deal with since that
744: they emanate from the bright stars at different angles with
745: respect to the undistorted {\tt flt} pixel grid at different
746: locations in the field (due to the large distortion in the
747: WFC camera). Since the changes in angle were small, the spikes
748: were still largely directed along $x$ and $y$, at least over
749: the short distance of a patch. So when there was an extremely
750: bright star within 100 pixels directly to the left or right or
751: directly above or below the current patch, we looked for a linear
752: ridge in the patch that was directed towards the bright star.
753: Once the exact location of the spike was identified, we used the
754: $f_{\rm spike}$ column of Table~\ref{tab02} to mask out the
755: relevant pixels. The entries in this column were also
756: constructed by examining the radial profiles of spikes around
757: bright stars.
758:
759:
760: (We note that while the above approach successfully prevented
761: diffraction spikes from being identified as stars, we were
762: dissatisfied with the somewhat imprecise treatment of the spikes.
763: So in the time since the GO-10775 reduction, we have done a more
764: thorough characterization of the spikes'
765: angles with chip location. We verified that the spikes
766: are fixed relative to the detector and that their orientation
767: changes linearly with location on the chip such that, for
768: example, the spike along $x$ will be directed at $-4.0^{\circ}$ at the
769: upper-left corner of the 4096$\times$4096 detector, and at $-2.3^{\circ}$
770: at the upper-right corner. We have now folded this more precise spike
771: treatment into the reduction routine, so that when it is used on
772: future data sets, the spike treatment will be more rigorous.
773: We reiterate, though, that the star lists presented here should be
774: free of spike contamination.)
775:
776: An additional step in the set-up was to deal with saturated stars. Our
777: routines were designed to find stars by looking for local maxima in images.
778: Saturated stars tend to have a plateau of saturated pixels at their
779: centers, so they cannot be automatically identified as detections by
780: peak-based algorithms. So, in a pre-processing stage for each exposure,
781: we examined each contiguous region of saturation and artificially added
782: a peak at the center, so that the automated routine would know to find
783: a star there. The routine then fit the wings of the PSF to the unsaturated
784: pixels, allowing us to include the bright stars in the star lists and
785: luminosity functions. While this wing-fitting approach is the only
786: way to measure {\it positions} for saturated stars, we show in
787: \S~\ref{ss.satphot} that there is a better way to measure accurate fluxes.
788:
789: Finally, in addition to correcting the centers of saturated stars, we
790: also made a ``saturation map,'' which showed how many of the deep images
791: were saturated at each location within the patch. The saturation could
792: be either because of direct illumination or because of charge blooming.
793: The saturation map helped us to know where in the patch we should trust
794: the short exposures more than the deep ones.
795:
796:
797: % S5.3
798: \subsection{Finding stars in the patch}
799: \label{ss.finding_stars}
800: %
801: Once the rasters, transformations, PSFs, and other background information
802: had been assembled for each patch, we were finally ready to find the stars.
803: As we mentioned in \S\ \ref{ss.finding_human}, our aim was to construct as
804: comprehensive a catalog as possible, so we could not afford to find just
805: the ``easy'' stars, but rather we needed to find all the stars that could
806: be reliably found. Thus the finding process would have to involve
807: multiple iterative passes in which we first found the brightest stars,
808: subtracted them, then searched for additional stars in the residuals.
809: The goal during this finding process was not to measure the most accurate
810: flux and position possible. At this stage, we simply needed a good basic
811: idea of where all the stars were in the patch, and roughly how bright they
812: were, so that when we later made our final measurements, we could measure
813: each star better by removing a good model for the contribution of its
814: neighbors.
815:
816: At the beginning of each finding iteration, we constructed a model
817: for the raster for each exposure,
818: using the current list of stars and the appropriate PSF. We subtracted
819: this model from the original raster and also subtracted a sky value as
820: determined from the entire raster. This was the ``residual'' raster, and
821: there was one for each exposure. (The residual rasters for the first
822: iteration were just the sky-subtracted raw images, since there were not
823: yet any sources to subtract.)
824:
825: In each iteration, we constructed a map of potential new sources in the
826: patch by going through the residual raster for each exposure, pixel by
827: pixel. If we found a peak that had: (1) at least 10$\times$ the sky
828: sigma in its brightest 2$\times$2 pixels, (2) no unsubtracted brighter
829: neighbors or saturated or bad pixels within 3.5 pixels, (3) at least
830: 25\% more flux in its brightest 2$\times$2 pixels than the model of the
831: previously found stars predicted, and (4) more flux than the bright-star
832: mask at that point, then we considered it a possible stellar detection.
833: We added a `1' to the new-source map at the appropriate location in the
834: patch. We also kept track of the particularly high-quality detections
835: (those that had a distinctively PSF shape) in a separate
836: high-quality-source map. %At the end, the new-source map gave a count of
837: %how many times each putative source had been detected.
838:
839: Once we had gone through all the exposures, we scanned the new-source
840: map to see where in the patch multiple exposures might have detected the same stars. For
841: parts of the field where we had all 10 deep exposures available, a star had
842: to be detected independently in at least 5 of them to qualify for the list.
843: At the edges of the field, where we had coverage from only one or two
844: F606W and F814W exposures, we could not rely on an abundance of
845: coincident detections to validate each star. Yet we still wanted to find
846: the obvious stars in the outer regions. So, we allowed for a lower
847: threshold number of detections but insisted that the detections be
848: ``high-quality'' (having a good fit to the PSF). Table~\ref{tab03} gives
849: the number of detections required as a function of how many images
850: were available.
851:
852: \input{tab03.tex}
853:
854: After identifying a star in the patch, we then measured it by fitting the
855: PSF to the star simultaneously in all the exposures, solving for four
856: parameters: an $x$ and a $y$ position, and a flux in each of F606W and F814W.
857: Identifying a new star next to a previously found star can affect the old
858: star's flux, so we iterated the fitting process until we converged on a
859: position and a $V$ and $I$ flux for each of the stars in the current list.
860: These simultaneous-fit positions are not the best way to measure all
861: stars, but they do give us a robust starting point. The iteration was
862: completed when we had converged on flux and position estimates for all
863: the currently known stars in the patch.
864:
865: % S5.3.2
866: \subsection{The multiple passes through the patch}
867: \label{sss.multiple_passes}
868: %
869: The above narrative describes what happened each time we passed through
870: the patch looking for new stars. During the first two passes, we
871: searched only the short exposures, looking exclusively at the parts of
872: the patch that were saturated in the deep exposures. Thanks to the
873: pre-processing of the saturated regions (see \S~\ref{ss.setting_up})
874: the automated procedure was able to identify saturated stars as well
875: as unsaturated stars. In the third pass, we looked at parts of the
876: patch that were saturated in the deep exposures, but which had no
877: short-exposure coverage (for example, if the patch happened to fall
878: in the inter-chip gap of the short exposures, see Fig.~\ref{fig01}).
879: This way, we did not miss any of the brightest stars. Finally, in the
880: fourth and subsequent passes, we focused on unsaturated stars in the
881: deep exposures. We performed up to ten additional passes through the
882: patch. Usually, all of the stars were found after very few passes, but
883: sometimes there were particularly crowded regions that required
884: up to ten passes. Once no additional stars were found at the end of
885: a pass, we moved on to the measurement stage.
886:
887: Figure~\ref{fig03} shows an example of the stars found in a region of
888: NGC~6715. In the left panel, we show all the sources that would be found
889: by our algorithm if we were to find everything that generated a significant
890: number of peaks, without regard to the bright-star mask. On the right,
891: we show how well our bright-star mask rejected the non-stellar artifacts
892: around bright stars. The multiple-pass approach typically found two to
893: three times more stars than the single-pass procedure that was used
894: to identify the bright isolated stars in \S~\ref{ss.ref_frame}.
895:
896: % S5.4
897: \subsection{The measurement stage}
898: \label{ss.measurement}
899:
900: Once we had a final list of stars, we sought to measure each one as
901: accurately as possible. The simultaneous-fitting method used above works
902: best for very faint stars (see \S~\ref{ss.measuring_undersam}), but
903: the vast majority of stars in our catalog were bright enough to be found
904: and measured well in the individual exposures. So, we measured each star
905: in each of the individual exposures where it could be found, after
906: first subtracting off its neighbors. We measured a sky value from
907: an annulus between 3 and 7 pixels for the fainter stars
908: and between 4 and 8 pixels for the brighter stars (an estimate of the star's
909: own contribution is subtracted before the sky is measured). We then fit
910: the PSF to the star's central 5$\times$5 pixels, in the manner of AK06.
911: This worked well for isolated stars, but if the known neighbors contributed
912: more than 2.5\% of the flux in the 25-pixel aperture, we found it was better
913: to concentrate the fit on the centermost pixels. Such a weighted fit is
914: more susceptible to errors in the PSF, but it is less susceptible to
915: errors in modeling of the neighbors.
916:
917: In this way, we obtained between three and five independent estimates for
918: each star's position and flux in each of the two filters. From these
919: multiple estimates we computed an average position and flux and an
920: empirical estimate of the errors. We also constructed a few diagnostics
921: related to the quality of each measurement. We recorded $o_V$ and $o_I$,
922: the fraction of flux in the aperture coming from known neighbors, and
923: $q_V$ and $q_I$, which are derived from the fractional residuals in
924: the fit of the PSF to the pixels. The first pair of parameters can help
925: to select a subset of stars that are more isolated from nearby
926: contaminating neighbors, and hence presumably better measured. The
927: second pair can also help to select isolated stars, but this time by
928: highlighting the stars that are not parts of barely resolved, but not-easily-separable blends.
929: Section~\ref{s.PHOTO_ERRORS} will illustrate some ways to use these quality
930: parameters.
931:
932: % S5.5
933: \subsection{Generating the output catalog}
934: \label{ss.list}
935: %
936: Only the stars in the central region of each patch could be optimally
937: measured, since stars at the edges could have unaccounted-for neighbors
938: just outside the patch. So we added to our final list of sources all
939: the stars within the central 11$\times$11 pixels of the 25$\times$25-pixel
940: patch. We used the transformations from \S~\ref{ss.patch} to convert
941: the local positions into the reference frame. To ensure that no star
942: near the border of the patch would be counted twice, we only added stars
943: to the final list that were not already in the list.
944:
945: For each star, the main output file records:\ (1) a position in the
946: reference frame, (2) an instrumental F606W and F814W magnitude, (3) errors
947: in the positions and fluxes, (4) the number of images where the star could
948: have been found, and the number in which it was actually found, (5) an
949: estimate of the flux in the aperture coming from other stars, (6) an
950: estimate of the quality of the PSF fit, and (7) the simultaneous-fit
951: fluxes. We also record how the star was found: whether (best-case
952: scenario) it was found unsaturated in the multiple deep exposures,
953: unsaturated in the short exposure, saturated in the short exposure, or
954: (the worst-case scenario) it could only be found as saturated in the
955: deep exposures, because it fell in the gap of the short exposure.
956:
957: Note that for each star we kept track of both the average fluxes from the
958: individual-exposure measurements and the fluxes obtained from the
959: simultaneous fitting to all exposures at once. Since the vast majority of
960: stars were bright enough to be measured well in each individual exposure,
961: in the main catalog we report only the average fluxes. But we do
962: record the simultaneous-fit fluxes in auxiliary files. In addition, we
963: also preserve in auxiliary files the photometry from the individual
964: exposures so that variable stars can be identified and studied.
965:
966:
967:
968: % ********************************************************
969: % ********************************************************
970: % *****
971: % ***** SECTION 6. ARTIFICIAL STAR TESTS
972: % *****
973: % ********************************************************
974: % ********************************************************
975:
976: % S6
977: \section{ARTIFICIAL-STAR TESTS}
978: \label{s.ASTEST}
979:
980: The patch-based approach made it very easy to perform artificial-star tests.
981: The standard way of performing AS tests is to do them {\it in parallel}:
982: several sets of images are doped with an array of artificial stars, which
983: are far enough apart not to interfere with each other; the images are then
984: reduced blindly and the output lists are matched against the input lists,
985: to see which stars were found. The patch-based approach allows us to do
986: AS tests {\it in serial}, one artificial star at a time. This allows us
987: to do the whole set of AS tests in completely automatic fashion, and requires
988: no auxiliary image files.
989:
990:
991: % S6.1
992: \subsection{One artificial star at a time}
993: \label{ss.one_at_a_time}
994: %
995: An artificial-star test asks the question: If a star of a particular
996: magnitude and color is added at a particular location in the field, will
997: it be found, and if so, what will its measured magnitude and color be?
998: To answer this question, we simply define a patch that is centered at
999: the target location (as in \S\ \ref{ss.patch}) and then add the star,
1000: with the appropriate scaling, PSF, and noise, into the raster for each
1001: exposure. The patch is then reduced in a completely automatic way using
1002: the procedures described in the preceding section; this generates a list
1003: of all sources that were found and measured. The AS routine then reports
1004: the star that was found closest to the inserted position. Once this has
1005: been completed, the procedure can be repeated for the next artificial star.
1006: These artificial stars can never interfere with each other, because each
1007: one is added only to the rasters, which are temporary copies of the exposures.
1008:
1009: Each artificial-star test thus consists of a set of input parameters
1010: ({\tt x\_in}, {\tt y\_in}, {\tt mv\_in}, and {\tt mi\_in}), and the same
1011: output parameters as in \S~\ref{ss.list} for the nearest found star. The
1012: end user will later have to determine whether the recovered star corresponds
1013: to the inserted star. Typically, if the input and output positions agree to
1014: within 0.5 pixel and the fluxes agree to within 0.75 magnitude, then the
1015: star can be considered found. If the star was recovered much brighter,
1016: then that means it was inserted on top of a brighter star and was not found
1017: as itself. Also, if it was recovered more than 0.5 pixel away, then it is
1018: likely that the star itself was not found, but a brighter nearby neighbor
1019: was. It is of course equally necessary to deal with such issues
1020: in the ``parallel'' way of doing AS tests.
1021:
1022: % S6.2
1023: \subsection{The standard run of tests}
1024: \label{ss.standard_run}
1025: We generated a standard set of artificial-star tests for each cluster
1026: in order to probe our finding efficiency and measurement quality from
1027: the center to the edge of
1028: the field. We inserted the artificial stars with a flat luminosity
1029: function in F606W, with instrumental magnitudes from
1030: $-5$ ($10^2\, e^- {\rm \ total})$, to $-17$, and with colors that
1031: placed the stars along the fiducial cluster sequence, which followed the
1032: main sequence up the giant branch. Stars brighter than about $-13.75$
1033: are saturated in the deep images. The exposure times for the deep
1034: images for each cluster were chosen so that saturation would occur
1035: above the sub-giant branch (SGB). In the AS tests, when an added
1036: star pushed a pixel above the saturation limit, we treated that pixel
1037: as saturated in our finding procedure, but we made no attempt to model
1038: how the added charge would bleed up and down the columns. Thus,
1039: brighter than the SGB, the artificial-star tests should be treated
1040: more qualitatively than quantitatively. Nonetheless, the qualitative
1041: tests indicate that the completeness is essentially 100\% above the
1042: SGB throughout almost all the clusters. For the few clusters that
1043: are crowded and saturated at their centers, more sophisticated
1044: artificial-star tests may be required, but the fact that our data set
1045: has only one short exposure in each filter does limit what can be
1046: done when the bright stars are crowded.
1047:
1048: In order to sample the cluster radii evenly, we inserted the stars with
1049: a spatial density that was flat within the core, and declined as $r^{-1}$
1050: outside of the core. In this way, we performed the same number of tests
1051: in each radial bin. Our standard artificial-star run had about $10^5$ stars
1052: and will be made available along with the real-star run for each cluster
1053: when we release the catalog.
1054:
1055:
1056: % S6.3
1057: \subsection{Using the artificial-star tests}
1058: \label{ss.using_astests}
1059: %
1060: The most obvious use of artificial-star tests is to assess completeness.
1061: Figure~\ref{fig04} shows the completeness fractions as a function of
1062: radius for four clusters in our sample. NGC~2808 has a very crowded core,
1063: and even stars near the turnoff (F606W $\sim\!-13$, in instrumental
1064: magnitudes) have moderately low completeness in the core. NGC~5139
1065: ($\omega$ Cen) has moderate crowding, but a very broad core, and so
1066: the completeness does not vary much with radius within our field.
1067: In NGC~5272, the completeness is almost 100\% for the brighter stars in
1068: the core, but fainter stars are lost there. Finally, in the sparse
1069: Palomar 2 the completeness is almost 100\% everywhere for all but the
1070: very faintest stars.
1071:
1072: \begin{figure}
1073: \plotone{fig04.eps}
1074: \caption{The completeness fraction as a function of radius for four clusters.
1075: The lines show the completeness for bins 1.0 magnitude tall
1076: centered on {\tt mv} = $-5$ through $-15$. The faintest bin,
1077: at {\tt mv}=$-5$, is shown as a heavy line with filled-triangle
1078: symbols. The middle bin, at {\tt mv}=$-10$, is shown as a heavy
1079: line with filled-square symbols. The brightest bin, at
1080: {\tt mv}=$-15$, is shown as a heavy line with filled circles.
1081: The cluster main-sequence turn-off is typically at instrumental
1082: magnitude $-12.5$.
1083: \label{fig04}}
1084: \end{figure}
1085:
1086: Most symbols in Figure~\ref{fig04} represent about 2000 AS tests,
1087: so they should be accurate to about 2\%. However, because the field is
1088: square, the outer two bins contain fewer stars and should have
1089: errors of 3\% and 7\%, respectively. Also, the bottom curve
1090: (for {\tt mv}=$-5$) contains only half as many stars as the others,
1091: since the stars were inserted with a flat LF between $-5$ and $-17$.
1092: Thus, the turndown for the faintest and furthest points in NGC~5139
1093: and Pal 2 can be traced to small-number statistics.
1094:
1095: Artificial-star tests can also be used to tell us about photometric
1096: biases in the sample. Some fraction of sources in the field are
1097: superpositions of two stars that happen to lie nearly along the same
1098: line of sight. Sometimes, if the stars are not too close to one
1099: another, the two can be disentangled by means of our multiple-pass
1100: finding. Other times, the quality-of-fit parameter can help to identify
1101: blended stars that had a broadened profile, yet were too close to
1102: separate. Nonetheless, some superpositions are hard to identify and
1103: will masquerade as photometric binaries. The artificial-star tests can
1104: be used to evaluate directly the contributions from these various
1105: kinds of blends.
1106:
1107:
1108: % ********************************************************
1109: % ********************************************************
1110: % *****
1111: % ***** SECTION 7. PHOTOMETRIC ERRORS
1112: % *****
1113: % ********************************************************
1114: % ********************************************************
1115:
1116: % S7
1117: \section{PHOTOMETRIC ERRORS}
1118: \label{s.PHOTO_ERRORS}
1119: %
1120: In \S~\ref{s.OVERVIEW} we made the point that different scientific
1121: objectives are sensitive to different kinds of photometric errors.
1122: Unfortunately, it is hard to come up with a single number to characterize
1123: the photometric error for each star. When we combined the
1124: independent measurements for each star in \S~\ref{ss.measurement}, the
1125: agreement among the independent measurements gave us some handle on the
1126: measurement errors ($\sigma_V$ and $\sigma_I$). However, there are some
1127: systematic errors that cannot be detected in this way. For instance, a
1128: particular star will be found in the same place relative to the same
1129: neighbors in all the exposures, so any error related to that crowding
1130: will be the same for all measurements, and it will not show up in the
1131: r.m.s.\ deviation, There are two main things that prevented us from
1132: measuring each star as well as the r.m.s.\ errors would imply: the
1133: presence of other stars and errors in the PSF. In this section, we
1134: discuss ways to identify and mitigate these sources of error.
1135:
1136: % S7.1
1137: \subsection{Errors related to crowding}
1138: \label{ss.params}
1139: %
1140: The first way the magnitudes of a star can be compromised is by the presence
1141: of neighbors. Thanks to our multiple-pass finding approach, we were able
1142: to find essentially any star that a careful human could find. This enabled
1143: us to subtract off a good model of the neighbors of each star before we
1144: measured the star itself. This certainly improved our photometry, but
1145: neighbor subtraction can never be done perfectly, and it is invariably
1146: the case that isolated stars are measured better than stars with near
1147: neighbors.
1148:
1149: In the course of computing the four basic parameters for each star (the
1150: $x$ and $y$ positions and $V$ and $I$ fluxes), we also came up with several
1151: additional diagnostic parameters that can be used to tell us how well each
1152: star was measured. The most useful of these are:
1153: (1) $\sigma_V$ and $\sigma_I$, the r.m.s.\ deviation of the independent
1154: flux measurements made in the different exposures,
1155: (2) $q_V$ and $q_I$, derived from the absolute value of the residuals of
1156: the PSF fit for each star (scaled by the flux),
1157: (3) $o_V$ and $o_I$, the amount of flux in the aperture from neighboring
1158: stars relative to the star's own flux, and
1159: (4) $n_V$ and $n_I$, the number of images in which the star was found.
1160:
1161: These additional parameters can be used in two ways. One way to use
1162: them is on a star-by-star basis. If there is a particular star of
1163: interest in an unusual place in the CMD, then we can compare its
1164: measurement parameters against those of stars of similar brightness
1165: nearby to see if there may issues that might explain the photometric
1166: peculiarities of the star. Another way to make use of the additional
1167: parameters is to identify a subset of stars that are more likely to be
1168: better measured. The left panels of Figure~\ref{fig05} show the trends
1169: for the quality-of-fit and $\sigma$ parameters as a function of
1170: magnitude for NGC~6093. In each plot there is a locus of well-measured
1171: stars near the bottom, and a more distended distribution of stars with
1172: larger errors. We drew in discrimination lines by eye to separate the
1173: stars that were clearly poorly measured from those that were close to
1174: the well-measured distribution. A star had to be above the line in only
1175: one of the four plots to be considered suspect. The selections we have
1176: made put about half the stars into the well-measured sample and half
1177: into the more suspect sample. On the right, we show CMDs for the two
1178: samples. It is clear that many stars that have photometry which places
1179: them off the main sequence in the CMD also have larger internal errors
1180: and/or poorer PSF fits. This is the case both for stars well off the
1181: sequence and for stars that are just a little off the sequence. (The
1182: sequence is much broader in the left CMD.)
1183:
1184: \begin{figure}
1185: \plotone{fig05.eps}
1186: \caption{In the left panels, we show from top to bottom $\sigma_V$,
1187: $\sigma_I$, $q_V$, and $q_I$ as a function of instrumental
1188: magnitude for
1189: the stars in NGC~6093. The lines delineate the well-measured
1190: stars (those below the lines) from those that are less well
1191: measured (above the lines). The CMD in the middle panel shows
1192: those stars that fell above the line in at least one of the four
1193: plots. The CMD on the right shows the stars that appear to be well
1194: measured according to all the parameters.
1195: \label{fig05}}
1196: \end{figure}
1197:
1198: Figure~\ref{fig06} shows the same selection strategy for six different
1199: clusters, with a variety of central concentrations. For all the clusters,
1200: the quality-selection algorithm from the previous figure is able to identify
1201: stars that are not measured well. We note that in crowded centers there
1202: is often a tuft of poorly measured stars at around F606W $\sim -12.5$
1203: and F814W $\sim -12.5$ (the diagonal tufts in NGC~6388 and NGC~6441).
1204: We have visually inspected these stars in the images and found that these
1205: are stars near the crowded centers of clusters with nearby saturated
1206: neighbors that have bled into the star's aperture in one of the filters.
1207: Our modeling of the neighbors was not able to simulate such complicated
1208: artifacts, therefore a small number of stars suffered unavoidable
1209: contamination. Thankfully, these stars can be identified by their large
1210: photometric errors.
1211:
1212: \begin{figure}
1213: \plotone{fig06.eps}
1214: \caption{We show the low-quality {\it (left)} and
1215: high-quality {\it (right)} samples
1216: for six selected clusters. In NGC~6441 and NGC~6624, we see that
1217: the second sequence is not an artifact of the photometry but
1218: represents real, well-measured stars---likely a young, foreground
1219: population.
1220: \label{fig06}}
1221: \end{figure}
1222:
1223: Despite these clear improvements in the diagrams, the quality parameters
1224: should not be thought of as a panacea. Imposing quality cuts on the data
1225: often implicitly imposes other selections as well. For instance, stars that
1226: are more isolated are often better measured, so the quality cuts naturally
1227: select for stars in the less crowed outskirts of the clusters. If the
1228: scientific goal is to study a feature in the CMD that should have no radial
1229: dependence (such as the turnoff morphology), then this will not affect the
1230: science. But if the goal is to study blue stragglers or binaries,
1231: then any radial correlation between these populations and the quality
1232: parameters may well produce a biased sample. An examination of the quality
1233: parameters as a function of radius could mitigate these selection effects.
1234:
1235: % S7.2
1236: \subsection{PSF-related errors}
1237: \label{ss.psf_errors}
1238:
1239: The other kind of non-random error that can affect our photometry comes from
1240: the PSF itself. Ideally, we would like to measure each star with a large
1241: fitting radius or aperture (e.g., $\sim5$ pixels radius), so that our flux
1242: measurement for each star would have as little sensitivity as possible
1243: to the details of the PSF model. Unfortunately, almost all of the stars
1244: in our fields have neighbors within this radius, and it would be very
1245: difficult to disentangle the light from overlapping star images over
1246: such a large area. It was obviously necessary to use a smaller fitting
1247: region in order to focus on the most relevant pixels for each star.
1248: Our standard fitting aperture was 5$\times$5 pixels, corresponding to
1249: a radius of $\sim2.5$ pixels. When there was crowding, we often had
1250: to focus even more on the PSF core (see \S~\ref{ss.measurement}). This
1251: necessary focus on the central regions of the PSF made us particularly
1252: vulnerable to any variations in the PSF that affected what fraction of
1253: light fell within the adopted fitting radius.
1254:
1255: To understand how PSF variation may have affected our photometry, it is
1256: important to consider how the WFC PSF can vary with position or with
1257: time. Even if the PSF were perfectly constant over time, it would
1258: still have a different shape in different places on the detector due both
1259: to distortion and to spatial variations in the chip's charge-diffusion
1260: properties caused by variations in chip thickness (Krist 2005). On account
1261: of both of these effects, the fraction of light in the central pixel of
1262: the F606W PSF varies from 18\% to 22\% from location to location on the
1263: detector. If this is not accounted for, then fluxes measured by
1264: core-fitting can vary by up to 10\% (0.1 magnitude). On top of this,
1265: spacecraft breathing can introduce an additional 5\% variation in the PSF
1266: core intensity. To deal with these variations, our PSF model had a
1267: temporally constant component that varied with position, and a spatially
1268: constant component that accounted for how the PSF in each exposure differed
1269: from the library PSF.
1270:
1271: Our two-component PSF model did a good job generating an appropriate
1272: PSF for each star in each exposure, but the model is not perfect.
1273: Unfortunately, when the telescope changes focus, the PSF does not change
1274: in exactly the same way everywhere on the detector, and there are
1275: residual spatially dependent variations of a few percent in the fraction
1276: of light in the core. We considered constructing more elaborate PSF
1277: models, but there were simply not enough bright, isolated stars in
1278: these fields to allow us to solve for an array of corrections to the
1279: library PSF for each exposure. To improve the PSF this way, we would have had
1280: to measure the PSF profile out to at least 5 pixels for a large number
1281: of stars distributed throughout the field. The centers of most of our
1282: clusters were simply too crowded to permit us to model the PSF's spatial
1283: variation empirically. Thus, there is a limit to how well we can know
1284: the PSF in each exposure, and this uncertainty naturally impacts our
1285: ability to measure accurate fluxes for the stars. It is interesting
1286: to note that the same crowding that prevents us from using large
1287: apertures when we measure stars also prevents us from measuring much
1288: more than the core of the PSF in the centers of clusters.
1289: This further limits the accuracy of our measurements.
1290:
1291: The main effect that unmodelable PSF variations have on our photometry
1292: is to introduce a slight shift in the photometric zero point as a
1293: function of the star's location in the field. On average this shift is
1294: zero (thanks to the spatially-constant-adjustment part to the PSF), but
1295: the trend with position can be as large as $\pm$0.02 magnitude. These
1296: small systematic errors will not be important at all for
1297: luminosity-function-type analyses, where stars are counted in wide bins.
1298: But the errors can be important for high-precision analyses of the
1299: intrinsic width of CMD sequences or for studies of turnoff morphology.
1300: In general, the PSF variation affects the F606W and F814W filters
1301: differently, so the most obvious manifestation of this systematic error
1302: is a slight shift in the color of the cluster sequence as a function of
1303: location in the field. This variation, in fact, is very hard to
1304: distinguish from a variation in reddening with position, which
1305: is certainly present in many of the clusters.
1306:
1307: In an effort to examine these color residuals, we first modeled the
1308: main-sequence ridge line (MSRL), as in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig07}
1309: by tabulating the observed F606W$-$F814W color as a function of F606W
1310: magnitude. We next subtracted from each star's observed color the MSRL
1311: color appropriate for its F606W magnitude. This gave us a vertically
1312: straightened sequence (next panel of Fig.~\ref{fig07}), with a color
1313: residual for each star. In the right array of panels in Figure 7, we
1314: examine the location of the observed sequence relative to the MSRL for
1315: different places within the field. We see that in some places the
1316: cluster sequence systematically lies a little to the red or to the blue
1317: of the average MSRL.
1318:
1319: \begin{figure}
1320: \plotone{fig07.eps}
1321: \caption{{\it Left}: CMD for NGC~5272. {\it Next panel}: CMD
1322: straightened by MSRL. {\it Right set of panels}: the
1323: straightened sequence for an array of locations on the
1324: detector.
1325: \label{fig07}}
1326: \end{figure}
1327:
1328: In Figure~\ref{fig08} we plot these color residuals for four clusters as
1329: a function of location on the chip. For the first three, we see
1330: systematic residuals of $\pm$0.01 magnitude or so. We know that these
1331: errors are often related to the PSF because when we have explicitly
1332: measured bright stars with larger apertures, the systematic trends were
1333: reduced (even though the spread about the MSRL is often greater, because of
1334: the stray light that enters a larger aperture). These systematic errors
1335: may seem quite small, but from the r.m.s.\ spread of the independent
1336: and artificial-star tests we would expect color errors of less than
1337: 0.005 magnitude for each well-exposed star, so the systematic trends do
1338: limit how well we can evaluate the intrinsic width of the sequence for
1339: each cluster.
1340:
1341: \begin{figure}
1342: \plotone{fig08.eps}
1343: \caption{The spatial dependence of the color residuals for four clusters.
1344: We divide the 6000$\times$6000 field for each cluster into
1345: 12 horizontal slices, each 500 pixels tall in $y$ (the center is
1346: marked on the right). Within each panel, we show the color residual
1347: from the MSRL as a function of $x$ coordinate. In each of the
1348: first three panels the dotted lines represent a color
1349: difference of $\pm0.025$ mag. In the rightmost panel
1350: the dashed lines correspond to $\pm0.25$ mag.
1351: \label{fig08}}
1352: \end{figure}
1353:
1354:
1355: The cluster on the right (Pal 2) exhibits color residuals of
1356: $\sim0.20$ mag, more than ten times those for our typical cluster.
1357: These residuals are due to variable reddening for this low-latitude
1358: cluster and are largely unrelated to the PSF. Reddening has a similar
1359: effect to that of the PSF-related shifts, except that stars affected by reddening
1360: should be shifted along the reddening vector, while PSF-related shifts do
1361: not necessarily have their $V$ and $I$ shifts correlated.
1362:
1363: One way to mitigate the color effect is to introduce an array of empirical
1364: corrections across the field and adjust the color for each star according
1365: to this table. This procedure does tend to tighten up the CMD and allows
1366: us to see more structure (see Milone et al.\ 2007 for a study of
1367: the NGC~1851 CMD), but it is hard to do highly accurate work this
1368: way.
1369:
1370: \clearpage
1371:
1372: % ********************************************************
1373: % ********************************************************
1374: % *****
1375: % ***** SECTION 8. THE FINAL CATALOG
1376: % *****
1377: % ********************************************************
1378: % ********************************************************
1379:
1380: % S8
1381: \section{THE FINAL CATALOG}
1382: \label{s.CATALOG}
1383:
1384: The procedures described thus far have produced instrumental magnitudes,
1385: and positions in an adopted reference frame for each cluster. For
1386: our final catalog, however, we need to put the magnitudes onto correct
1387: zero points, and give positions in an absolute frame. In addition,
1388: improvements are needed in the photometry of the saturated stars, and
1389: corrections must be made for the effects of CTE.
1390:
1391:
1392: % S8.1
1393: \subsection{Improving the brightest stars}
1394: \label{ss.satphot}
1395: %
1396: In designing this project, we chose the length of the short exposures in
1397: each cluster in such a way that the horizontal branch would be well exposed
1398: but not saturated. Even though the brighter RGB stars were also of interest,
1399: it was not efficient to take more than one short exposure for each cluster.
1400: The automated finding program discussed in \S\ \ref{s.KSYNC} did find the
1401: saturated stars, and it measured a flux for each one by fitting the wings of
1402: the PSF to the unsaturated pixels; but such measurements tend to have
1403: large errors, both random and systematic.
1404:
1405: There is a better way of measuring the saturated stars.
1406: Gilliland (2004, G04) has found that when a star saturates in the WFC,
1407: its electrons bleed into other pixels, but the total number of electrons
1408: due to that star is conserved. If the gain is set to 2, then this
1409: information is preserved in the {\tt flt} image. We were able to verify
1410: that the procedure recommended in G04 works for our images, by using it
1411: on the stars that are saturated in our long-exposure images, and
1412: comparing the resulting fluxes with the accurate fluxes that we had
1413: measured for those same stars in our short exposures. The technique
1414: that we used was to measure each star in an aperture of 5-pixel radius
1415: and include in addition the contiguous saturated pixels that had bled
1416: even farther. We found that the fluxes that we measured in this way
1417: agreed well with those measured from the unsaturated images in the short
1418: exposures. Thus we felt confident in our use of the G04 technique to
1419: measure the saturated images in the short exposures, and used these
1420: measurements for our final instrumental magnitudes of those stars.
1421:
1422: Figure~\ref{fig09} shows a comparison between the CMD obtained from
1423: PSF-fitting and the one obtained from the G04 approach. The
1424: improvement in the upper parts of the CMD is dramatic, both in the
1425: continuity of the sequences and in the photometric spread. Note that
1426: towards the bottom of the middle plot the photometric errors increase
1427: significantly. This is because the 5-pixel aperture often includes more
1428: than just the target star, even for these bright giant-branch stars.
1429: PSF-fitting is clearly much better than aperture photometry when stars
1430: are not saturated, since most of our accuracy comes from the few central
1431: pixels, with their high signal-to-noise ratio. The final photometry uses
1432: the better measurement for each star: for stars that are unsaturated in
1433: the short exposures, we use the PSF-fit result, but for saturated stars
1434: we substitute the aperture-based result.
1435:
1436: \begin{figure}
1437: \plotone{fig09.eps}
1438: \caption{{\it (Left)} The upper part of the CMD for NGC~2808 for stars
1439: measured with the wings of the PSF. {\it(Center)} The same
1440: stars, but with the aperture-based approach. {\it (Right)}
1441: Combination of the two:\ PSF-fitting for unsaturated stars, and
1442: the aperture-based approach for the saturated stars.
1443: Magnitudes are instrumental; saturation sets in at around
1444: $-13.75$.
1445: \label{fig09}}
1446: \end{figure}
1447:
1448:
1449: We became aware of the G04 approach only after a large number of the
1450: clusters had already been measured. If we had known of it from the
1451: beginning, we would have incorporated it directly into our procedures
1452: instead of making it a separate post-processing step.
1453:
1454: \clearpage
1455:
1456: % S8.2
1457: \subsection{CTE corrections}
1458: \label{ss.cte}
1459: %
1460: The background in many of our short exposures is low enough to raise
1461: concerns about the impact of CTE effects on our photometry. The
1462: standard corrections for CTE effects are provided for aperture
1463: photometry with several aperture sizes, by Riess \& Mack (2004,
1464: RM04). Since our photometry comes from PSF fitting to the inner
1465: 5$\times$5 pixels rather than from aperture photometry, it is unclear
1466: which aperture is the most appropriate match to our measurements. In the
1467: light of this ambiguity, we proceeded as follows:
1468:
1469: We used Eq.\ 2 of RM04,
1470: %
1471: $$
1472: YCTE = 10^A \times SKY^B \times FLUX^C
1473: \times {y_{\rm readout}\over{2048}}
1474: \times {(MJD - 52333)\over{365}},
1475: $$
1476: %
1477: to estimate the CTE correction for each star, given the local
1478: sky background, the $y$-position of the star in the {\tt flt} images,
1479: the Modified Julian Date (MJD) of the observation, and the flux
1480: of each star as determined from the PSF magnitude. The quantity
1481: $y_{\rm readout}$ is the number of $y$ shifts experienced by the pixel;
1482: it is simply $y$ for the bottom chip and 2049-$y$ for the top chip.
1483:
1484: RM04 provide values of the exponents $A$, $B$, and $C$ for various sizes
1485: of the photometric aperture. We chose the values for a 5-pixel
1486: aperture, and made those corrections, typically $\sim0.02$ mag, to our
1487: PSF photometry. We then compared the short- and long-exposure
1488: photometry for the same stars, after both had been CTE corrected. We
1489: then examined the the magnitude differences between the short- and
1490: long-exposure photometry, and for almost all clusters the mean
1491: difference was zero, with no significant trend as a function of the
1492: input parameters $y$-position, sky background, and stellar flux. (See
1493: Figure~\ref{fig10} for an example.) In a few cases there was a
1494: systematic variation as a function of $y$-position; for these clusters
1495: we adopted an aperture size of 7 pixels in the calculation of the CTE
1496: corrections, and that eliminated the trend.
1497:
1498: \begin{figure}
1499: \plotone{fig10.eps}
1500: \caption{The left panel shows the difference between the instrumental
1501: magnitudes on the long-exposure frames and the short exposures,
1502: for stars in common, as a function of y-position, before the
1503: application of the CTE correction for the F606W observations of
1504: NGC~6809. The right panel shows the same stars after the
1505: CTE correction has been applied.
1506: \label{fig10}}
1507: \end{figure}
1508:
1509: \clearpage
1510:
1511: % S8.3
1512: \subsection{Photometric calibration}
1513: \label{ss.photo_calib}
1514:
1515: Thus far we have kept our photometry in instrumental magnitudes, because
1516: of their simple relation to counted electrons. (As stated in \S\
1517: \ref{ss.ref_frame}, instrumental magnitudes are simply $-2.5\log N$,
1518: where $N$ is the number of counted electrons in the first deep {\tt flt}
1519: image.) We now need to put our magnitudes on a correct zero point.
1520:
1521: Unfortunately, our instrumental magnitudes refer to {\tt flt} images,
1522: but the zero point definitions provided by STScI refer to {\tt drz}
1523: images. We therefore measured a few dozen isolated bright stars in the
1524: the {\tt drz} images, using the procedure detailed in Bedin et al.\,
1525: (2005). We then used the encircled-energy corrections and the zero
1526: points given by Sirianni et al.\, (2005, S05) to arrive at calibrated
1527: VEGAMAG photometry:
1528: %
1529: $$
1530: m_{\rm filter} =
1531: - 2.5 ~ \log_{10} \frac{I_{\rm e^-}}{exptime}
1532: + Zp^{\rm filter}
1533: - \Delta m_{AP_{0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}\!5}-AP_{\infty}}^{\rm filter}
1534: - \Delta m_{PSF-AP_{0.\!\!^{\prime\prime}\!5}}^{\rm filter},
1535: $$
1536: %
1537: where ``filter'' refers to either F606W or F814W. The first term
1538: on the right refers to the PSF-fitting photometry in the {\tt flt} images,
1539: the second term is the zeropoint (from S05's Table 10), and the third term
1540: is the correction from the 0\secspt5 aperture to the nominally infinite
1541: aperture (from S05's Table 5). The final term must be measured empirically
1542: as the difference between our PSF-fitting photometry and the
1543: 0\secspt5-aperture photometry in the {\tt drz} image. This is
1544: typically close to zero, since our PSFs have been normalized to have
1545: unit volume within a radius of 10 {\tt flt} pixels.
1546:
1547: Figure~\ref{fig11} shows the {\tt flt}$-${\tt drz} term (the fourth
1548: term) for several clusters for which it was easy to measure. Several of
1549: our clusters were so crowded---even in the outskirts---that we could not
1550: find enough isolated, unsaturated stars to measure an uncontaminated
1551: flux within the 0\secspt5 calibration radius. Since the offset appears
1552: to be constant (as it should be), we simply adopted the average value
1553: over all the clusters ($-0.02$ magnitude). We expect the absolute
1554: calibration to be accurate to about 0.01 magnitude for the typical
1555: cluster, but because of focus variations that affect the PSF (see
1556: \S~\ref{ss.psf_errors}), the zero-point errors can approach 0.02
1557: magnitude and can vary with position in the field.
1558:
1559: \begin{figure}
1560: \plotone{fig11.eps}
1561: \caption{The zero-point difference between the PSF-fitting photometry on
1562: the {\tt flt} images and the 0\secspt5-aperture on the {\tt
1563: drz} images, determined empirically for several clusters. The
1564: error bars indicate the range of stars measured for that cluster,
1565: reflecting both random errors and possible systematic errors with
1566: position. The dashed line shows the $-0.02$ value adopted as the
1567: average. The PSF for the E3 images was observed to be more out of
1568: focus than for any other cluster. Also, the E3 field is sparse,
1569: which makes it hard to improve the PSF model with an accurate
1570: perturbation PSF.
1571: \label{fig11}}
1572: \end{figure}
1573:
1574: \clearpage
1575:
1576: % S8.4
1577: \subsection{Absolute astrometric frame}
1578: \label{ss.abs_astrom}
1579:
1580: The reference frame we adopted for each cluster was based on the WCS
1581: information that the reduction pipeline had placed in the header of the
1582: {\tt drz} image. (See \S\ \ref{ss.ref_frame}.) We expect the absolute
1583: astrometric zero point for this frame to be accurate only to
1584: 1--2\arcsec, since that is what can be expected from errors of the
1585: absolute positions of HST's guide stars (Koekemoer et al.\, 2005).
1586:
1587: To get zero points that were more accurate, we downloaded the 2MASS
1588: point-source survey for for the region of each cluster, and found
1589: between 40 and 1500 reference stars that we were able to match up with
1590: stars in our lists.
1591:
1592: We then compared our absolute positions against the absolute positions
1593: of the same stars in the 2MASS catalog, and found that the two frames
1594: were typically offset by $\sim$1.5\arcsec . Figure~\ref{fig12} shows
1595: the distribution of offsets for the ensemble of clusters. The typical
1596: shift is consistent with the expected astrometric accuracy of HST's
1597: guide-star catalog. Each measured shift came from averaging many tens of
1598: stars, each with a typical residual of 0\secspt15. Thus our final absolute
1599: frame for each cluster should have an absolute accuracy much better than
1600: this. (The absolute accuracy of 2MASS positions is given as 15 mas in
1601: Skrutskie et al.\, 2006.) We adjusted the WCS header in each of our
1602: stacked images (which will be included with the catalog), to reflect the
1603: improved absolute frame.
1604:
1605: \begin{figure}
1606: \plotone{fig12.eps}
1607: \caption{Offsets between absolute positions constructed from the WCS header
1608: of the {\tt drz}-frame and positions given in the 2MASS catalog.
1609: Each point represents one cluster. The dotted circle corresponds
1610: to 1\arcsec\, (20 pixels). Positions in our final catalog have
1611: been shifted to agree with the 2MASS zero points.
1612: \label{fig12}}
1613: \end{figure}
1614:
1615:
1616: The relative positions of stars in our field should be much more
1617: accurate than their absolute zero point (15 mas corresponds to 0.3 pixel).
1618: The non-linear part of the WFC distortion solution is accurate to better
1619: than 0.01 pixel (0.5 mas) in a global sense (see Anderson 2005), which
1620: is about the random accuracy with which we can measure a bright star in
1621: a single exposure. Recently, it has been discovered that the linear
1622: terms of the distortion solution have been changing slowly over time
1623: (see Anderson 2007). Since our reference frames were based on the {\tt
1624: drz} images (which had not been corrected for this effect), our final
1625: frames contain an error of about 0.3 pixel in the off-axis linear terms.
1626: Users are therefore cautioned to adopt general 6-parameter linear
1627: transformations when relating our frame to other frames. If such
1628: transformations are made, our positions should be globally accurate to
1629: 0.01 pixel across the field.
1630:
1631:
1632: % S8.5
1633: \subsection{The main catalog}
1634: \label{ss.final_cat}
1635: %
1636: Our entire catalog contains over 6 million stars for 65 clusters, with a
1637: median number of 67,000 stars per cluster. Our procedures generated a
1638: large amount of information for each star in each cluster, but most
1639: users will need only the high-level data for each star. So for each
1640: cluster we produced a single file called {\tt NGCXXXX.RDVIQ.cal}, which
1641: has one line for each star found. The columns give reference-frame
1642: position, calibrated (i.e., zero-pointed) magnitudes, errors, calibrated
1643: RA and Dec, and some general measurement-quality information. The
1644: column by column description for this file is given in
1645: Table~\ref{tab04}.
1646:
1647: \input{tab04.tex}
1648:
1649: In addition, for each cluster we generated several auxiliary files,
1650: which contain the simultaneous-fit fluxes, the exposure-by-exposure
1651: photometry, and much more. Finally, we also put together a similar set
1652: of files for the artificial-star tests, along with the list of input
1653: parameters ({\tt x\_in}, {\tt y\_in}, {\tt mv\_in}, and {\tt mi\_in}).
1654: The stacked image in each color will be made available along with the
1655: catalog for each cluster.
1656:
1657:
1658: \clearpage
1659:
1660: % ********************************************************
1661: % ********************************************************
1662: % *****
1663: % ***** SECTION 9. SUMMARY
1664: % *****
1665: % ********************************************************
1666: % ********************************************************
1667:
1668:
1669: % S9
1670: \section{SUMMARY}
1671: \label{s.SUMMARY}
1672: %
1673: The ACS Survey of Globular Clusters is the first truly uniform, deep
1674: survey of the central regions of a large number of Galactic globular
1675: clusters. The observations for each of the 65 clusters were carefully
1676: planned in order to provide even spatial coverage of a 3$\times$3-arcminute
1677: region near the center of each cluster. To make use of the uniformity
1678: of the observations, we developed a reduction strategy that would
1679: reduce the data set for each cluster in an automated way, finding as
1680: many stars as possible while at the same time minimizing the inclusion
1681: of false detections. The stars found were measured as accurately as
1682: possible with the best available PSF models.
1683:
1684: We adjusted the exposure times for individual clusters in such a way
1685: that the final catalog of stars is largely complete down to
1686: 0.2\,$M_{\odot}$ for the less crowded clusters. We hope that our nearly
1687: definitive list of stars will make it easier for future researchers to
1688: cross-identify stars in past and future cluster observations.
1689:
1690: In addition to the catalog of real stars, we also constructed a standard
1691: catalog of artificial-star tests for each cluster that can help assess
1692: any incompleteness or photometric biases in the sample. We plan to make
1693: this catalog public in the near future with full access to the
1694: photometric and astrometric data for each of the 65 clusters via the
1695: world-wide web.
1696:
1697: Even a cursory glance at the many CMDs in this survey shows that while
1698: the clusters all have the same general features, each cluster contains
1699: a unique population of stars, representative of its particular
1700: star-formation and dynamical history. An early version of this catalog
1701: has already led to several papers, including:\
1702: (1) a study of clusters with no previous HST observations
1703: (Sarajedini et al.\ 2007);
1704: (2) the creation of a set of stellar evolutionary tracks matching
1705: our photometric system (Dotter {\ al.}\, 2007);
1706: (3) population analysis of the M54/Sgr Color-Magnitude Diagram
1707: (Siegel et al.\ 2007); and
1708: (4) discovery of the multiple subgiant branch of NGC~1851
1709: (Milone et al.\ 2007).
1710:
1711: Additional papers are in preparation to study radial profiles,
1712: relative ages, cluster mass functions and mass segregation, the
1713: Sagittarius clusters, horizontal-branch morphology, the binary populations
1714: and their radial gradients, blue stragglers, internal proper motions, and
1715: dynamical families of clusters.
1716:
1717: \acknowledgements
1718:
1719: The Co-I's based in the United States acknowledge the support of STScI
1720: grant GO-10775. We thank the anonymous referee for thoughtful comments
1721: that helped us make this more accessible to the community.
1722:
1723: \references
1724:
1725: \parindent -0.10in
1726: \narrower
1727:
1728: Anderson, J. \& King, I. R. 2006, ACS/ISR 2006-01,
1729: PSFs, Photometry, and Astrometry for the ACS/WFC
1730:
1731: Anderson, J. 2007, ACS/ISR 2007-08,
1732: Variation of the Distortion Solution of the WFC.
1733:
1734: Armandroff, T. E. 1989, AJ, 97, 375
1735:
1736: Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Salaris, M., Momany, Y., \& Pietrinferni, A. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1038
1737:
1738: Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., King, I. R., \& Anderson, J. 2003, AJ, 126, 247
1739:
1740: Djorgovski, S., \& Meylan, G. 1993, Structure and Dynamics of Globular
1741: Clusters (eds.\ S.\ Djorgovski \& G.\ Meylan), ASPCS, vol.\ 50 (San
1742: Francisco:\ Astron.\ Soc.\ Pacific)
1743:
1744: Djorgovski, S., \& King, I. R. 1986, ApJ, 305, L61
1745:
1746: Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi\`c D., Baron, E., Ferguson, J. W., Sarajedini, A., \& Anderson, J. 2007, AJ, 134, 376
1747:
1748: Fruchter, A. S., \& Hook, R. N. 2002 PASP 114 792
1749:
1750: Gilliland, R. 2004, ACS/ISR 2004-01,
1751: CCD Gains, Full Well Depths, and Linearity up to and Beyond
1752: Saturation
1753:
1754: Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
1755:
1756: Koekemoer, A. M., McLean, B., McMaster, M., \& Jenkner, H. 2005, ACS/ISR
1757: 2005-06, Demonstration of a Significant Improvement in the
1758: Astrometric Accuracy of HST Data
1759:
1760: Lee, Y. -W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. 1994, ApJ, 423, 248
1761:
1762: Milone, A. P., Villanova, S., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Carraro, G., Anderson, J., King, I. R., \& Zaggia, S. 2006, A\&A, 456, 517
1763:
1764: Milone, A. P., et al. 2007, ApJ, in press
1765: % 10 authors
1766:
1767: Piotto. G., et al. 2002, A\&A, 391, 945
1768: % 12 authors
1769:
1770: Riess, A., \& Mack, J. 2004. ACS/ISR 2004-06,
1771: Time Dependence of ACS CTE Corrections for Photometry and
1772: Future Predictions
1773:
1774: Rosenberg, A., Piotto, G., Saviane, I., \& Aparicio, A. 2000a, A\&AS, 144, 5
1775:
1776: Rosenberg, A., Aparicio, A., Saviane, I., \& Piotto, G. 2000b, A\&AS, 145, 451
1777:
1778: Sarajedini, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1658
1779: % 13 authors
1780:
1781: Siegel, M. H., et al. 2007 ApJL 667 57
1782: % 14 authors
1783:
1784: Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
1785: % 31 authors
1786:
1787: Trager, S. C., King, I. R., \& Djorgovski, S. 1995, AJ, 109, 218
1788:
1789: Zinn, R. 1980, ApJS, 42, 19
1790:
1791: \clearpage
1792:
1793:
1794:
1795:
1796:
1797: \clearpage
1798:
1799:
1800:
1801:
1802:
1803:
1804:
1805:
1806:
1807:
1808:
1809:
1810:
1811: \end{document}
1812:
1813: \acknowledgements
1814:
1815: