1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: \bibliographystyle{apj}
3: \usepackage{lscape}
4: \usepackage{apjfonts}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJS}
8: \shorttitle{Galactic Star Clusters in SDSS I.}
9: \shortauthors{An \& Johnson, et~al.}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{Galactic Globular and Open Clusters in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I.\\
13: Crowded Field Photometry and Cluster Fiducial Sequences in \MakeLowercase{\it ugriz}}
14:
15: \author{Deokkeun An\altaffilmark{1}, Jennifer A.\ Johnson\altaffilmark{1},
16: James L.\ Clem\altaffilmark{2},
17: Brian Yanny\altaffilmark{3},
18: Constance M.\ Rockosi\altaffilmark{4},\\
19: Heather L.\ Morrison\altaffilmark{5},
20: Paul Harding\altaffilmark{5},
21: James E.\ Gunn\altaffilmark{6},
22: Carlos Allende Prieto\altaffilmark{7},\\
23: Timothy C.\ Beers\altaffilmark{8},
24: Kyle M.\ Cudworth\altaffilmark{9},
25: Inese I.\ Ivans\altaffilmark{6,10},
26: \v{Z}eljko Ivezi\'{c}\altaffilmark{11},\\
27: Young Sun Lee\altaffilmark{8},
28: Robert H.\ Lupton\altaffilmark{6},
29: Dmitry Bizyaev\altaffilmark{12},
30: Howard Brewington\altaffilmark{12},\\
31: Elena Malanushenko\altaffilmark{12},
32: Viktor Malanushenko\altaffilmark{12},
33: Dan Oravetz\altaffilmark{12},\\
34: Kaike Pan\altaffilmark{12},
35: Audrey Simmons\altaffilmark{12},
36: Stephanie Snedden\altaffilmark{12},\\
37: Shannon Watters\altaffilmark{12}, and
38: Donald G.\ York\altaffilmark{13,14}
39: }
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University,
41: 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210;
42: deokkeun,jaj@astronomy.ohio-state.edu.}
43: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Louisiana State
44: University, 202 Nicholson Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.}
45: \altaffiltext{3}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
46: P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510.}
47: \altaffiltext{4}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California,
48: Santa Cruz, CA 95064.}
49: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, Case Western Reserve University,
50: Cleveland, OH 44106.}
51: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University,
52: Princeton, NJ 08544.}
53: \altaffiltext{7}{McDonald Observatory and Department of Astronomy, The University of
54: Texas, 1 University Station, C1400, Austin, TX 78712-0259.}
55: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics \& Astrophysics, CSCE:
56: Center for the Study of Cosmic Evolution, and JINA: Joint Institute for
57: Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824.}
58: \altaffiltext{9}{Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago,
59: 373 West Geneva Street, Williams Bay, WI 53191.}
60: \altaffiltext{10}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of
61: Washington, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101.}
62: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington,
63: Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195.}
64: \altaffiltext{12}{Apache Point Observatory, P.O. Box 59, Sunspot, NM 88349.}
65: \altaffiltext{13}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
66: University of Chicago, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.}
67: \altaffiltext{14}{Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago,
68: 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.}
69:
70: \begin{abstract}
71: We present photometry for globular and open cluster stars observed with
72: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). In order to exploit over 100 million
73: stellar objects with $r < 22.5$~mag observed by SDSS, we need to
74: understand the characteristics of stars in the SDSS $ugriz$ filters.
75: While star clusters provide important calibration samples for stellar
76: colors, the regions close to globular clusters, where the fraction of
77: field stars is smallest, are too crowded for the standard SDSS
78: photometric pipeline to process. To complement the SDSS imaging survey,
79: we reduce the SDSS imaging data for crowded cluster fields using the
80: DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME suite of programs and present photometry for 17
81: globular clusters and 3 open clusters in a SDSS value-added catalog.
82: Our photometry and cluster fiducial sequences are on the native SDSS
83: 2.5-meter $ugriz$ photometric system, and the fiducial sequences can be
84: directly applied to the SDSS photometry without relying upon any transformations.
85: Model photometry for red giant branch and main-sequence stars obtained by
86: Girardi et~al.\ cannot be matched simultaneously to fiducial sequences;
87: their colors differ by $\sim0.02$--$0.05$~mag. Good agreement
88: ($\la0.02$~mag in colors) is found with Clem et~al.\ empirical fiducial
89: sequences in $u'g'r'i'z'$ when using the transformation equations in Tucker et~al.
90: \end{abstract}
91: \keywords{globular clusters: general --- Hertzsprung-Russell diagram
92: --- open clusters and associations: general --- stars: evolution
93: --- Surveys}
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: As single-age and (in most cases) single-metallicity populations,
98: Galactic star clusters provide important calibration samples for
99: exploring the relationships between stellar colors and absolute
100: magnitudes as functions of stellar age and heavy-element content.
101: These two observable properties of a star are related to fundamental
102: physical parameters, such as the effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$)
103: and surface gravity ($\log{g}$), as well as the metallicity. The color
104: and magnitude relations can be used to test stellar evolutionary
105: theories, to interpret the observed distribution of stars in color-color
106: and color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), and to derive distances to stars and
107: star clusters via photometric parallax or main-sequence (MS) fitting
108: techniques \citep[e.g.,][]{johnson:57}.
109:
110: Because the relationships between magnitude, color, and fundamental
111: stellar properties depend on the filters used, it is necessary to
112: characterize these relations for each filter system. Galactic globular
113: and open clusters provide an ideal opportunity to achieve this goal
114: because the same distance can be assumed for cluster members with
115: a wide range of stellar masses. Furthermore, observations of a large
116: number of Galactic clusters can cover a wide range of the heavy-element
117: content, providing an opportunity to explore the effects of metallicity
118: on magnitudes and colors for each set of filter bandpasses.
119:
120: Among previous and ongoing optical surveys, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
121: \citep[SDSS;][]{york:00,edr,dr1,dr2,dr3,dr4,dr5,dr6} is the largest and
122: most homogeneous database of stellar brightnesses currently available.
123: The original goal of the SDSS was to survey large numbers of galaxies
124: and quasars. However, in the first five years of operation, SDSS-I has
125: made remarkable contributions to our understanding of the Milky Way and
126: its stellar populations
127: \citep[e.g.,][]{newberg:02,allendeprieto:06,belokurov:06,dejong:08,juric:08}.
128: These successes have initiated the Galactic structure program SEGUE
129: (Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration;
130: B.\ Yanny et al.\ 2008, in preparation), one of the surveys being
131: conducted in the ongoing three year extension of the survey (SDSS-II).
132: When SDSS-II finishes, it will provide imaging data for approximately
133: 10,000 square degrees of the northern sky.
134:
135: SDSS measures the brightnesses of stars using a dedicated 2.5-m telescope
136: \citep{gunn:06} in five broadband filters $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$,
137: with average wavelengths of 3551\AA, 4686\AA, 6165\AA, 7481\AA, and 8931\AA,
138: respectively \citep{fukugita:96,edr}. The 95\% detection repeatability
139: limits are 22.0~mag, 22.2~mag, 22.2~mag, 21.3~mag, and 20.5~mag for point
140: sources in $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$, respectively. The rms photometric
141: precision is $0.02$~mag for sources not limited by photon statistics \citep{ivezic:03},
142: and the photometric calibration is accurate to $\sim2\%$ in the $g$, $r$,
143: $i$ bands, and $\sim3\%$ in $u$ and $z$ \citep{ivezic:04}.
144: The SDSS filters represent a new filter set for stellar observations, and
145: therefore it is important to understand the properties of stars in this
146: system. Furthermore, future imaging surveys such as the Panoramic Survey
147: Telescope \& Rapid Response System \citep[Pan-STARRS;][]{kaiser:02} and
148: the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope \citep[LSST;][]{stubbs:04} will use
149: similar photometric bandpasses, providing even deeper data in $ugriz$
150: than SDSS over a larger fraction of the sky.
151:
152: During the course of SDSS-I, about 15 globular clusters and several open
153: clusters were observed. Several more clusters were imaged in SDSS-II
154: including M71. These clusters together provide accurate calibration samples for
155: stellar colors and magnitudes in the SDSS filters. The SDSS images are processed
156: using the standard SDSS photometric pipelines \citep[{\it Photo};][]{lupton:02}.
157: {\it Photo} pre-processes the raw images, determines the point spread
158: function (PSF), detects objects, and measures their properties. Photometric
159: calibration is then carried out using observations of stars in the secondary
160: patch transfer fields \citep{tucker:06,davenport:07}. In this paper, we
161: simply refer to these calibrated magnitudes as {\it Photo} magnitudes.
162:
163: \begin{figure*}
164: \epsscale{0.9}
165: \plotone{f1.ps}
166: \caption{CMDs of M3 from the SDSS photometric pipeline ({\it Photo};
167: {\it left}) and DAOPHOT reduction in this paper ({\it right}).
168: Stars within a $30\arcmin$ radius from the cluster center are shown in
169: the left panel, but the {\it Photo} photometry is only available on the
170: outskirts of the cluster. In the right panel, RR Lyraes are scattered
171: off the cluster horizontal branch.
172: \label{fig:photo}}
173: \end{figure*}
174:
175: {\it Photo} was originally designed to handle high Galactic latitude
176: fields with relatively low densities of Galactic field stars (owing to
177: the primarily extragalactic mission of SDSS-I); however, there are some
178: concerns about its photometry derived in crowded fields \citep{dr6}.
179: In particular, stellar clusters present a challenge to {\it Photo}.
180: Firstly, {\it Photo} slows down dramatically in the high density cluster
181: cores, which are too crowded for {\it Photo} to process, so it does not
182: provide photometry for the most crowded regions of these scans.
183: Figure~\ref{fig:photo} compares a CMD for the globular cluster M3
184: obtained from {\it Photo} photometry to that obtained from a DAOPHOT
185: \citep{stetson:87} reduction in this paper, which is specifically designed
186: for crowded field photometry. The {\it Photo} photometry is only available
187: on the outskirts of the cluster, and it provides a considerably less
188: well-defined subgiant branch (SGB), red giant branch (RGB), and horizontal
189: branch (HB). Secondly, there is a concern that the photometry in the area
190: surrounding clusters, and in low Galactic latitude fields, may also be
191: affected by inaccurate modeling of the PSF if stars in crowded regions
192: were selected as PSF stars by {\it Photo}.
193:
194: Photometric information in crowded fields can be extracted from the
195: original SDSS imaging data. For example, \citet{smolcic:07} used the
196: DoPHOT \citep{schechter:93} photometry package to explore the structure
197: of the Leo~I dwarf spheroidal galaxy (dSph). Similarly, \citet{coleman:07}
198: used the DAOPHOT package to study the stellar distribution of the dSph Leo~II.
199: In this paper, we employ the DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME \citep{stetson:87,stetson:94}
200: suite of programs to derive photometry for 17 globular clusters and 3
201: open clusters that have been observed with SDSS. We derive photometry by
202: running DAOPHOT for SDSS imaging frames where {\it Photo} did not run.
203: In addition, we reduce imaging data for fields farther away from the
204: clusters, where the {\it Photo} results are expected to be reliable, in
205: order to set up photometric zero points for the DAOPHOT photometry. We
206: also compare DAOPHOT and {\it Photo} results for the open cluster fields
207: to verify the accuracy of the {\it Photo} magnitudes in these semi-crowded
208: fields.
209:
210: An overview of the SDSS imaging survey and our sample clusters are
211: presented in \S~2. In \S~3 we describe the preparation of imaging
212: data from the SDSS database. In \S~4 we describe the method of crowded
213: field photometry using DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME, and evaluate the photometric
214: accuracy. In \S~5 we present cluster photometry and fiducial sequences,
215: and compare them with theoretical stellar isochrones and fiducial
216: sequences in $u'g'r'i'z'$.
217:
218: \section{SDSS Observations of Galactic Clusters}
219:
220: The SDSS images are taken in drift-scan or time-delay-and-integrate (TDI)
221: mode, with an effective exposure time of $54.1$ seconds per band. The
222: imaging is carried out on moonless nights of good seeing (better than
223: $1.6\arcsec$) under photometric conditions \citep{hogg:01}. A portion
224: of the sky (along great circles) is imaged in each run by 6 columns of
225: CCDs \citep{gunn:98}. Each CCD observes $13.52\arcmin$ of sky,
226: forming a scanline or camcol, with a gap of $11.68\arcmin$ between the
227: columns. A second scan or strip in a different run fills in the gap,
228: overlapping the first scan by 8\% on each side \citep{york:00}. An
229: example of the scanning pattern is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:m3scan} for
230: the globular cluster M3. Each of the rectangular regions represent a
231: SDSS field. Frames reduced in this paper are indicated as thick boxes.
232:
233: \begin{figure*}
234: \epsscale{1.0}
235: \plotone{f2.ps}
236: \caption{SDSS scans over the $2\arcdeg \times 1\arcdeg$ region surrounding M3,
237: generated using the SDSS Finding Chart Tool. Each of the horizontal strips
238: represents a scanning footprint for each CCD. This strip is divided into
239: rectangular frames with small overlapping regions. Adjacent strips in
240: different runs also overlap with each other. Frames reduced in this
241: paper are indicated as thick boxes. For each run and camcol, flanking
242: areas are shown on each side of the cluster. North is to the top, and
243: the east to the left.\label{fig:m3scan}}
244: \end{figure*}
245:
246: Table~\ref{tab:propgc} lists our sample of globular clusters observed
247: by SDSS, and summarizes estimates of the reddening, distance moduli,
248: and metallicity measurements for these clusters reported in the recent
249: literature. A number of the properties are taken from the catalog of
250: \citet[][February 2003 revision]{harris:96}. We also include the [Fe/H]
251: values reported by \citet{kraft:03,kraft:04}. These are based on
252: \ion{Fe}{2} lines from high-resolution spectra, which are expected to be
253: less affected by non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (non-LTE) effects.
254: In their study a consistent technique was employed to derive
255: metallicities for giants in 16 key well-known globular clusters. Seven
256: clusters in our sample are included in their sample of 16 key clusters.
257: For the remaining sample clusters we list their [Fe/H] determinations
258: based on the correlation between ${\rm [Fe/H]_{II}}$ and the reduced
259: strength of the near-infrared \ion{Ca}{2} triplet. Although these
260: accurate metallicities make Galactic clusters useful calibrators, some
261: of the lighter elements (always C and N, but sometimes also O, Na, Mg,
262: and Al as well) vary from star to star \citep[e.g.,][]{kraft:94}.
263: However, extensive studies have
264: shown that the abundances of most elements (in particular Fe) are the
265: same for all cluster stars (in the sample we consider), and the overall
266: effect on the colors of stars in broadband filters, such as $ugriz$,
267: from variations of these lighter elements should be small.
268:
269: \input{tab1.tex}
270: \input{tab2.tex}
271:
272: The distances and reddenings to clusters have also been the subject of
273: much research. Kraft \& Ivans used the {\it Hipparcos} subdwarfs (see
274: references therein for their sample selection) to derive distances to
275: five key globular clusters from their application of the MS fitting
276: technique. These {\it Hipparcos}-based distances are expected to be
277: accurate to $\sim10-15\%$ \citep[e.g.,][]{gratton:97,reid:97}, which
278: will hopefully be improved greatly from upcoming astrometric missions
279: such as {\it Gaia} \citep{perryman:01}. They also provided estimates of
280: reddening for the clusters by comparing colors derived from
281: high-resolution spectroscopic determinations of $T_{\rm eff}$ with
282: the observed colors of the same stars.
283:
284: Table~\ref{tab:propoc} lists reddening, distance, and metallicity
285: estimates for our sample open clusters. For NGC~2420 we list those
286: given by \citet{anthony-twarog:06}, which are based on intermediate-band
287: $vbyCaH\beta$ photometry. For M67 we take the reddening,
288: distance, and metallicity reported by \citet{an:07b}, which is
289: an average between literature values and those estimated using empirically
290: calibrated sets of isochrones \citep[see also][]{pinsono:03,pinsono:04}.
291: The latter set of authors also used an extended set of calibrated
292: isochrones to estimate these parameters for NGC~6791 (M.\ H.\ Pinsonneault
293: et~al.\ 2008, in preparation); these values are listed in
294: Table~\ref{tab:propoc}. Their metallicity estimate for NGC~6791 is
295: consistent with recent results from high-resolution spectroscopic studies
296: \citep{carraro:06,gratton:06,origlia:06}. Their reddening estimate based
297: on the stellar sequence [$E(B - V) = 0.10\pm0.01$] is lower than the
298: \citet{schlegel:98} value.
299:
300: Although typical SDSS imaging scans involve small overlaps between adjacent
301: stripes in most of the survey area, occasionally two runs from adjacent
302: stripes overlap by a larger fraction of each field. This results in a
303: large number of stars with repeated flux measurements, providing an
304: opportunity to estimate realistic photometric errors (\S~\ref{sec:error}).
305: Five clusters in our sample (M67, NGC~2420, NGC~5466, NGC~6791, and Pal~14)
306: have been scanned in such a manner, covering most of the cluster fields twice.
307:
308: \section{Data Acquisition and Preparation}
309:
310: \input{tab3.tex}
311:
312: We retrieved the {\tt fpC} corrected imaging frames and the {\tt fpM}
313: mask frames for the cluster fields from the Data Archive Server (DAS)
314: for all five bandpasses. We also downloaded the best version {\tt tsField}
315: and {\tt asTrans} files for each field. Table~\ref{tab:fields} lists
316: the SDSS run, rerun, camcol, and field numbers for each cluster field
317: analyzed. In addition to the cluster fields, we reduced flanking fields
318: (\S~\ref{sec:zeropoint}) belonging to the same run, rerun, and camcol,
319: which had considerably lower stellar densities. These fields had been
320: successfully run through {\it Photo}, and are used to set the zero points
321: for the DAOPHOT photometry by comparing the magnitudes of the stars in
322: the two different reductions. This insures that our reductions
323: are securely tied to the 2.5-meter $ugriz$ photometric system.
324:
325: Table~\ref{tab:fields} also lists the SDSS fields reduced using DAOPHOT. For
326: cluster fields we typically combined two or three contiguous fields to form a
327: single field, using the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National
328: Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
329: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with
330: the National Science Foundation.} package {\tt imtile} for DAOPHOT
331: reductions.\footnote{We use the term ``field'' to represent the combined SDSS
332: fields, each of which is defined as the data processing unit in {\it Photo}.}
333: Some of the globular clusters subtend a small enough angle that an entire cluster
334: fits within a single SDSS field. For these cases we did not attempt to include
335: adjacent fields. For the flanking fields we always combined three SDSS fields to
336: form a single field, and reduced it as a single data processing unit in DAOPHOT.
337:
338: \input{tab4.tex}
339:
340: Before running DAOPHOT, we removed the softbias of 1000~DN and masked
341: pixels affected by saturation. DAOPHOT identifies pixels above a
342: ``high good datum'' value as saturated. However, for SDSS a saturated
343: pixel will overflow and pour charge into its neighbors. This results
344: in distorted shapes for the PSF of the brightest stars, but without
345: necessarily setting the counts in an affected pixel above a certain value.
346: It is also noted that the full well depth varies from chip to chip.
347: To set the pixel value to a large number, we used the SDSS {\it readAtlasImages}
348: code\footnote{www.sdss.org/dr6/products/images/read\_mask.html}
349: to set the pixels flagged as saturated, as well as the pixels within a
350: radius of 3 pixels, equal to 70000~DN. The bad pixel value in DAOPHOT was
351: then set to 65000~DN. The gain and readnoise values for each chip and
352: filter are listed in Table~\ref{tab:ccd}.
353:
354: \section{Crowded Field Photometry}
355:
356: \subsection{DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME Reduction}
357:
358: The goal of this study is to obtain accurate photometry for stars in the
359: crowded cluster fields using the same final aperture radius as the SDSS
360: data, which is $18.584$ pixels ($7.43\arcsec$). We used DAOPHOT and its
361: accompanying program ALLSTAR to find stars, derive a spatially varying
362: PSF, and perform the first measurements for all stars in a single field
363: and a single filter. We then matched the stars from all the filters
364: in a single field, using DAOMATCH and DAOMASTER, to form a master list
365: that served as the input into ALLFRAME, which simultaneously reduces all the
366: data for a particular field. The remainder of this section describes the
367: reduction process in detail.
368:
369: Stars were identified in each frame using DAOPHOT/FIND, with a threshold
370: of 4$\sigma$, a low sharpness\footnote{The index sharpness in DAOPHOT/FIND
371: is defined as the ratio of the height of the bivariate delta-function,
372: which best fits the brightness peak, to the height of the bivariate
373: Gaussian function, which best fits the peak.}
374: cutoff of 0.30, a high sharpness cutoff of
375: 1.40, a low roundness cutoff of $-1.00$, and a high roundness cutoff of
376: 1.00. The FWHM parameter, which is used to define the Gaussian that
377: detects stars, was set to the average FWHM of stars
378: in each frame. Since our goal is to derive cluster fiducial sequences
379: rather than cluster luminosity functions, no effort was made to correct for
380: incompleteness, which obviously increases in the more crowded regions.
381:
382: For each frame, a large number ($\sim 100-300$) of relatively isolated
383: stars spread across the frame were chosen as PSF stars. The fitting
384: radius of the PSF in the $\chi^2$ minimization was set to 5 pixels.
385: The PSF was calculated out to a radius of 15 pixels, which defines how
386: far out the light from the star was subtracted on the image. DAOPHOT
387: first determined a constant, analytic PSF across the entire
388: field. Neighboring stars of the PSF stars were identified. Next, the
389: neighboring stars were subtracted using ALLSTAR with the first pass
390: PSF. The PSF was then re-determined with both the analytic and look-up
391: table components. This new PSF was then used to subtract the
392: neighbors. The next iteration allowed the PSF to vary linearly across
393: the frame, and subsequent iterations increased the variability to
394: quadratic and finally cubic. ALLSTAR was then run on the entire field.
395: The subtracted image was searched for additional stars, this time with
396: a threshold of 10$\sigma$, before the final ALLSTAR run was performed
397: on all stars.
398:
399: Before we can run ALLFRAME, we need to provide a master list of stars
400: so that the same stars can be used to reduce each frame. In contrast to
401: the usual method of crowded field photometry, where multiple long and
402: short exposures are taken in all filters, SDSS scans most regions
403: once, with only small parts of the frames overlapping with a separate
404: scan. Therefore, the standard technique of using exposures in the same
405: filter to eliminate cosmic rays and spurious detections (e.g., in the
406: bright wings of badly subtracted stars) is not possible.
407:
408: Instead, we relied on multiple detections in different filter bandpasses
409: to reduce the chances of spurious detections. We first used DAOMATCH
410: and DAOMASTER to match stars among different filter frames. We then
411: made a master star list, requiring that a star should appear in at
412: least two of the frames. This leads to the possibility that a star
413: could be a real detection in one of the bandpasses, but be eliminated
414: because of a lack of detection in the other four filters.
415: However, our selection criterion, with a minimum two detections in
416: different filter frames, insures that each star has at least one color,
417: which is crucial in the derivation of the fiducial sequences. The master
418: list served as the input for ALLFRAME, which simultaneously determines the
419: separate brightnesses for stars in all frames while enforcing one set of
420: centroids and one transformation between images.
421:
422: Finally, we applied aperture corrections to obtain the instrumental
423: magnitude of a star within an $18.584$ pixel aperture radius. After
424: subtracting all other stars, we measured the aperture magnitudes for
425: the PSF stars through 12 different radii. We used HSTDAOGROW, which
426: is a modified version of DAOGROW \citep{stetson:90}, to calculate the
427: total magnitude by the curve of growth method. The difference between
428: these programs is that HSTDAOGROW does not extrapolate to twice
429: the largest aperture, as is done by DAOGROW. The difference between the PSF
430: magnitude and the aperture magnitude for each star defines the aperture
431: correction. We calculated the average difference after iterating twice
432: and discarding stars that were more than $1.8$ times the rms away from
433: the mean. This final average aperture correction was applied to all of
434: the PSF magnitudes.
435:
436: We converted (aperture-corrected PSF) DAOPHOT (Pogson) magnitudes into
437: the SDSS asinh magnitude system \citep[luptitude;][]{lupton:99} using
438: the photometric zero point ({\tt aa}), extinction coefficient ({\tt kk}),
439: and air-mass ({\tt airmass}) values from the {\tt tsField} files:
440: \begin{equation}
441: {\rm mag} = -(2.5/ln(10)) [asinh((f/f_0)/2b)+ln(b)]
442: \label{eq:luptitude1}
443: \end{equation}
444: where $b$ is the softening parameter for the photometric band
445: in question\footnote{The following softening parameter $b$ values are used in SDSS:
446: $1.4 \times 10^{-10}$,
447: $0.9 \times 10^{-10}$,
448: $1.2 \times 10^{-10}$,
449: $1.8 \times 10^{-10}$, and
450: $7.4 \times 10^{-10}$ in $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$, respectively.
451: See also\\ {\tt http://www.sdss.org/dr6/algorithms/fluxcal.html}.} and
452: \begin{equation}
453: f/f_0 = ({\rm counts}/53.907456\ {\rm sec})
454: \times 10^{0.4({\tt aa} + {\tt kk} \times {\tt airmass})}.
455: \label{eq:luptitude2}
456: \end{equation}
457: The air-mass value used was either the one for the central frame, if
458: three frames were used, or the eastern frame of the cluster field set.
459: Any changes in air mass during the time of the 2-3 frame scan were
460: negligible.
461:
462: We used {\it cvtcoords} in the SDSS astrotools suite of programs
463: as well as the information in the {\tt asTrans} files from the
464: DAS to determine celestial coordinates of right ascension and
465: declination of the stars in the $r$-band images. Astrometric positions
466: in SDSS are accurate to $< 0.1\arcsec$ for sources with $r < 20.5$~mag
467: \citep{pier:03}.
468:
469: \subsection{Photometric Zero Points}
470: \label{sec:zeropoint}
471:
472: Our initial DAOPHOT reductions in relatively low stellar-density fields
473: showed that there exist $\sim0.02$ mag differences between DAOPHOT and
474: {\it Photo} magnitudes. Since the DAOPHOT reduction in this study does
475: not include photometric standard fields to independently calibrate the
476: data, we put the DAOPHOT magnitudes onto the {\it Photo} scale as described
477: below.
478:
479: \subsubsection{Data}
480:
481: In order to place our DAOPHOT photometry on the same scale as that
482: determined by {\it Photo}, it was necessary to compare results for stars
483: that are far enough from the clusters' dense stellar fields to avoid
484: crowding effects, but close enough to represent the local photometric
485: properties near the clusters. These comparisons are accomplished by
486: using stars contained in a set of flanking fields that lie at least
487: two frames away ($\approx20\arcmin$) from the crowded cluster fields.
488: An example of flanking fields is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:m3scan} for M3.
489:
490: The location of these flanking fields is largely based on how
491: {\it Photo} computes the model PSF. In {\it Photo}, the PSF is modeled
492: using a Karhunen-Lo\`eve (KL) transform, where stars lying in $\pm2$
493: adjacent frames (in the scan direction) are used to determine the KL
494: basis functions \citep{lupton:02}. At the same time, {\it Photo} also
495: relies upon stars in $\pm0.5$ adjacent frames to follow the spatial
496: (temporal) variation of the PSF. Therefore, the two closest fields to a
497: cluster, where {\it Photo} has modeled the PSF without using stars in
498: the crowded region, are those that are two frames away from the
499: crowded fields.
500:
501: For each run and camcol we selected flanking areas on each side of
502: a cluster, which we refer to as western and eastern flanking fields. We
503: combined three contiguous fields to form a single flanking field and
504: derived stellar magnitudes following the same procedure as cluster
505: photometry using DAOPHOT. By analyzing three combined fields instead of
506: just one, we had a larger number of bright PSF stars, especially in
507: relative sparse halo fields. We typically selected $50-100$ PSF stars in
508: each flanking field with good signal-to-noise ratios ($r\la18$~mag), and
509: used a model PSF that varies cubically with position. Although we had
510: only $\sim30$ PSF stars in the $u$-band frames for about one third of
511: our flanking fields, we found that the cubically varying PSF is
512: necessary to adequately reduce data in these fields. We used HSTDAOGROW
513: to determine aperture corrections, and converted DAOPHOT magnitudes
514: into the SDSS asinh magnitudes.
515:
516: To derive an accurate photometric zero point, we used photometry with
517: errors smaller than 0.05~mag in each band (errors reported from DAOPHOT)
518: for stars brighter than $15.5$~mag in $u$, $16.0$~mag in $gri$, and $15.0$~mag
519: in $z$. We additionally filtered data based on the sharp\footnote{The index
520: sharp used here is defined differently from the sharpness index in DAOPHOT/FIND:
521: sharp$^2 \approx |s_{\rm obs}^2 - s_{\rm PSF}^2 |$ where $s_{\rm obs}$
522: is a characteristic radius of the measured image profile, and $s_{\rm PSF}$
523: is a characteristic radius of the PSF. The sign of the sharp index is positive if
524: $s_{\rm obs} > s_{\rm PSF}$.} and $\chi$ values from DAOPHOT. We adopted
525: $| {\rm sharp} | < 1$ and $\chi < 1.5+4.5\times 10^{-0.4 (m - m_0)}$
526: \citep{stetson:03}, where $m_0 = 15.5$~mag in $u$, $m_0 = 16.0$~mag in $gri$,
527: and $m_0 = 15.0$~mag in $z$, in order to remove objects that have relatively poor
528: goodness-of-fit values.
529:
530: We retrieved {\it Photo} PSF magnitudes either from the Catalog Archive
531: Server (CAS) in the Sixth Data Release, or directly from the {\tt tsObject}
532: files when the data were not yet available through the data release.
533: We used {\it Photo} magnitudes for stars that passed a set of photometric
534: criteria to obtain clean photometry. We selected objects that are
535: classified as {\tt STAR} (unresolved point sources) and used SDSS primary
536: or secondary detections with photometric errors smaller than $0.05$~mag.
537: For the $r$-band image of run {\tt 5071}, camcol {\tt 2}, field {\tt 376}
538: (hereafter we use the format {\tt 5071-r2-376} to represent a specific
539: frame) and {\tt 6895-i3-56}, we relaxed the threshold to $0.06$~mag
540: because all of the {\it Photo} magnitudes in these fields have errors
541: larger than $0.05$~mag. We ignored photometry for objects that have
542: the following flags set: {\tt EDGE, NOPROFILE, PEAKCENTER, NOTCHECKED,
543: PSF\_FLUX\_INTERP, SATURATED, BAD\_COUNTS\_ERROR, DEBLEND\_NOPEAK,
544: INTERP\_CENTER, or COSMIC\_RAY} \citep[e.g.,][]{ivezic:07}.\footnote{See
545: also\\ {\tt http://www.sdss.org/dr6/products/catalogs/flags.html.}} We
546: employed these selection criteria in each filter bandpass, in order not
547: to eliminate a star from all of the filter frames even if it was flagged
548: or had a large error in one of the bandpasses. This helps to keep many
549: of the point sources that were poorly detected in the $u$-band frames.
550: We then cross-matched photometry in {\it Photo} and DAOPHOT, using
551: a search radius of $3$~pixels.
552:
553: \subsubsection{Comparison with {\it Photo}}
554:
555: For the flanking fields we first compared the number of stellar objects
556: found by DAOPHOT and {\it Photo}. In the $r$ band, DAOPHOT detected
557: $\sim50$ to $\sim5000$ stellar sources on each (SDSS) field with
558: $r < 20$~mag. Among these, {\it Photo} recovered on average $75\%\pm9\%$
559: of the sources classified as {\tt STAR}, except in the case of M71
560: flanking field {\tt 6895-r3-56/57/58} (see below). All detections in
561: {\it Photo} were recovered by DAOPHOT; there is no apparent trend of the
562: detection rate in {\it Photo} as a function of the total number of
563: detected sources in DAOPHOT. The average recovery fraction in
564: {\it Photo} becomes $87\%\pm4\%$ when we matched sources in DAOPHOT with
565: the above $\chi$ and sharp index selections.
566:
567: \begin{figure}
568: \epsscale{1.1}
569: \plotone{f3.eps}
570: \caption{Comparison between the DAOPHOT and the {\it Photo} magnitudes in one
571: of the M13 flanking fields. Comparisons are shown for $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$,
572: and $z$, from the top to the bottom panels.\label{fig:daophotvsphoto}}
573: \end{figure}
574:
575: Figure~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto} shows the comparison between DAOPHOT
576: and {\it Photo} magnitudes in one of the flanking fields for M13,
577: {\tt 3226-5-121/122/123}. The constant offsets between the two are the
578: zero-point corrections that will be applied to the cluster photometry.
579: However, we noted that there are systematic variations in the difference,
580: at a level of $\sim2\%$, in the scan direction or over time, in
581: addition to photon noise. These high spatial frequency structures are
582: likely due to fast PSF variations, which were not followed by the PSF
583: of {\it Photo} on a rapid enough spatial or temporal scale.
584:
585: The accuracy of PSF photometry can be best tested from the comparison
586: with aperture photometry for isolated bright stars. Specifically,
587: we can use the individual aperture corrections to test how accurately
588: our model PSF accounted for the variability of the PSF by plotting the
589: difference between the PSF magnitude and the aperture magnitude as
590: a function of position. If we have modeled the variability of the PSF
591: sufficiently well, there will be no dependence of that difference on the
592: position of the stars on the chip.
593:
594: \begin{figure}
595: \epsscale{1.1}
596: \plotone{f4.eps}
597: \caption{Comparison between the DAOPHOT and the aperture photometry in the same
598: flanking field as in Fig.~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto}. The aperture
599: photometry was derived using HSTDAOGROW for PSF stars, shown as circles.
600: Comparisons are shown for $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$, from the top to the bottom
601: panels.\label{fig:daophotaper}}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604: Figure~\ref{fig:daophotaper} shows the differences between the DAOPHOT PSF and
605: aperture magnitudes, with aperture radii of $18.584$~pixels from the
606: HSTDAOGROW analysis. Individual points are those used in our PSF modeling,
607: and an average offset in each panel represents the aperture correction
608: for DAOPHOT PSF photometry in each filter bandpass. The same fields are
609: shown as in the above comparison with {\it Photo}. However, in contrast
610: to the systematic variations seen in Figure~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto},
611: the differences between the DAOPHOT and aperture magnitudes are quite
612: uniform, to better than $1\%$ accuracy, over a time scale covered by
613: at least one flanking field ($\sim30\arcmin$ or $\sim3$~min in time).
614: This test shows that the systematic residuals in Figure~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto}
615: are due to errors in the {\it Photo} magnitudes, presumably due to imperfect
616: modeling of the PSFs. In support of this conclusion, we found similar
617: high spatial frequency structures (in size and amplitude) as those in
618: Figure~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto}, obtained from the comparison between the {\it Photo}
619: PSF and aperture 7 magnitudes (flux measurements with an 18.584~pixel
620: aperture from {\it Photo}).
621:
622: \begin{figure}
623: \epsscale{1.1}
624: \plotone{f5.eps}
625: \caption{Distribution of the rms differences between the DAOPHOT and
626: the aperture photometry ({\it grey shaded histogram}) and between the DAOPHOT
627: and the {\it Photo} photometry ({\it black histogram}) from all of the flanking
628: fields.\label{fig:rms}}
629: \end{figure}
630:
631: Other flanking fields also exhibit stable differences between DAOPHOT
632: magnitudes and aperture photometry, but exhibit systematic variations
633: of {\it Photo} magnitudes, seen most clearly in the scanning
634: direction. After iterative $3\sigma$ clipping, we computed a rms
635: dispersion for each field and estimated a median of the rms from all
636: of our flanking fields (except for the few cases discussed below). From a
637: comparison between the HSTDAOGROW aperture magnitudes and the DAOPHOT
638: magnitudes, we found a median rms of $0.0061$~mag, $0.0039$~mag, $0.0045$~mag,
639: $0.0052$~mag, and $0.0054$~mag in $ugriz$, respectively, yielding
640: a precise aperture correction and its spatial uniformity. From the
641: comparison between {\it Photo} and DAOPHOT, however, we found a factor of
642: three larger rms values:
643: $0.0198$~mag, $0.0172$~mag, $0.0162$~mag, $0.0176$~mag, and $0.0173$~mag
644: in $ugriz$, respectively (Fig.~\ref{fig:rms}).
645: We note that \citet{smolcic:07} compared the DoPHOT and {\it Photo}
646: photometry in an uncrowded field and estimated the rms differences of
647: $0.029$~mag, $0.013$~mag, $0.027$~mag in $gri$, respectively.
648:
649: The $2\%$ variation of {\it Photo} is consistent with the specified
650: size of the photometric errors in the SDSS project \citep{ivezic:03,ivezic:04}.
651: While this level of accuracy already makes SDSS one of the most
652: successful optical surveys \citep[see also][]{sesar:06}, the spatial
653: variations of the {\it Photo} PSF magnitudes clearly indicates that
654: there is room for future improvement in the photometric accuracy
655: \citep[e.g.,][]{ivezic:07,padmanabhan:08}.
656:
657: There is a small fraction of cases where DAOPHOT magnitudes vary
658: significantly with respect to aperture photometry over a given frame.
659: In some of these cases the difference between the DAOPHOT and the aperture
660: photometry jumps by $\sim0.02$~mag systematically in some parts of the
661: flanking fields. These abrupt variations are strongly correlated
662: with the change in the PSF shapes, which may be caused by a sudden
663: change in the telescope focus or tracking.
664:
665: We initially attempted to model these spatially varying PSFs by reducing
666: individual frames of each flanking field. However, we found that, in most cases,
667: the sudden PSF variations could not be adequately modeled by cubically
668: varying the PSFs in DAOPHOT, so we decided not to include
669: such fields in the following analyses. The problematic flanking fields
670: have significantly large rms values in the comparison with aperture
671: photometry, so we used rms cuts of $0.040$~mag in the $u$ band and
672: $0.020$~mag in $griz$, after initial $5\sigma$ clipping, to identify
673: them. A total of nine flanking fields ($2\%$ of all of the 380
674: flanking fields in this study) were rejected using these cuts:
675: {\tt 3462-r6-19/20/21, 4649-i4-150/151/152, 5071-u2-368/369/370,
676: 5071-i2-368/369/370, 5360-u5-339/340/341, 5360-i5-339/340/341,
677: 5360-r6-343/344/345, 6004-r5-109/110/111, 6004-i5-109/110/111}.
678: For these runs we used photometry in a flanking field on the other side
679: of a cluster to set the photometric zero points.
680:
681: Among the fields with small rms differences between the aperture and the DAOPHOT
682: photometry, the DAOPHOT magnitudes show particularly large rms differences
683: with {\it Photo} ($>0.050$~mag after initial $5\sigma$ clipping)
684: in two flanking fields: {\tt 5403-r4-185/186/187} (NGC~6791
685: run) and {\tt 6895-i3-56/57/58} (M71 run). In the former case, most of
686: the dispersion comes from a strong discontinuity in the magnitude difference
687: of the field {\tt 187}, when compared with the preceding two fields. In the last
688: field, the {\tt PSP\_FIELD\_PSF11} flag in {\tt PspStatus} was set, indicating
689: that {\it Photo} magnitudes were derived using a spatially (temporally) constant
690: PSF. We did not use this field in the following analyses.
691:
692: The {\tt 6895-3-56/57/58} (M71 run) has the highest stellar density
693: among cluster flanking fields in this study. Approximately $15000$ point
694: sources were found in one flanking field with $r < 20$~mag from DAOPHOT. The
695: large rms observed in this field was caused by a magnitude-dependent trend
696: in the difference between DAOPHOT and {\it Photo} (which is not seen in
697: other flanking fields): {\it Photo} detections become fainter with increasing
698: apparent magnitude. One likely
699: explanation is that {\it Photo} over-estimates the sky brightness in crowded
700: fields, where it fails in the detection and subtraction of faint objects.
701: In fact, {\it Photo} detected only $\sim700$ sources classified as {\tt STAR}
702: with $r < 20$~mag in this flanking field and does not report flux measurements
703: in the other flanking field. We derived zero-point differences between
704: {\it Photo} and DAOPHOT using bright stars with $u<20$~mag, $g<19$~mag,
705: $r<18$~mag, $i<18$~mag, and $z<17$~mag.
706:
707: \begin{figure}
708: \epsscale{1.1}
709: \plotone{f6.eps}
710: \caption{Distribution of the zero-point corrections for the DAOPHOT photometry.
711: \label{fig:zp.comp}}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: \input{tab5.tex}
715: \input{tab6.tex}
716:
717: For each flanking field we took an average over three fields to
718: determine a zero-point correction, $\Delta {\tt aa}$, for DAOPHOT:
719: \begin{equation}
720: \Delta {\tt aa} \equiv {\tt aa}^{\rm DAOPHOT} - {\tt aa}^{\it Photo}
721: = \langle m^{\rm DAOPHOT}_i - m^{\it Photo}_i \rangle.
722: \label{eq:aa}
723: \end{equation}
724: We then averaged results from two flanking fields on each run, filter,
725: and camcol, with weights given by the errors in $\Delta {\tt aa}$. These
726: are either the propagated error from the {\it Photo} comparison
727: on each flanking field, or the difference in $\Delta {\tt aa}$ between
728: western and eastern flanking fields divided by two, whichever is larger.
729: Table~\ref{tab:aa} lists new {\tt aa} coefficients for our fields.
730: The second and third columns in Table~\ref{tab:rms} list the average
731: zero-point correction and rms dispersion in each bandpass, respectively,
732: from all of our flanking fields. As also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:zp.comp},
733: the $u$ band has the largest average correction among bandpasses, with
734: $\langle \Delta {\tt aa} \rangle \approx -0.009$, while longer wavelength
735: filters have smaller $\langle \Delta {\tt aa} \rangle$ values. These
736: zero-point corrections are systematic in nature and statistically
737: significant.
738:
739: The cause of the zero-point difference remains unclear. It could
740: be an error in the aperture correction, or it could be due to different
741: ways of determining sky values in the two data reduction procedures. To
742: scrutinize this issues, one may wish to reduce secondary patches using
743: DAOPHOT and independently calibrate DAOPHOT magnitudes. However, this
744: requires a significant amount of data reduction with human intervention
745: (e.g., PSF selection). Therefore, we chose to put DAOPHOT photometry onto the
746: {\it Photo} system, which is internally defined in a self-consistent manner,
747: and avoid any discussion of the absolute calibration in this paper. The new zero
748: points (${\tt aa^{\rm DAOPHOT}}$) derived from the {\it Photo} comparisons
749: were used, along with the extinction coefficient ({\tt kk}) and air-mass
750: ({\tt airmass}) values, to derive magnitudes for stars in the crowded
751: cluster fields (Eqs.~\ref{eq:luptitude1} and \ref{eq:luptitude2}).
752:
753: \subsection{Photometric Errors}
754: \label{sec:error}
755:
756: To assess the accuracy of our photometry, we need to know both how well
757: we can determine the zero point of the calibration and how well we can
758: measure the brightness of a particular star, which can be affected by
759: the degree of crowding as well as by photon noise. We first consider
760: zero-point errors, followed by a discussion of the random star-by-star errors.
761:
762: \subsubsection{Zero-Point Accuracy}
763:
764: Systematic zero-point errors for the DAOPHOT photometry are the results
765: of uncertainties in the aperture correction, the derivation of
766: zero-point differences between DAOPHOT and {\it Photo} magnitudes, and
767: the intrinsic zero-point errors in the reference {\it Photo} system.
768: The zero-point errors in {\it Photo} can be further divided into an absolute
769: calibration error, which can be reduced to a problem of tying the SDSS
770: magnitude system to an AB system \citep{dr2}, and a relative zero-point
771: calibration error. The latter is exhibited as spatial variations in the
772: calibration on the sky, or differences in flux measurements for stars
773: observed in overlapping runs.
774:
775: To assess the zero-point errors we took the following two approaches.
776: Firstly, we compared the DAOPHOT photometry in flanking fields to the
777: {\it Photo} values, in order to check the spatial stability of the
778: {\it Photo} zero points over several frames. We took into account the
779: fact that all of the above error components, except the absolute
780: calibration error, will manifest themselves collectively as differences
781: in the {\it Photo} comparisons. Secondly, we used multiple measurements
782: for sources detected in more than two different runs to assess the
783: zero-point errors. A discussion on absolute calibration errors is
784: beyond the scope of this paper.
785:
786: In \S~\ref{sec:zeropoint} we showed that the DAOPHOT PSF magnitudes are
787: spatially and temporally uniform to $\sim0.005$~mag with respect to
788: the aperture photometry. Given this high internal precision of the
789: photometry, $\sim2\%$ spatial (temporal) variations in the difference
790: between the DAOPHOT and the {\it Photo} magnitudes on a sub-field scale
791: (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto}) were attributed to the PSF modeling
792: errors in {\it Photo}. Nevertheless, these high spatial frequency
793: structures are not a significant error component of the DAOPHOT zero
794: point because we took an average of the difference between the two
795: photometric measurements with a large number of comparison stars in each
796: flanking field ($<0.001$~mag).
797:
798: We investigated an additional error component of the photometric zero
799: point by comparing results from the western and eastern flanking fields.
800: The two flanking fields on each run and camcol are separated by about
801: 10 fields. Therefore, a zero-point variation over a large angular
802: scale ($\sim1.5\arcdeg$ or $\sim10$~min in scanning time), or the
803: difference in zero-point corrections in these two fields ($\Delta
804: {\tt aa}^{\rm west}$ and $\Delta {\tt aa}^{\rm east}$ for the western and
805: eastern fields, respectively) can be used as a measure of the zero-point
806: shifts.
807:
808: \begin{figure}
809: \epsscale{1.1}
810: \plotone{f7.eps}
811: \caption{Distribution of zero-point differences between the western and
812: the eastern flanking fields.
813: \label{fig:we.comp}}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816:
817: Figure~\ref{fig:we.comp} shows the distribution of zero-point differences
818: in the western and eastern fields for all pairs of the flanking fields.
819: The fifth column in Table~\ref{tab:rms} lists the global average of the
820: zero-point difference, which is generally consistent with zero in
821: all of the filter bandpasses. However, zero points from the western and
822: eastern flanking fields typically differ by $\sim0.006$~mag on each
823: run, as shown in the sixth column. This indicates that DAOPHOT magnitudes
824: will have a mild zero-point variation over an $\sim1.5\arcdeg$ scale,
825: which is smaller than the $\sim0.02$~mag fluctuations seen on a sub-field
826: scale.
827:
828: However, it should be kept in mind that the above comparisons are based
829: on flux measurements in each run and camcol, which have the same
830: {\tt aa} and {\tt kk} coefficients from the {\tt tsField} files. As a
831: second approach, we assessed the zero-point errors by comparing flux
832: measurements from overlapping regions between different strips and runs.
833: A small fraction of stars are found in overlapping strips, and their
834: fluxes were individually measured and calibrated to the {\it Photo}
835: system for each run in the DAOPHOT reduction. Therefore, the net
836: magnitude difference between the two runs directly measures the
837: reliability of our photometric zero points.
838:
839: \input{tab7.tex}
840:
841: Table~\ref{tab:overlap} shows comparisons for the DAOPHOT magnitudes from
842: all of the overlapping runs. The second and third column list two runs
843: in the comparison. A ``reference'' run was selected if it covers a
844: larger fraction of a cluster than a ``comparison'' run, otherwise a
845: small-numbered run was chosen. In the derivation of the fiducial
846: sequences (\S~\ref{sec:fiducial}) we use the local zero point set by the
847: reference runs to combine photometry from two different runs. The fourth
848: through eighth columns list weighted average magnitude differences in
849: the five passbands. We matched stars from separate runs using the
850: celestial coordinates with a match radius of $1\arcsec$. We used stars
851: that satisfy the same selection criteria on magnitudes, errors, $\chi$,
852: and sharp index values as in \S~\ref{sec:zeropoint}. However, in the
853: $u$-band and $z$-band frames, we relaxed the thresholds on magnitude
854: errors to $0.10$~mag to include more comparison stars in these small
855: overlapping regions. We further increased the threshold for the
856: $u$-band matches to $0.30$~mag in some clusters (M53, M92, NGC~4147,
857: NGC~5053, and Pal~14), which have an even smaller number of comparison
858: stars. For Pal~4 we did not compute the zero-point difference in the
859: $u$ band because no stars were found in that filter frame that satisfy
860: our $\chi$ and sharp index criteria.
861:
862: The rms of these differences from all comparisons are $0.042$~mag, $0.021$~mag,
863: $0.027$~mag, $0.024$~mag, and $0.026$~mag in $ugriz$, respectively. In
864: Table~\ref{tab:overlap} we also found that the rms differences in colors are
865: $0.040$~mag in $u - g$, $0.021$~mag in $g - r$, $0.017$~mag in $g - i$,
866: and $0.021$~mag in $g - z$. Although there is a mild zero-point variation over
867: $\sim10$ fields ($\sim0.6\%$), the calibration accuracy of the DAOPHOT photometry
868: is predominantly limited by these $\sim2\%$ run-to-run zero-point variations.
869: Our results are consistent with a zero-point uncertainty of $\sim2\%$--$3\%$ in
870: {\it Photo} \citep{ivezic:04}.
871:
872: \subsubsection{Random Errors}
873:
874: Repeated flux measurements in overlapping strips/runs also provide
875: an opportunity to determine the star-to-star uncertainties in the
876: photometry. We used the same matched list of stars as in the previous
877: section, but without the cuts on magnitudes and magnitude errors.
878: We adjusted the net zero-point differences between the runs
879: (Table~\ref{tab:overlap}) before making the photometric comparisons and
880: then estimated
881: the standard deviations of individual measurements. We only considered
882: double measurements, although some of the stars in the open cluster fields
883: have been detected in three runs.
884:
885: \begin{figure*}
886: \epsscale{1.0}
887: \plotone{f8.ps}
888: \caption{The rms magnitude errors from repeated flux measurements in
889: overlapping strips in five bandpasses. For clarity, only 10\% of points
890: are shown. The thick solid line shows the median of these with intervals
891: of $0.5$~mag; thin lines on either side are the first and third quartiles.
892: The bottom right panel compares the profile-fitting errors from DAOPHOT
893: ({\it points}) to the same curves in the top right panel. Apparently
894: discrete values on the y axis are due to round-off approximations.
895: \label{fig:stripsdbl}}
896: \end{figure*}
897:
898: Figure~\ref{fig:stripsdbl} shows the standard deviations of individual
899: measurements for stars that have been observed twice in overlapping strips.
900: The thick solid line shows the median of these with intervals of
901: $0.5$~mag; thin lines on either side are the first and third
902: quartiles. The error distributions at the bright ends indicate errors of
903: $\sim1\%$ in $griz$ and $\sim2\%$ in the $u$ band, while the {\it Photo}
904: magnitudes have $2\%$ rms photometric precision for sources not
905: limited by photon statistics \citep{ivezic:03}. The photometric
906: precision of DAOPHOT is about a factor of two better than that of {\it Photo}.
907:
908: The bottom right panel in Figure~\ref{fig:stripsdbl} shows the reported
909: DAOPHOT errors in the $r$-band. DAOPHOT estimates standard errors in the
910: individual (instrumental) magnitudes, which are obtained either from the PSF
911: profile-fitting residuals or from the star and sky flux measurements
912: \citep{stetson:03}. For stars observed in different strips, we estimated
913: the standard error in the mean as $1/\sigma^2 = \Sigma_i (1/\sigma_i)^2$,
914: where $\sigma_i$ is the error reported from DAOPHOT, and multiplied it
915: by the square root of the number of measurements ($=2$). As seen in
916: Figure~\ref{fig:stripsdbl}, most of the points are between the median
917: and third quartile of the error distribution. Although DAOPHOT errors are
918: slightly larger than the errors estimated from repeat measurements, they
919: represent the approximate size of the errors well. The comparisons in other
920: bands are similar to that in the $r$ band.
921:
922: \subsection{Comparison with {\it Photo} in Semi-Crowded Fields}
923:
924: The stellar densities in open cluster fields are significantly lower
925: than in the cores of globular clusters, and {\it Photo} reports
926: magnitudes for many objects. On the other hand, open cluster fields
927: are more crowded than the typical high Galactic latitude fields in SDSS.
928: Therefore, DAOPHOT magnitudes can be used to test the accuracy of the
929: SDSS imaging pipelines near the Galactic plane, which is directly
930: related to the quality assurance for the SEGUE imaging outputs. The
931: systematic errors in these semi-crowded fields cannot be fully accounted
932: for using the method based on the stellar locus \citep{ivezic:04} because
933: the extinction corrections from \citet{schlegel:98} become uncertain
934: near the Galactic plane \citep{dr6}.
935:
936: In three open clusters in our sample, DAOPHOT detected $\sim100$,
937: $\sim300$, and $\sim1500$ sources in M67 ($b = +31.9\arcdeg$),
938: NGC~2420 ($b = +19.6\arcdeg$), and NGC~6791 ($b = +10.9\arcdeg$),
939: respectively, with $r < 20$~mag on each frame ($10\arcmin \times 13\arcmin$).
940: Stellar densities in NGC~2420 and NGC~6791 are about $2-10$ times higher
941: than the median density in the flanking fields for globular clusters,
942: which is $\sim150$ per frame. {\it Photo} detected a comparable number of
943: sources classified as {\tt STAR} ($\sim80\%$). However, it is noted again that
944: {\it Photo} failed to detect many stellar sources in fields near the
945: globular cluster M71, where the stellar density is about four times
946: higher than that of NGC~6791. We discuss the issue of M71 again in
947: \S~\ref{sec:prime}.
948:
949: \begin{figure}
950: \epsscale{1.1}
951: \plotone{f9.eps}
952: \caption{Comparison between the DAOPHOT and the {\it Photo} magnitudes in one
953: of the NGC~2420 cluster fields. Comparisons are shown for $u$, $g$, $r$,
954: $i$, and $z$, from the top to the bottom panels.\label{fig:compoc}}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \input{tab8.tex}
958:
959: While {\it Photo} detected a comparable number of stellar sources in the
960: cluster fields, its photometry is less accurate than obtained in high
961: Galactic latitude fields. Figure~\ref{fig:compoc} shows differences between
962: the DAOPHOT and the {\it Photo} magnitudes in one of the NGC~2420 runs,
963: {\tt 2888-3-24/25/26}. The comparisons are shown with no corrections on
964: {\tt aa} to DAOPHOT magnitudes. The spatial variations of the difference
965: are stronger than those in the typical flanking fields for
966: globular clusters (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:daophotvsphoto}). The average
967: rms differences from all of the open cluster runs are $0.016$~mag, $0.028$~mag,
968: $0.021$~mag, $0.023$~mag, and $0.018$~mag in $ugriz$, respectively. The rms
969: values for $gri$ are marginally larger than those from the globular cluster
970: flanking fields. The most likely explanation for the large differences
971: is that {\it Photo} has trouble finding isolated bright objects for the
972: PSF modeling in these semi-crowded fields. Thus, caution should be used for
973: {\it Photo} results in open clusters and for those in low Galactic
974: latitude fields.
975:
976: \section{Results}
977:
978: In this section we present the DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME photometry for 20
979: clusters and derive cluster fiducial sequences over a wide range of
980: metal abundances, $\Delta \log(Z/Z_\odot) \sim3$~dex. We then use
981: these fiducial sequences to perform a preliminary test of theoretical
982: isochrones, and to compare with fiducial sequences in $u'g'r'i'z'$ from
983: \citet{clem:08}.
984:
985: \subsection{Value-Added Catalog for DAOPHOT Cluster Photometry}
986:
987: We present the cluster photometry for this paper as a SDSS
988: value-added catalog.\footnote{Available at
989: {\tt http://www.sdss.org/dr6/products/\\value\_added/anjohnson08\_clusterphotometry.htm}}
990: There is a file for each cluster for each run, labeled {\tt cluster\_run.phot}.
991: For example, the M92 data are in {\tt m92\_4682.phot} and {\tt m92\_5327.phot}.
992: Table~\ref{tab:phot} lists the columns of data. We note that the DAOPHOT
993: identification number is unique for each cluster/run combination, and that the
994: x and y pixel positions are for the tiled images. We flag saturated stars, i.e.,
995: those stars, which have a pixel set to $65000$~DN within a 10~pixel radius
996: from a stellar centroid. Although DAOPHOT will determine magnitudes for
997: these stars based on the non-saturated pixels, these magnitudes should
998: be treated with extreme caution. The flag is set to $1$ if the star is
999: near a saturated pixel, $9$ if the star is not detected in a given frame,
1000: and $0$ otherwise.
1001:
1002: \begin{figure*}
1003: \epsscale{1.0}
1004: \plotone{f10.ps}
1005: \caption{CMDs for M3. The points represent stars that passed the selection
1006: criteria based on the $\chi$, sharp, and separation indices (see text).
1007: The solid lines are the cluster fiducial sequences. Cluster RR Lyraes
1008: are scattered off the horizontal branch.\label{fig:cmdm3}}
1009: \end{figure*}
1010:
1011: \begin{figure*}
1012: \epsscale{1.0}
1013: \plotone{f11.ps}
1014: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm3}, but for M92.\label{fig:cmdm92}}
1015: \end{figure*}
1016:
1017: \begin{figure*}
1018: \epsscale{1.0}
1019: \plotone{f12.ps}
1020: \caption{CMDs for clusters with ${\rm [Fe/H]} < -2.2$ with $g - r$ as
1021: color indices. Points are stars that passed the selection criteria
1022: based on the $\chi$, sharp, and separation indices (see text).
1023: \label{fig:all.cmd.1}}
1024: \end{figure*}
1025:
1026: \begin{figure*}
1027: \epsscale{1.0}
1028: \plotone{f13.ps}
1029: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:all.cmd.1}, but for clusters with
1030: $-2.2 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < -1.65$. A separation index was not used to
1031: filter data for Pal~3.\label{fig:all.cmd.2}}
1032: \end{figure*}
1033:
1034: \begin{figure*}
1035: \epsscale{1.0}
1036: \plotone{f14.ps}
1037: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:all.cmd.1}, but for clusters with
1038: $-1.65 < {\rm [Fe/H]} \leq -1.50$. A separation index was not used to
1039: filter data for Pal~14.\label{fig:all.cmd.3}}
1040: \end{figure*}
1041:
1042: \begin{figure*}
1043: \epsscale{1.0}
1044: \plotone{f15.ps}
1045: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:all.cmd.1}, but for clusters with
1046: $-1.5 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < -1.0$. A separation index was not used to
1047: filter data except for M5.\label{fig:all.cmd.4}}
1048: \end{figure*}
1049:
1050: \begin{figure*}
1051: \epsscale{1.0}
1052: \plotone{f16.ps}
1053: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:all.cmd.1}, but for clusters with
1054: ${\rm [Fe/H]} > -1.0$.
1055: \label{fig:all.cmd.5}}
1056: \end{figure*}
1057:
1058: Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm3} and \ref{fig:cmdm92} show CMDs of M3 and M92,
1059: respectively, with $u - g$, $g - r$, $g - i$, and $g - z$ as color indices,
1060: and $r$ as a luminosity index; hereafter $(u - g, r)$, $(g - r, r)$,
1061: $(g - i, r)$, and $(g - z, r)$, respectively. The $(g - r, r)$ CMDs for
1062: all analyzed clusters are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:all.cmd.1}-\ref{fig:all.cmd.5}.
1063: Stars brighter than $r\sim14$~mag are saturated in the SDSS CCDs, so the
1064: brightest portions of the RGB are not seen in many cluster CMDs. A detailed
1065: description on the data and fiducial sequences is presented in the following section.
1066:
1067: RR Lyraes show the most notable variations of fluxes in globular cluster studies.
1068: This can be seen in Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm3}-\ref{fig:all.cmd.4}, where RR Lyraes
1069: are scattered off the HBs, because most of them were observed only once in SDSS.
1070: They also stand out with large rms magnitude errors in the repeat flux measurements
1071: at $r\sim16$~mag (Fig.~\ref{fig:stripsdbl}).
1072:
1073: \subsection{Cluster Fiducial Sequences}
1074: \label{sec:fiducial}
1075:
1076: The individual points in Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm3}-\ref{fig:all.cmd.5} are
1077: those stars that satisfy $\chi$ and sharp index selection criteria in
1078: \S~\ref{sec:zeropoint}. To identify stars in less-crowded regions, we
1079: further used the separation index \citep{stetson:03}, which is defined
1080: as the logarithmic ratio of the surface brightness of a star to the
1081: summed brightness from all neighboring stars. We followed the detailed
1082: procedure of computing a separation index in \citet{clem:08}. That is,
1083: we assumed the Moffat stellar profile of the surface brightness and
1084: considered the light contribution from those stars lying within 10 times
1085: the assumed FWHM in the $r$-band images. We adopted $1.4\arcsec$ for the
1086: typical FWHM seeing for all fields using {\tt RunQA} \citep{ivezic:04}.
1087: In most of the cases we accepted those stars with a separation index
1088: larger than $3.5$~dex. For M71 we used stars with a separation index larger
1089: than $2$~dex, which produces the best looking sequences on the CMDs. However, we
1090: did not apply the above criterion based on the separation index for the relatively
1091: sparse clusters NGC~4147, NGC~7006, Pal~3, Pal~4, Pal~5, and Pal~14.
1092:
1093: Given the $\sim2\%$ zero-point differences between different runs, we
1094: adjusted the zero point for the photometry in one of the runs to match
1095: the others before combining them together. Our selected runs for the
1096: local photometric standards are listed in the second column of
1097: Table~\ref{tab:overlap}. To reduce the contamination from
1098: background stars, we selected stars within a $2.5\arcmin$ radius from
1099: a cluster center for Pal~3, Pal~4, and NGC~7006, those within a $5.0\arcmin$
1100: radius for NGC~6791, and Pal~5, and those within a $2.0\arcmin$ for M71.
1101:
1102: The curves in Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm3}-\ref{fig:all.cmd.5} represent
1103: cluster fiducial sequences derived from the above data sample.
1104: A cluster fiducial sequence is defined as the locus of the number density
1105: peaks on a CMD. Representing a color-magnitude relation for single
1106: stars in a cluster, fiducial sequences can be used to derive relative
1107: distances to stars and star clusters and to test theoretical stellar
1108: isochrones. However, most of Galactic clusters lack a complete census
1109: of cluster membership and binarity, and the observed CMDs typically contain
1110: a non-uniform distribution of foreground/background stars and cluster
1111: binaries. In particular, low mass-ratio binaries are difficult to
1112: identify because their colors and magnitudes are similar to those of
1113: single stars. Therefore, careful selection of data points is required
1114: in order to derive accurate cluster fiducial sequences.
1115:
1116: We adopted a photometric filtering scheme, as in \citet[][see also An
1117: et al.\ 2007a]{an:07b}, in order to reduce the number of cluster binaries
1118: and non-cluster members in the CMDs. The photometric filtering is an
1119: automated process with a least amount of human intervention. The filtering
1120: process iteratively identifies the MS, SGB, and RGB ridgelines independently
1121: of the isochrones, determines the spread of points, and rejects stars if
1122: they are too far away from the ridgeline for a given magnitude. We combined
1123: the results from $(g - r, r)$, $(g - i, r)$, and $(g - z, r)$, and rejected
1124: stars if they were tagged as an outlier at least in one of the CMDs. We
1125: started with a $3\sigma$ rejection and reduced the threshold until it was
1126: limited to $2.5\sigma$. About $20\%$ of stars were rejected from each set
1127: of CMDs, including cluster HB stars. For extremely sparse clusters
1128: (Pal~3, Pal~4, and Pal~14), we handpicked probable single star members from
1129: $(g - r, r)$, $(g - i, r)$, and $(g - z, r)$.
1130:
1131: \input{tab9.tex}
1132: \input{tab10.tex}
1133: \input{tab11.tex}
1134: \input{tab12.tex}
1135: \input{tab13.tex}
1136:
1137:
1138: Although a cluster ridgeline was obtained as a by-product from the
1139: photometric filtering, it has many small scale structures, which are
1140: mostly not physical. To obtain a smooth cluster sequence we used
1141: wider magnitude bins and estimated median colors in the last stage of
1142: the filtering process. We adjusted the magnitude bin size to adequately
1143: follow the shapes of the MS, SGB, and RGB, and smoothed the curve by
1144: averaging each point with a linear interpolation between adjacent points.
1145:
1146: Although the above method worked well in most of the cases, it often
1147: showed a deviation at the top of the RGB for sparsely populated clusters
1148: (e.g., NGC~4147, Pal~5). We adjusted these sequences by hand to match
1149: the observed RGB. In addition, we drew by hand the SGB of NGC~6791,
1150: which exhibits double color peaks at a given $r$ magnitude.
1151: Fiducial sequences for the 20 clusters in our study are provided in
1152: Tables~\ref{tab:ngc2419}-\ref{tab:m2}.
1153:
1154: \input{tab14.tex}
1155: \input{tab15.tex}
1156: \input{tab16.tex}
1157: \input{tab17.tex}
1158: \input{tab18.tex}
1159: \input{tab19.tex}
1160: \input{tab20.tex}
1161:
1162: \clearpage
1163:
1164: \input{tab21.tex}
1165: \input{tab22.tex}
1166: \input{tab23.tex}
1167: \input{tab24.tex}
1168: \input{tab25.tex}
1169: \input{tab26.tex}
1170: \input{tab27.tex}
1171: \input{tab28.tex}
1172:
1173: \subsection{Preliminary Test of Theoretical Models}
1174:
1175: \citet{girardi:04} provided the first extensive sets of theoretical isochrones
1176: in the $ugriz$ system. They derived magnitudes in $ugriz$ using ATLAS9 synthetic
1177: spectra \citep{castelli:97,bessell:98} for most regions of $T_{\rm eff}$ and
1178: $\log{g}$ space. Here we test the models constructed from the \citet{girardi:00}
1179: evolutionary tracks with our fiducial sequences. Detailed comparisons to theoretical
1180: models will be presented in a companion paper (D.\ An et al.\ 2008, in preparation).
1181:
1182: Isochrones in \citet{girardi:04} were constructed for a perfect AB
1183: magnitude system, in which magnitudes can be translated directly into
1184: physical flux units. However, it is known that the SDSS photometry
1185: slightly deviates from a true AB system \citep{dr2}. To compare our
1186: fiducial sequences to the isochrones, we adjusted model magnitudes
1187: using AB corrections given by \citet{eisenstein:06}: $u_{\rm AB} = u - 0.040$,
1188: $i_{\rm AB} = i + 0.015$, and $z_{\rm AB} = z + 0.030$, with no
1189: corrections in $g$ and $r$ (see also Holberg \& Bergeron 2006).
1190:
1191: We restricted our comparisons to five globular clusters (M3, M5, M13,
1192: M15, and M92) and one solar-metallicity open cluster (M67). These
1193: clusters not only have well-defined sequences but also have relatively
1194: well-studied distances and reddening estimates, which are necessary to
1195: infer the absolute magnitudes of stars. Furthermore, the
1196: metallicities of these clusters are well-studied, so the model colors
1197: can be tested more accurately for a given metallicity.
1198:
1199: For globular clusters, we adopted the MS-fitting distances given by
1200: \citet[][see Table~1]{kraft:03}, which are based on measurements of
1201: {\it Hipparcos} subdwarfs. We also adopted reddening values from
1202: \citet{kraft:03}. For M67 we adopted cluster distance
1203: and reddening estimates from \citet{an:07b}. The isochrone colors and
1204: magnitudes were corrected for the assumed reddening using theoretical
1205: computations of extinction coefficients ($A_{\lambda}/A_V$)
1206: in \citet{girardi:04}. Specifically, we used their model flux calculation
1207: for dwarfs ($T_{\rm eff} = 5000$, $\log{g} = 4.50$, [m/H] = 0):
1208: $A_u/A_V = 1.574$, $A_g/A_V = 1.189$, $A_r/A_V = 0.877$, $A_i/A_V = 0.673$,
1209: and $A_z/A_V = 0.489$ where $V$ represents the Johnson $V$ filter. The
1210: differences in the extinction coefficients for different $T_{\rm eff}$,
1211: $\log{g}$, and [m/H] are negligible for our cluster sample with
1212: $E(B - V) \leq 0.10$. We assumed $R_V \equiv A_V/E(B - V) = 3.1$ and
1213: derived extinction and color-excess values in $ugriz$ for a given $E(B - V)$.
1214:
1215: \begin{figure}
1216: \epsscale{1.15}
1217: \plotone{f17.eps}
1218: \caption{Composite CMDs in $(g - r, M_r)_0$ for five globular clusters
1219: (M3, M5, M13, M15, and M92) and two open clusters (M67 and NGC~6791).
1220: Their metal abundances are shown in parenthesis (see text for details).
1221: \label{fig:all.cmd}}
1222: \end{figure}
1223:
1224: Figure~\ref{fig:all.cmd} shows fiducial sequences for these clusters
1225: on the absolute magnitude $M_r$ versus intrinsic color $(g - r)_0$
1226: space, with the above adopted distances and reddening values.
1227: We included a fiducial sequence for NGC~6791 in the plot, using its
1228: parameters in Table~\ref{tab:propoc}. These clusters cover a wide
1229: range of metal abundances ($-2.4 < {\rm [Fe/H]} < +0.4$); their fiducial
1230: sequences become redder at higher metallicities. In the figure,
1231: two groups of globular cluster sequences are distinguished by two
1232: different colors according to their metal abundances in \citet{kraft:03}:
1233: M15 and M92 (${\rm [Fe/H]} \approx -2.4$; {\it violet}), M3 and M13
1234: (${\rm [Fe/H]} \approx -1.6$; {\it green}). Cluster sequences in each
1235: group of the clusters show $\la2\%$ agreement in color. We note that
1236: these differences are within the expected size of the errors from the
1237: adopted distance, reddening, and photometric zero points
1238: (\S~\ref{sec:zeropoint}).
1239:
1240: \begin{figure*}
1241: \epsscale{1.0}
1242: \plotone{f18.eps}
1243: \caption{Comparisons between fiducial sequences for M15 in this paper
1244: ({\it dotted line with triangles}) and the Girardi et~al.\ theoretical
1245: isochrones ({\it solid lines}). Models are shown with
1246: $Z = 0.0001$ (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -2.3$)
1247: at ages of 10.0, 11.2, 12.6, 14.1, and 15.9~Gyrs.\label{fig:cmdm15.pv}}
1248: \end{figure*}
1249:
1250: \begin{figure*}
1251: \epsscale{1.0}
1252: \plotone{f19.eps}
1253: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv}, but for M92.
1254: \label{fig:cmdm92.pv}}
1255: \end{figure*}
1256:
1257: \begin{figure*}
1258: \epsscale{1.0}
1259: \plotone{f20.eps}
1260: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv}, but for M13. Models are
1261: shown for $Z = 0.0004$ (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -1.7$) and $Z = 0.0010$
1262: (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -1.3$) at an age of 12.6~Gyr.
1263: \label{fig:cmdm13.pv}}
1264: \end{figure*}
1265:
1266: \begin{figure*}
1267: \epsscale{1.0}
1268: \plotone{f21.eps}
1269: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm13.pv}, but for M3.
1270: \label{fig:cmdm3.pv}}
1271: \end{figure*}
1272:
1273: \begin{figure*}
1274: \epsscale{1.0}
1275: \plotone{f22.eps}
1276: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv}, but for M5. Models are
1277: shown for $Z = 0.0010$ (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -1.3$) at ages of 10.0,
1278: 11.2, 12.6, 14.1, and 15.9~Gyrs.\label{fig:cmdm5.pv}}
1279: \end{figure*}
1280:
1281: \begin{figure*}
1282: \epsscale{1.0}
1283: \plotone{f23.eps}
1284: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv}, but for M67. Models are
1285: shown for $Z = 0.0080$, $0.0190$, and $0.0300$
1286: (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -0.4, +0.0, +0.2$) at an age of 3.5~Gyr.
1287: \label{fig:cmdm67.pv}}
1288: \end{figure*}
1289:
1290: Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv} and \ref{fig:cmdm92.pv} show comparisons
1291: between fiducial sequences for the two most metal-poor globular clusters
1292: in our sample, M15 and M92 ({\it dotted line}), and the \citet{girardi:04}
1293: theoretical isochrones ({\it solid line}). Models are shown
1294: with the heavy-element content $Z = 0.0001$ (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -2.3$)
1295: at ages of 10.0, 11.2, 12.6, 14.1, and 15.9~Gyrs.
1296: Comparisons in $(g - r, r)$, $(g - i, r)$, and $(g - z, r)$ show that
1297: model colors are $\sim0.02$--$0.05$~mag bluer and redder than the fiducial
1298: sequences for MS and RGB, respectively. In addition, the morphology of
1299: the model SGB does not perfectly match the observed ones. A significant
1300: color offset is found in $(u - g, r)$, up to as large as $\sim0.1$~mag.
1301: While the SDSS $u$-band filters are known to have a red leak
1302: \citep{edr}, it is probably not the reason for the discrepancy found for
1303: stars bluer than $g - r \sim 1.2$. We note again that our photometry
1304: does not reach to the tips of the RGBs in all clusters because of
1305: saturation, and that this work does not constrain the reddest part of
1306: the RGBs for the nearest clusters.
1307:
1308: Figures~\ref{fig:cmdm13.pv} and \ref{fig:cmdm3.pv} show comparisons
1309: for the intermediate metallicity globular clusters M13 and M3,
1310: respectively. The models are shown for two different metallicities,
1311: $Z = 0.0004$ (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -1.7$) and $Z = 0.0010$
1312: (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -1.3$), to bracket the observed cluster abundances.
1313: It is noted that these models assume the scaled-solar abundance
1314: ratios, while metal-poor stars show $\alpha$-enhanced abundances
1315: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{sneden:04,venn:04}. However,
1316: the effects of $\alpha$-enhancement can be mimicked by increasing the
1317: total metal abundance in this low metallicity range
1318: \citep{salaris:93,kim:02,cassisi:04}.
1319: Nevertheless, neither isochrones simultaneously match the colors of
1320: both the MS and RGB sequences with high precision. We found a similar
1321: result for M5 (${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.26$), as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cmdm5.pv}.
1322:
1323: Here we neglected the effects of unresolved binaries. \citet{an:07b}
1324: performed extensive simulations of unresolved binaries in clusters and their
1325: influence in the MS-fitting distances. After the same photometric filtering as we
1326: applied in this paper, they found that the unresolved binaries can make the MS
1327: look brighter by $\sim0.007$~mag for a $40\%$ binary fraction\footnote{Binary
1328: fraction is defined as the number of binaries divided by the total number of
1329: systems.} because all of the low mass-ratio binaries cannot be detected in
1330: the photometric filtering. However, this tranlates into only $\sim0.001$~mag
1331: in colors since the slope of the MS is about 5-6. Furthermore,
1332: the observed binary fraction of globular clusters is typcially less than
1333: $20\%$ \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{sollima:07,davis:08}, which makes
1334: the influence of unresolved binaries even smaller.
1335:
1336: Figure~\ref{fig:cmdm67.pv} shows the comparison between the
1337: solar-metallicity open cluster M67 CMDs and 3.5~Gyr models at three
1338: different metallicities, $Z = 0.0080$, $0.0190$, and $0.0300$
1339: (${\rm [m/H]} \approx -0.4, +0.0, +0.2$). We used models without
1340: convective core overshooting, but the difference from those models
1341: based on the overshooting assumption is small in most parts of the CMDs
1342: in Figure~\ref{fig:cmdm67.pv}. Near the MS turnoff, the agreement is
1343: good between solar-metallicity models and the data.
1344: However, the models begin to diverge from
1345: the fiducial MS below $r \sim 16.5$~mag or $\sim 0.7 M_\odot$ in their models.
1346: The difference becomes as large as $\sim0.5$~mag in $(g - i, r)$
1347: and $(g - z, r)$ at the bottom of the MS. Users of these models
1348: should be warned about this potentially large discrepancy.
1349:
1350: \subsection{Comparison with Fiducial Sequences in $u'g'r'i'z'$}
1351: \label{sec:prime}
1352:
1353: \citet{clem:08} observed four globular clusters (M3, M13, M71, M92) and
1354: one open cluster (NGC~6791) in the $u'g'r'i'z'$ passbands with the
1355: MegaCam wide-field imager on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. Their
1356: data included observations of various integration times, which resulted
1357: in highly precise CMDs extending from the tip of the RGB down to
1358: approximately four magnitudes below the MS turnoff.
1359:
1360: The photometry in Clem et al.\ has been calibrated to the $u'g'r'i'z'$
1361: system defined by the \citet{smith:02} sample of standard stars, while the
1362: SDSS photometry is on the natural $ugriz$ system of the 2.5-m survey
1363: telescope. Therefore, we converted their fiducial sequences in the
1364: $u'g'r'i'z'$ system onto the SDSS 2.5-m $ugriz$ system, using the
1365: transformation equations in \citet{tucker:06}: $u = u'$,
1366: $g = g' + 0.060 [(g' - r') - 0.53]$, $r = r' + 0.035 [(r' - i') - 0.21]$,
1367: $i = i' + 0.041 [(r' - i') - 0.21]$, $z = z' - 0.030 [(i' - z') - 0.09]$.
1368: These relations were derived using stars in $0.70 \leq (u' - g') \leq 2.70$,
1369: $0.15 \leq (g' - r') \leq 1.20$, $−0.10 \leq (r' - i') \leq 0.60$,
1370: and $−0.20 \leq (i' - z') \leq 0.40$.
1371:
1372: \begin{figure*}
1373: \epsscale{1.0}
1374: \plotone{f24.eps}
1375: \caption{Comparisons between fiducial sequences in this paper
1376: ({\it solid line}) and those in Clem et~al. ({\it dotted line}), after
1377: transforming the latter from the $u'g'r'i'z'$ to the $ugriz$ system. Fiducial
1378: sequences are shown for M92, M13, and M3 (from {\it left} to {\it right}) with
1379: arbitrary offsets in colors and magnitudes for clarity. The comparison in
1380: $g - z$ for M3 is not shown because the sequence is not available in Clem et
1381: al.\ for that color index.\label{fig:comp.clem}}
1382: \end{figure*}
1383:
1384: \begin{figure*}
1385: \epsscale{1.0}
1386: \plotone{f25.eps}
1387: \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp.clem}, but for M71 ({\it left})
1388: and NGC~6791 ({\it right}). See text for a discussion on the M71
1389: comparisons. The comparison in $u - g$ for NGC~6791 is not shown because
1390: the sequence is not available in Clem et al.\ for that color index.
1391: \label{fig:comp.clem.2}}
1392: \end{figure*}
1393:
1394: Figures~\ref{fig:comp.clem} and \ref{fig:comp.clem.2} show comparisons
1395: between our fiducial sequences and those in Clem et al.\ on the $ugriz$
1396: system. For clarity, comparisons are shown with arbitrary offsets in colors
1397: and magnitudes for each cluster. Note that the sequences in Clem et al.\
1398: extend far beyond the magnitude limits of our fiducial sequences.
1399: The comparison in $g - z$ for M3 is not shown in Figure~\ref{fig:comp.clem}
1400: because the sequence is not available in Clem et al.\ for that color
1401: index. For the same reason, the comparison in $u - g$ for NGC~6791 is
1402: not shown in Figure~\ref{fig:comp.clem.2}.
1403:
1404: While a generally good agreement is found between the two sets of
1405: fiducial sequences, the comparisons for M71 show particularly large
1406: differences in all four of the color indices. The differences in colors
1407: are $\sim0.05$-$0.15$~mag, in the sense that our fiducial sequences are
1408: always redder than those in Clem et al. As we noted in
1409: \S~\ref{sec:zeropoint}, the zero points for the M71 photometry were very
1410: uncertain, due to the suspicious {\it Photo} magnitudes in the cluster's
1411: flanking field. In addition, the shapes of the fiducial sequences could
1412: not be accurately defined due to the strong contamination from background
1413: stars. Caution should be given when using our DAOPHOT photometry for M71
1414: and its fiducial sequences.
1415:
1416: Except for M71, the differences in colors and/or magnitudes between the
1417: two fiducial sequences are typically less than $\sim2\%$. These differences
1418: are smaller than those found from the comparison with theoretical
1419: isochrones (Figs.~\ref{fig:cmdm15.pv}-\ref{fig:cmdm67.pv}). Furthermore,
1420: they are comparable in size to the zero-point errors in the DAOPHOT
1421: photometry (\S~\ref{sec:error}). Therefore, the agreement found here
1422: not only validates the accuracy of the transformation equations between
1423: $u'g'r'i'z'$ and $ugriz$, but also the accuracy of our fiducial
1424: sequences derived from the single-epoch photometry.
1425:
1426: In the case of NGC~6791, our fiducial sequences on RGB become redder
1427: than the Clem et al.\ sequences at redder colors. The differences at
1428: the tip of our fiducial sequences are $\sim0.05$--$0.10$~mag. Although different
1429: filter responses can cause these color-dependent zero-point shifts, the
1430: observed differences are possibly due to uncertainties in the fiducial
1431: sequences from the sparsely populated RGB of the cluster.
1432:
1433: \section{Conclusion}
1434:
1435: We used the DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME suite of programs to derive photometry in
1436: $ugriz$ filter bandpasses for 17 globular clusters and 3 open clusters
1437: that have been observed with SDSS. The regions close to the globular
1438: clusters are too crowded for the standard SDSS photometric pipeline
1439: ({\it Photo}) to process, and the photometry is not available for the
1440: most crowded regions of these clusters. In order to exploit over 100
1441: million stellar objects with $r < 22.5$~mag observed by SDSS, we
1442: used the DAOPHOT crowded field photometry package to derive accurate
1443: magnitudes and colors of stars in the Galactic clusters. We also
1444: derived fiducial sequences for the 20 clusters on the native SDSS
1445: 2.5-meter $ugriz$ photometric system, which can be directly applied to
1446: the SDSS photometry without relying upon transformations from
1447: the $u'g'r'i'z'$ system.
1448:
1449: We showed that DAOPHOT PSF magnitudes are spatially and temporally
1450: uniform to $\la0.5\%$ with respect to aperture photometry. However,
1451: comparison between the DAOPHOT and the {\it Photo} magnitudes showed
1452: $\sim2\%$ high spatial frequency structures on a sub-field scale,
1453: indicating an error in the {\it Photo} magnitudes. Although the $2\%$
1454: accuracy of {\it Photo} magnitudes already makes SDSS one of the most
1455: successful optical surveys, our result indicates that its photometric
1456: accuracy could be further improved in the future
1457: \citep[e.g.,][]{ivezic:07,padmanabhan:08}. Nevertheless, the accuracy
1458: of the zero point in the DAOPHOT photometry is predominantly limited by
1459: the $\sim2\%$ run-to-run zero-point variations.
1460:
1461: From repeated flux measurements in overlapping strips/runs, we also
1462: measured realistic photometric errors for SDSS photometry determined
1463: by DAOPHOT. The error distributions at the bright ends indicate errors
1464: of $\sim1\%$ in $griz$ and $\sim2\%$ in the $u$ band, which are a factor
1465: of two better than the $2\%$ rms photometric precision obtained with
1466: {\it Photo} \citep{ivezic:03}. We found slightly larger rms differences
1467: ($\sim0.025$~mag) between the {\it Photo} and the DAOPHOT magnitudes in
1468: semi-crowded open cluster fields.
1469:
1470: Using fiducial sequences, we performed a preliminary test of theoretical
1471: isochrones from \citet{girardi:04}. We found that model colors differ by
1472: $\sim0.02$--$0.05$~mag from those of the fiducial sequences for our adopted cluster
1473: distance and reddening values. Furthermore, these models cannot be
1474: simultaneously matched to the MS and RGB ridgelines of our fiducial
1475: sequences. In the solar-metallicity open cluster M67, model colors are
1476: too blue by $\sim0.5$~mag at the bottom of the MS. On the other hand, we
1477: found a good agreement ($\la0.02$~mag in colors) with the \citet{clem:08}
1478: empirical fiducial sequences in $u'g'r'i'z'$, after transformation to
1479: the native $ugriz$ system using the transformation equations of
1480: \citet{tucker:06}. This result not only validates the accuracy of the
1481: transformation equations between $u'g'r'i'z'$ and $ugriz$, but also the
1482: accuracy of our fiducial sequences derived from the single-epoch photometry.
1483:
1484: There are several projects that will benefit from our accurate cluster
1485: photometry and fiducial sequences in $ugriz$. The photometry is of
1486: great value for empirical calibrations of the spectroscopic measurements
1487: such as the SEGUE Stellar Parameter Pipeline \citep{sspp1,sspp2,sspp3},
1488: and for deriving accurate transformations between $ugriz$ and other
1489: photometric systems. As templates for stellar populations, fiducial
1490: sequences can be used to identify and characterize the dwarf companions to
1491: the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. They can be also used for tracing
1492: the tidal structures from globular clusters \citep[e.g.,][]{odenkirchen:01}.
1493: In addition, the distances to individual stars in SDSS can be better
1494: determined with $ugriz$ fiducials of well-studied clusters, which is
1495: the subject of the next paper in this series.
1496:
1497: \acknowledgements
1498:
1499: D.A.\ and J.A.J.\ thank Donald Terndrup, Marc Pinsonneault, and Andrew Gould
1500: for helpful comments. D.A.\ and J.A.J.\ acknowledge support from SSP-271.
1501: H.L.M.\ acknowledges support from NSF grants AST-0098435 and AST-0607518.
1502:
1503: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P.\ Sloan
1504: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
1505: the U.S.\ Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
1506: the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
1507: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
1508:
1509: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating
1510: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural
1511: History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of
1512: Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel
1513: University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation
1514: Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,
1515: the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist
1516: Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
1517: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for
1518: Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University
1519: of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
1520: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1521:
1522: \begin{thebibliography}
1523:
1524: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2003)]{dr1}
1525: Abazajian, K., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 2081
1526:
1527: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2004)]{dr2}
1528: Abazajian, K., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 502
1529:
1530: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{dr3}
1531: Abazajian, K., et al.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1755
1532:
1533: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2006)]{dr4}
1534: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2007)]{dr5}
1537: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 172, 634
1538:
1539: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2008)]{dr6}
1540: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
1541:
1542: \bibitem[Allende Prieto et al.(2006)]{allendeprieto:06}
1543: Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T.~C., Wilhelm, R., Newberg, H.~J.,
1544: Rockosi, C.~M., Yanny, B., \& Lee, Y.~S.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 804
1545:
1546: \bibitem[Allende Prieto et al.(2007)]{sspp3}
1547: Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.5780
1548:
1549: \bibitem[An et al.(2007a)]{an:07a}
1550: An, D., Terndrup, D.~M., \& Pinsonneault, M.~H.\ 2007a, \apj, 671, 1640
1551:
1552: \bibitem [An et al.(2007b)]{an:07b}
1553: An, D., Terndrup, D.~M., Pinsonneault, M.~H., Paulson, D.~B.,
1554: Hanson, R.~B., \& Stauffer, J.~R.\ 2007b, \apj, 655, 233
1555:
1556: \bibitem[Anthony-Twarog et al.(2006)]{anthony-twarog:06}
1557: Anthony-Twarog, B.~J., Tanner, D., Cracraft, M., \&
1558: Twarog, B.~A.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 461
1559:
1560: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006)]{belokurov:06}
1561: Belokurov, V., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 642, L137
1562:
1563: \bibitem[Bessell et al.(1998)]{bessell:98}
1564: Bessell, M.~S., Castelli, F., \& Plez, B.\ 1998, \aap, 333, 231
1565:
1566: \bibitem[Carraro et al.(2006)]{carraro:06}
1567: Carraro, G., Villanova, S., Demarque, P., McSwain, M.~V.,
1568: Piotto, G., \& Bedin, L.~R.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 1151
1569:
1570: \bibitem[Cassisi et al.(2004)]{cassisi:04}
1571: Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., Castelli, F.,
1572: \& Pietrinferni, A.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 498
1573:
1574: \bibitem[Castelli et al.(1997)]{castelli:97}
1575: Castelli, F., Gratton, R.~G., \& Kurucz, R.~L.\ 1997, \aap, 318, 841
1576:
1577: \bibitem[Clem et al.(2008)]{clem:08}
1578: Clem, J.~L., Vanden Berg, D.~A., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 682
1579:
1580: \bibitem[Coleman et al.(2007)]{coleman:07}
1581: Coleman, M.~G., Jordi, K., Rix, H.-W., Grebel, E.~K.,
1582: \& Koch, A.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1938
1583:
1584: \bibitem[Davenport et al.(2007)]{davenport:07}
1585: Davenport, J.~R.~A., Bochanski, J.~J., Covey, K.~R., Hawley, S.~L.,
1586: West, A.~A., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 2430
1587:
1588: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2008)]{davis:08}
1589: Davis, D.~S., Richer, H.~B., Anderson, J., Brewer, J., Hurley, J.,
1590: Kalirai, J.~S., Rich, R.~M., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 2155
1591:
1592: \bibitem[de Jong et al.(2008)]{dejong:08}
1593: de Jong, J.~T.~A., Rix, H.-W., Martin, N.~F., Zucker, D.~B.,
1594: Dolphin, A.~E., Bell, E.~F., Belokurov, V., \& Evans, N.~W.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 1361
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2006)]{eisenstein:06}
1597: Eisenstein, D.~J., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 167, 40
1598:
1599: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{fukugita:96}
1600: Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.~E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K.,
1601: \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1602:
1603: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2000)]{girardi:00}
1604: Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C.\ 2000, \aaps, 141, 371
1605:
1606: \bibitem[Girardi et al.(2004)]{girardi:04}
1607: Girardi, L., Grebel, E.~K., Odenkirchen, M., \& Chiosi, C.\ 2004, \aap, 422, 205
1608:
1609: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2006)]{gratton:06}
1610: Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., \&
1611: Tosi, M.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 462
1612:
1613: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(1997)]{gratton:97}
1614: Gratton, R.~G., Fusi Pecci, F., Carretta, E., Clementini, G., Corsi, C.~E.,
1615: \& Lattanzi, M.\ 1997, \apj, 491, 749
1616:
1617: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gunn:98}
1618: Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
1619:
1620: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{gunn:06}
1621: Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
1622:
1623: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{harris:96}
1624: Harris, W.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
1625:
1626: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{hogg:01}
1627: Hogg, D.~W., Finkbeiner, D.~P., Schlegel, D.~J.,
1628: \& Gunn, J.~E.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
1629:
1630: \bibitem[Holberg \& Bergeron(2006)]{holberg:06}
1631: Holberg, J.~B., \& Bergeron, P.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1221
1632:
1633: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2001)]{ivezic:01}
1634: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2749
1635:
1636: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2003)]{ivezic:03}
1637: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al.\ 2003,
1638: Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 74, 978
1639:
1640: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2004)]{ivezic:04}
1641: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al.\ 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
1642:
1643: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2007)]{ivezic:07}
1644: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 973
1645:
1646: \bibitem[Johnson(1957)]{johnson:57}
1647: Johnson, H.~L.\ 1957, \apj, 126, 121
1648:
1649: \bibitem[Juri{\'c} et al.(2008)]{juric:08}
1650: Juri{\'c}, M., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 864
1651:
1652: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.(2002)]{kaiser:02}
1653: Kaiser, N., et al.\ 2002, \procspie, 4836, 154
1654:
1655: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2002)]{kim:02}
1656: Kim, Y.-C., Demarque, P., Yi, S.~K., \& Alexander, D.~R.\ 2002,
1657: \apjs, 143, 499
1658:
1659: \bibitem[Kraft(1994)]{kraft:94}
1660: Kraft, R.~P.\ 1994, \pasp, 106, 553
1661:
1662: \bibitem[Kraft \& Ivans(2003)]{kraft:03}
1663: Kraft, R.~P., \& Ivans, I.~I.\ 2003, \pasp, 115, 143
1664:
1665: \bibitem[Kraft \& Ivans(2004)]{kraft:04}
1666: Kraft, R.~P., \& Ivans, I.~I.\ 2004,
1667: in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Ser.\ 4:
1668: Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 2004,
1669: ed. A. McWilliam \& M. Rauch (Pasadena: Carnegie Observatories),
1670: http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/proceedings.html
1671:
1672: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2007a)]{sspp1}
1673: Lee, Y.~S., et al.\ 2007a, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.5645
1674:
1675: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2007b)]{sspp2}
1676: Lee, Y.~S., et al.\ 2007b, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.5778
1677:
1678: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(1999)]{lupton:99}
1679: Lupton, R.~H., Gunn, J.~E., \& Szalay, A.~S.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
1680:
1681: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2002)]{lupton:02}
1682: Lupton, R.~H., Ivezic, Z., Gunn, J.~E., Knapp, G., Strauss, M.~A.,
1683: \& Yasuda, N.\ 2002, \procspie, 4836, 350
1684:
1685: \bibitem[Newberg et al.(2002)]{newberg:02}
1686: Newberg, H.~J., et al.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 245
1687:
1688: \bibitem[Odenkirchen et al.(2001)]{odenkirchen:01}
1689: Odenkirchen, M., et al.\ 2001, \apjl, 548, L165
1690:
1691: \bibitem[Oke \& Gunn(1983)]{oke:83}
1692: Oke, J.~B., \& Gunn, J.~E.\ 1983, \apj, 266, 713
1693:
1694: \bibitem[Origlia et al.(2006)]{origlia:06}
1695: Origlia, L., Valenti, E., Rich, R.~M., \&
1696: Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 499
1697:
1698: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2008)]{padmanabhan:08}
1699: Padmanabhan, N., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 1217
1700:
1701: \bibitem[Perryman et al.(2001)]{perryman:01}
1702: Perryman, M.~A.~C., et al.\ 2001, \aap, 369, 339
1703:
1704: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pier:03}
1705: Pier, J.~R., Munn, J.~A., Hindsley, R.~B., Hennessy, G.~S.,
1706: Kent, S.~M., Lupton, R.~H., \& Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
1707:
1708: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et~al.(2003)]{pinsono:03}
1709: Pinsonneault, M. H., Terndrup, D. M., Hanson, R. B., \& Stauffer, J. R.
1710: 2003, \apj, 598, 588
1711:
1712: \bibitem[Pinsonneault et~al.(2004)]{pinsono:04}
1713: Pinsonneault, M. H., Terndrup, D. M., Hanson, R. B., \& Stauffer, J. R.
1714: 2004, \apj, 600, 946
1715:
1716: \bibitem[Reid(1997)]{reid:97}
1717: Reid, I.~N.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 161
1718:
1719: \bibitem[Salaris et al.(1993)]{salaris:93}
1720: Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., \& Straniero, O.\ 1993, \apj, 414, 580
1721:
1722: \bibitem[Schechter et al.(1993)]{schechter:93}
1723: Schechter, P.~L., Mateo, M., \& Saha, A.\ 1993, \pasp, 105, 1342
1724:
1725: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegel:98}
1726: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1727:
1728: \bibitem[Sesar et al.(2006)]{sesar:06}
1729: Sesar, B., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2801
1730:
1731: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{smith:02}
1732: Smith, J.~A., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
1733:
1734: \bibitem[Smol{\v c}i{\'c} et al.(2007)]{smolcic:07}
1735: Smol{\v c}i{\'c}, V., Zucker, D.~B., Bell, E.~F., Coleman, M.~G., Rix, H.~W.,
1736: Schinnerer, E., Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., \& Kniazev, A.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1901
1737:
1738: \bibitem[Sneden et al.(2004)]{sneden:04}
1739: Sneden, C., Kraft, R.~P., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R.~C.,
1740: \& Fulbright, J.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2162
1741:
1742: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2007)]{sollima:07}
1743: Sollima, A., Beccari, G., Ferraro, F.~R., Fusi Pecci, F.,
1744: \& Sarajedini, A.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 781
1745:
1746: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{stetson:87}
1747: Stetson, P.~B.\ 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
1748:
1749: \bibitem[Stetson(1990)]{stetson:90}
1750: Stetson, P.~B.\ 1990, \pasp, 102, 932
1751:
1752: \bibitem[Stetson(1994)]{stetson:94}
1753: Stetson, P.-B.\ 1994, \pasp, 106, 250
1754:
1755: \bibitem[Stetson et al.(2003)]{stetson:03}
1756: Stetson, P.~B., Bruntt, H., \& Grundahl, F.\ 2003, \pasp, 115, 413
1757:
1758: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{edr}
1759: Stoughton, C., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1760:
1761: \bibitem[Stubbs et al.(2004)]{stubbs:04}
1762: Stubbs, C.~W., Sweeney, D., Tyson, J.~A.,
1763: \& LSST 2004, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 36, 1527
1764:
1765: \bibitem[Tucker et al.(2006)]{tucker:06}
1766: Tucker, D.~L., et al.\ 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821
1767:
1768: \bibitem[Venn et al.(2004)]{venn:04}
1769: Venn, K.~A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M.~D., Tout, C.~A., Hill, V.,
1770: \& Tolstoy, E.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 1177
1771:
1772: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york:00}
1773: York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1774:
1775: \end{thebibliography}
1776:
1777: \end{document}
1778: