Preliminary photometric calibration of SDSS SPICam data Michael Richmond June 5, 1997 Table of Contents Introduction Reduction of stare-mode frames Photometric solution Calibration: mag=20 object Overall throughput Sky Brightness Hubble Deep Field Introduction ------------- This is a short note on photometric calibration for the APO SPICam run on May 29,30,31 and June 1, 1997. It's hard to draw any conclusions from the current set of data, for several reasons: - there were only 4 standard stars observed in total, SA 105_815, SA 109_71 observed once each on May 31 BD+262606, Ross 711 observed once each on June 1 - each star was observed once, at a single airmass - we do not have really good SDSS magnitudes for these stars; the estimates for BD+262606 are likely to be good to within a few percent, but those for the other stars are probably less accurate, especially in u' and z' We can wait for the MT to observe the fields covered by the SPICam scans ... but that will take a while. So, I decided to do the best I could. This is what I did: Reduction of stare-mode frames -------------------------------- 1. processed the stare-mode frames: - used right-hand overscan cols to estimate a single bias value - subtracted that constant value from the entire frame - created median twilight stare-mode flats (after subtracting bias from each raw flatfield frame, of course), using May 30 twilight flats - for each standard-star frame, subtracted bias and divided by the median flatfield for that filter 2. estimated the sky value from each stare-frame by fitting a parabola to the histogram of pixel values; it agreed to within a single count with both the median and mode 3. measured the flux within a square (yes, square) aperture of "radius" 30 pixels = 8.4 arcsec around the standard star. Note that the flux was still rising outside this radius. 4. subtracted the sky contribution from the integrated flux Photometric solution --------------------- At this point, I had too little information to make a real photometric solution. So I tried a "cheat". If we ASSUME a. sky was truly photometric on (late) May 31 and June 1 b. atmospheric extinction was identical on both nights c. all instrumental effects were identical on both nights THEN we can combine the measurements from the two nights into a single solution. Doing so gives us 4 measurements, at different airmass, for each passband. We know approximate SDSS magnitudes for the 4 stars: u g r i z BD+262606 10.77 9.90 9.60 9.51 9.49 SA105_805 12.33 11.55 11.37 11.28 11.25 SA109_71 12.21 11.55 11.44 11.41 11.41 Ross711 12.29 11.49 11.29 11.20 11.16 Actually, only the values for BD+262606 are likely to be accurate, since only it has published spectrophotometry; the other values are based upon UBVRI magnitudes and empirical conversion from Johnson-Cousins to SDSS systems. The u' values, in particular, are likely to be incorrect by large amounts. Blindly proceeding nonetheless, we can define instrumental mag = 30 - 2.5*log(counts/sec) m = (instrumental mag) - (SDSS mag) for each measurement, and then assume that m = C - k*X where "C" is some arbitrary constant, "k" is the first-order extinction coefficient, in magnitudes per airmass, and "X" is the airmass of the observation. We have 4 data points in each passband, and can plot "m" versus "X" to find "C" and "k". Doing so reveals that our assumptions are not too badly satisfied in r' and g', a bit worse in i', and pretty bad in u' and z'. Here are the values I derived via unweighted linear fits: passband k C scatter from line (mag) u' 0.4 7.5 +/- 1.0 0.37 g' 0.21 4.9 +/- 0.2 0.06 r' 0.12 4.8 +/- 0.1 0.02 i' 0.09 5.16 +/- 0.15 0.05 z' 0.13 6.1 +/- 0.3 0.09 Here, I guessed the uncertainties in the value of "C" by looking at the plots, moving a ruler up and down with as much wiggle as I could reasonably find in the 4 data, and then looking at the variation in the zero-point intercept at airmass = 0. Calibration: mag=20 object --------------------------- One can express the zero-point "C" in another manner, by calculating how many counts per second are detected within a box of "radius" 30 pixels around a star of magnitude 20, at an airmass of 0 (outside the atmosphere). Chris Stubbs used a different aperture size and shape, but one can attempt nonetheless to compare his numbers with mine: Richmond Stubbs box radius 30 pixel circle radius 55 pixel passband counts/sec counts/sec u' 7 (+10 -4) 8.3 g' 88 (+18 -15) 88 r' 104 (+10 -10) 106 i' 79 (+11 -11) 81 z' 32 (+10 -8) 34 Overall throughput ------------------- My definition of the overall throughput of a telescope + detector is number of photons measured in detector QE = ---------------------------------------- number of photons which enter aperture To calculate the number of photons actually measured, I used a gain factor of 3.38 electrons/ADU in SPICam, supplied by Chris Stubbs, and the photometric calibration derived above. I calculated the number of photons per second which SPICam detected, scaled to a circle of diameter 350 cm above the atmosphere: #measured = 5.7 million per second. I then took the published spectrophotometry for BD+262606 and integrated numerically through the SDSS r' passband to find the number of photons per second which it should produce per square cm per second, and scaled it to a circle of diameter 350 cm: #entering = 17.5 million per second. The ratio yields an overall throughput, or quantum efficiency, of about 33 percent -- quite a reasonable number for an imaging instrument with 3 reflections. Sky Brightness --------------- Using my own calibration, I went back and calculated the sky brightness in frames of three of the standards (Ross 711 was observed during dawn). I found that, even in these short exposures, the sky was bright enough that only the u' values were significantly changed by mis-calculating the frame's sky value by as much as 0.5 counts/pixel. I also include the value for one drift-scan frame of the Hubble Deep Field, taken on June 01. Sky brightness (mag/sq.arcsec) star airmass altitude azimuth u' g' r' i' z' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SA105_815 ~2.5 23 253 21.8 21.3 20.5 19.5 18.3 +/- 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 BD+262606 1.6 41 277 19.7 21.4 20.6 20.1 19.0 +/- 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 SA109_71 1.2 57 187 21.7 21.5 20.9 19.9 18.7 +/- 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 HDF 1.23 54 335 21.1 0.1 Most of the uncertainty quoted in the table above is in the zero-point of the photometric solution for the double-night; there is a small contribution in the u' and g' from the small number of photons collected per pixel in the short, standard-star exposures. Note that the sky brightness tends to increase with airmass, as one would expect ... but not always. Also note that Alamogordo is west of APO, so one would expect the western sky (azimuth = 270) to be brighter than the southern sky of SA109_71. For every star in the table, the moon was more than 12 degrees below the horizon, and the sun more than 26 degrees below the horizon. Let us compare these values with those from the Blue/Grey/Black Book; I'll repeat the SA109_71 values. star airmass altitude azimuth u' g' r' i' z' -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SA109_71 1.2 57 187 21.7 21.5 20.9 19.9 18.7 +/- 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 Black Book 22.1 21.8 21.2 20.3 18.6 In each case, the measured values are close to the predicted values, but somewhat brighter (except for z'). Certainly, this crude photometric calibration has many untested assumptions; but it is possible that the sky really is brighter than expected. Hubble Deep Field ------------------- I have done a small amount of work on the HDF scan from June 01, frames 3-18. I reduced the data by - subtracting a single bias value per frame (as described above) - combining 6 frames into a long-long-long region, then taking the median of each column to provide a flatfield value - dividing each bias-subtracted frame by the median flatfield The results look very nice -- there is no discernible gradient perpendicular to the drift direction, and little gradient along it. The HDF itself appears in frame jun1.0012.fits, in the western half of the frame. About one-quarter of the HDF falls off the edge of the frame. Here are details on the observation: - JD 50601.71014 - filter = r' - exposure time 47.8 seconds - airmass = 1.23, alt = 54.5 degrees, az = 335 degrees - FWHM = 4.7 pixel = 1.3 arcsec - sky = 171.2 counts/pixel = 21.1 mag/sq.arcsec - sky sigma approx 7 counts/pixel There is a bright star at the eastern end of the frame, which appears in the Guide Star Catalog at V = 15.0. I calculate r' = 14.99 for this star. Using it as a reference, I find the following magnitudes for some objects which appear in the HDF from our data; I also include the magnitudes determined by HST, from the U of Hawaii interactive HDF page: peak type RA Dec counts r' F620 F814 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- star 12:36:54.65 +62:13:29.0 219 19.76 20.1 18.8 star 12:36:56.25 +62:12:42.3 440 18.99 19.6 18.6 star 12:36:53.57 +62:13:09.36 38 21.62 21.9 20.4 galaxy 12:36:51.00 +62:13:21.5 62 20.19 20.4 19.4 galaxy 12:36:49.33 +62:13:47.8 362 18.54 18.9 17.6 Pictures available upon request. It will take more work to determine a meaningful "limiting magnitude". APO APO APO APO APO Apache Point Observatory 3.5m APO APO APO APO APO This is message 49 in the apo35-dsc archive. You can find APO the archive on http://www.astro.princeton.edu/APO/apo35-dsc/INDEX.html APO To join/leave the list, send mail to apo35-request@astro.princeton.edu APO To post a message, mail it to apo35-dsc@astro.princeton.edu APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO APO