Folks, The December 1998 issue of the ApJ Supplements contains an interesting paper (one of a series) summarizing data from a deep multicolor survey mainly to find quasars and other extragalactic objects (Osmer et al. 1998 ApJ Suppl 119, 189). The paper describes a catalogue of some 19,000 objects detected in CCD frames covering six intermediate- to high-latitude fields. Astrometry and photometry are provided down to mag. 23 or so; the internal precision is good down to about mag. 21. The photometric data include Johnson UBV and three other redder non-standard passbands. For the purposes of wide-field survey and photographic-plate calibration, I have extracted small subsets of the data. I first omitted all objects with nominal errors > 0.03 mag. I also deleted nonstellar objects appearing in Tables 1 and 2 of the paper, and pathological stars from Table 3. I then ran the remaining stars into the Strasbourg VizieR utility, looking at USNO-A2.0 for objects within 15 arcsec of each object. This allowed me to obtain improved equinox 2000 coordinates for the objects (these were mostly within 2" of A2.0), and to trim the list further to omit stars with near neighbors. The faintest stars are beyond the limit of A2.0, so I adopted the precessed Osmer et al. positions. Figure 3 of the paper suggests stars brighter than about V=15.5 were saturated on the CCD, so I deleted these as well. For some of the well-populated fields, I trimmed the lists further to include about 20 stars per magnitude interval. All this left about 820 stars. If you're greedy, the complete source files are available starting at: http://vsnet.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~posmer/DMS Conveniently, all but one of the six fields lie well away from existing deep sequences; those five are near the Equator---indeed reasonably near the ecliptic, too, making them useful for asteroid survey work as well. The one northern field (near 17h15m/+50) happens to be about 1 degree from the BVRI sequence by Majewski et al. (1994 PASP 106, 1258), which reaches about as faint. In any case, I found no overlaps. The slightly dodgy photometric calibration (see Paper I of the series: ApJ Suppl 104, 185) suggests the external calibration errors are probably in the 0.05-0.10 range, i.e. okay for the purposes I have mind, but these are nothing like bona-fide standards. But there are lots of stars, and they go faint. By the way, these data confirm again that USNO-A2.0 magnitudes are typically ~0.5 mag. too bright, and that at the limit of the catalogue a scale error sets in, such that A2.0 magnitudes are ~1.5 magnitudes too bright among the very faintest stars. I tried to determine whether the Osmer et al. "almost-R" data were readily transformable to the standard R system, but this was not obvious from a simple inspection of stars of ordinary color. Thus I trimmed the file to include only the BV data. Note that for stars with B-V < 1.3, you can get quite good R magnitudes from: R = V - [0.508(B-V) + 0.04]. A sample of the file is shown below; the complete version is copied out _temporarily_ to the Lowell ftp area: http://ftp.lowell.edu/pub/bas/starcats/dms.dat (44Kb) I will be fiddling with the file a bit more before larding it into my larger file of faint photometric reference stars: http://ftp.lowell.edu/pub/bas/starcats/loneos.stds (1.3Mb) ...but it should be merged there in a few days. \Brian ========== #ID# fld RA (2000) Dec B V 560 01e 1 02 29.08 -0 40 08.5 16.450 15.652 326 01e 1 02 50.07 -0 44 23.5 16.909 16.109 485 01e 1 03 02.15 -0 41 32.5 16.699 16.135 843 01e 1 02 56.56 -0 35 29.1 17.104 16.247 5022 01w 1 02 17.73 -0 50 05.2 17.270 16.356 5387 01w 1 02 17.97 -0 45 45.5 17.169 16.382 6 01e 1 03 17.83 -0 50 27.2 17.135 16.479 389 01e 1 03 10.30 -0 43 14.9 16.985 16.500 5466 01w 1 01 59.17 -0 44 52.0 17.172 16.544