From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 15:09:29 PDT
Hi Bahram,
One point here that's puzzling is that these results imply a photo-z
for "knot 2" (i.e., the knot under the SN candidate) of about z = 2.1,
whereas your previous results using the same data (i.e., ACS photometry
only) gave about z = 1.5. Did you disagree with Rob's ACS aperture
photometry for that knot?
Thanks, --Saul
Bahram Mobasher wrote:
>Rob,
>
>I calculated redshifts using both apertures. The advantage of using the
>ACS data only is that we do not get blending, which would compromise the
>photometric accuracy and hence, the accuracy of redshifts. the disadvantage
>is that we get less strong constraints, as we cannot include the near-IR data.
>
>Fortunately, in this case the overall result is similar to the previous case
>(i.e. using ground-based+ACS photometry). Here are the results:
>
>
>2.935 aperture
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
>knot 1 2.00 1.61 2.39 starburst 2.00
>knot 2 2.10 1.69 2.51 starburst 2.10
>bridge 1.40 1.08 1.72 Irr 1.40
>neighb 2.10 1.69 2.51 starburst 2.10
>
>
>4.165 aperture
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
>knot 1 1.70 1.35 2.18 starburst 1.72
>knot 2 2.10 1.69 2.51 starburst 2.10
>bridge 1.44 0.72 2.09 Irr 0.90
>neighb 2.10 1.69 2.51 starburst 2.10
>
>
>1 object
>2 phot-z (with prior)
>3,4 95% confidence interval
>5 spectral typee
>6 phot-z (without prior)
>
>Bahram
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>* * *
>* Bahram Mobasher * Phone: (410) 338 4974 *
>* Space Telescope Science Institute * *
>* 3700 San Martin Drive * fax: (410) 338 5090 *
>* Baltimore MD 21218 * *
>* USA * email: mobasher@stsci.edu *
>* * *
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 15:10:16 PDT