Jump to content


Photo

New Edition of Uranometria 2000

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 deepskytraveler

deepskytraveler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Worthington, OH

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:00 PM

Uranometria 2000 Deep Sky Atlas All Sky, Pole-to-Pole Edition in a single volume. Did I miss the announcement? Anyone seen it yet?

-Mark

#2 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8202
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Palo alto, CA.

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:20 PM

Came up top on a google search here...

#3 swalker

swalker

    Imaging Editor - Sky & Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 1500
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2007
  • Loc: 42.9225°N, 71.2242°W

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:12 PM

apparently it combines volume 1 and 2. Still looks interesting though

#4 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23161
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

Thanks for the heads up. It will eliminate the duplicate charts from +6 degrees to -6 degrees, and be a lot easier to use.
It's a lot cheaper than the 2-volumes, too, so if there is a difference, I'll post it here.

#5 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 18706
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Trussville, AL

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:42 PM

Don,
You have one ordered?

#6 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23161
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:02 PM

Yes.

#7 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:40 PM

Oh boy, I hope this wasn't the book they were telling me about at NEAIC. I was informed of something more of a good read on modern deep sky but something still special for field use. :smirk:

#8 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 18706
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Trussville, AL

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:53 AM

Don,
Glad to hear you have it ordered. I await your review.

Daniel,
Why no love for Uranomertri?. It is probably one of the best printed star atlas out there that is easily available.

#9 Rich (RLTYS)

Rich (RLTYS)

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 5249
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2004
  • Loc: New York (Long Island)

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:55 AM

The new atlas looks quite interesting. I like the detailed charts of selected areas of the sky. I have the two volumes of the origional Uranometria 2000.

Rich (RLTYS)

#10 deepskytraveler

deepskytraveler

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Worthington, OH

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

Rich,

I don't have the original Uranometria 2000. Are the 29 detailed "close-up" charts a new addition to this edition?

-Mark

#11 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:04 PM

Daniel,
Why no love for Uranomertri?. It is probably one of the best printed star atlas out there that is easily available.


Preston,

No worries there. I LOVE Uranometria. That Atlas saved me during detailed star locating through the eyepiece while searching for variable stars. After talking with the publisher though, they were talking about something similar to Burnham's. :bawling:

#12 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

apparently it combines volume 1 and 2. Still looks interesting though


Interesting indeed. Even though I am on the cusp of making SkySafari my primary atlas, I would likely spring for a new version. Something so satisfying about a cold rainy night, a comfy chair, hot coffee and cocoa, and a great atlas.

#13 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:45 PM

I use Sky Safari now but interestingly, using the charts from Uranometria are actually easier when comparing stars through the eyepiece. It's quite accurate.

#14 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23161
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:01 AM

I still find that the direct light of a smartphone, tablet, or laptop is FAR more injurious to my night vision than the indirect light of a dim red LED flashlight on a printed page. Of course, that's not without difficulties, either, but it's a matter of degree.

In the event you are at a place where full dark adaptation is not possible, or the targets being viewed don't require it, then pretty much anything goes.

The proliferation of phones, tablets, and laptops at dark sky sites, though, is becoming quite annoying.

#15 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5476
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:39 AM

http://siriusastropr...dslr-light-s...

Also, Alvin Huey uses a small PC with a black background and you can hardly see the screen when dimmed.

Also note that in my case dark adaptation isn't always important, since some variable and double stars don't require it. It depends on what you're observing. I actually still prefer the stars in the original Uranometria. They're plotted darker for better representation through the eyepiece.

#16 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23161
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 23 November 2012 - 11:19 AM

Daniel,
I used a laptop in the field for 5 years. I used red mode in the program, turned the screen way down, and used both a piece of red plexiglass and smoke plexiglass in front of the screen.
By the time I had the screen brightness low enough I didn't notice any modification of my night vision, it was too dark to read.
Maybe my eyes are just sensitive to direct light?
But I think it's about total photons. I removed one of the two LEDs from my Celestron red LED flashlight, and I find it annoyingly bright even when turned down all the way. Yet, I haven't found a dimmer light.
Many people find the resolution of their eye gets really poor under low light. I agree with that, but I prefer to use a stronger pair of glasses instead of a brighter light.

#17 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2349
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:48 PM

The new atlas looks quite interesting. I like the detailed charts of selected areas of the sky. I have the two volumes of the origional Uranometria 2000.

Rich (RLTYS)


+2 same here. I do like the close up appendix maps.

Will not likely buy the combined version since I now also have the Mag 12 "Great Atlas of the Sky".

#18 Kevin_C

Kevin_C

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2012

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:41 AM

Was going to order, but then found out the postage cost to the UK !! :-O (about the cost of the book!)
I hope this will be available in the UK.

#19 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2349
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 24 November 2012 - 07:04 PM

Was going to order, but then found out the postage cost to the UK !! :-O (about the cost of the book!)
I hope this will be available in the UK.


Great Atlas of the sky had o shiping cost but took over a month to get from Poland (book rate? or included in cost), and was much heavier than a single volume of Uranometria.

#20 fred1871

fred1871

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 893
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

Yes, postage cost for a single item from Will-Bell is big for those of us overseas. A few years back I found the postage was not too bad if you ordered several volumes at once - cost per item was helpfully lower, as postage didn't rise at the same rate as the number of items. Of course you might only want the one item. :(

The two-in-one appears to simply be a reprint of the former 2-volume 2nd edition - is this so? Though the sample page on-line has better star reproduction than my copy of 2nd edition, southern volume. In that, I found the stars were printed too small for use at night with a dim red light. So I didn't buy the northern volume.

I still have my copy of the 1st edition, both north and south, and use it often. Although the 2nd edition has the better arrangement of chart order, better find-the-constellation charts, etc, the 1st edition has more stars and they're not overwhelmed by hordes of faint galaxies. I'm sure the latter are desired by those with 20-inch Dobs and similar, but not all of us observe that way. So for those of us with more modest scopes and who aren't after the faintest galaxies, the first edition, despite its faults, can be more useful.

These days I supplement it with the Tri-Atlas, an excellent work - and print off enlarged sections of C charts if needed. A very nice supplement to Uranometria 1st-ed for a C9.25 and for chasing down star clusters and doubles and the not-too-dim fuzzies.

#21 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2349
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:25 PM

Wonder why they don't offer book shipping rates which are cheaper for the same weight. :confused:

#22 Michael Rapp

Michael Rapp

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3326
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2004
  • Loc: Dickinson, TX

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

I'm flipping through my two volumes of Uranometria and wondering if I should upgrade. I have the 1998 reprinting of the 1988 work. (It's actually very special to me...while I know he didn't write it, I got Stephen James O'Meara to sign it at TSP 1999.)

Comparing my equivalent chart of the Orion area to the one at http://www.willbell.com/u2k/index.htm, I notice a few differences. Obviously, I notice a lot more stars. I also notice some corrections in star positions.

If my memory serves me right, the original Uranometria 2000.0 was done with the RNGC catalog. Isn't this the one with a good deal of errors? Is this later version of Uranometria using any updated database of non-stellar objects?

For $60, it would be nice to have a single volume. I just hope it is bound as nicely as the ones that I currently have.

Uranometria is my favorite atlas in the field. It's the only one that has worked well for my navigating the galaxies in Virgo. (I just wish I had bought it earlier. The right atlas is everything! I struggled with Sky Atlas 2000 for years. The scale is good, but it just doesn't good deep enough on the stars.)

#23 fred1871

fred1871

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 893
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 26 November 2012 - 02:26 AM

Michael, if the first edition Uranometria is your favourite atlas in the field you might find, as I did, that the second edition does not work as well because the fainter stars plotted in the 2nd edition are such tiny specks. Not great for red light under the stars.

The 2nd edition did use much better data bases than the first. The RNGC is my all-time winner in the bad catalogs competition. And the 2nd edition improved the star data by using Hipparcos and Tycho. But the cost was a loss of over 50,000 stars in the new edition - far fewer.

However many many more deep sky objects were plotted - 1st edition, 10,300 in total - 2nd edition, nearly 26,000 galaxies before you add in other types of object. The result is galaxy overkill relative to the number of stars plotted, and the lesser number easily seen in the field. A disappointing mismatch. If you struggled with Sky Atlas 2000 because of not enough stars, you'll have the same problem with 2nd edition Uranometria.

My personal preference would've been a 3rd edition, with more stars, larger dots for the fainter ones, and fewer galaxies. YMMV.

Maybe something like the Millenium Star Atlas but with more deep-sky objects than it had would've been a good move? I can't see that happening, so the Great Atlas of the Sky or the Tri-Atlas (pooter or printed out C charts) are good alternatives.

#24 VanJan

VanJan

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2008

Posted 26 November 2012 - 03:33 AM

The RNGC is my all-time winner in the bad catalogs competition.

:rofl5: +1

#25 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:37 AM

The second edition does not work as well because the fainter stars plotted in the 2nd edition are such tiny specks. Not great for red light under the stars.


Good point. I hadn't really noticed that consciously. But even for me, who can view a page 4 inches away due to myopia, the smallest dots are really pushing the limits of visibility.

My personal preference would've been a 3rd edition, with more stars, larger dots for the fainter ones, and fewer galaxies.


I don't think it's possible to squeeze in significantly more stars at this scale. If you look at a dense part of the sky, like the Cygnus Star Cloud, you'll see that there's barely room to squeeze in the labels even as things stand.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics