Jump to content


Photo

Interstellarum DEEP SKY ATLAS - It is here!

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#26 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:59 AM

It's just a matter if I want to spend $180 (and then shipping would be added).

Chris


Chris,

You are refering to the Premium Version. On export orders from outside the European Community, the German VAT will be deducted. The net export price of the Premium Version w/o VAT is EUR 121.40 (USD 166.00), plus shipping. Oculum's service is very customer-oriented, on overseas orders they automatically choose the most economical carrier.

Stephan

#27 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:03 PM

I do not know much about paper weight. Is the normal version kind of like Uranometria grade paper?


pjglad,

The Normal Version uses a high-grade smooth-coated Offset paper, its paper weight is heavier than the paper used for Uranometria.

Stephan

#28 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:25 PM

Do they have an engish legend, etc? :question:


faackanders2,

Not yet, but perhaps they will print one in English, if enough customers ask for it.

Checking the double-sided Legend, I would venture to say that the symbols are fairly well-understandable also for non-German speaking users. At least as long until an english Legend will be available. :)

Stephan

#29 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:28 PM

I do not know much about paper weight. Is the normal version kind of like Uranometria grade paper?


pjglad, the Normal Version uses a high-grade smooth-coated Offset paper, its paper weight is heavier than the paper used for Uranometria.

Stephan


An update on the paper weight of the Normal Version.

I did some measurements for you: Total Atlas weight of 1,415 grams, less estimated weight for spiral binding and cover, divided by total paper used for one Atlas (132 pages 26x28cm = 9.61m2) results in a paper weight of 140g/m2. Hope this helps.

Stephan

#30 obrazell

obrazell

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2005
  • Loc: United Kingdom

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:46 AM

I bought mine through Amazon. You might want to check its availability there.

Owen

#31 macpurity

macpurity

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Quad Cities, Iowa, USA

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:35 PM

It can be found on the UK and DE Amazon sites. Not yet on the US site from Amazon directly.

Another resource is The Book Depository out of the UK. I just purchased the premium paper version for US$135.21 with free international shipping.

#32 core

core

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Mostly in Norman, OK

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:15 AM

Stephan,

Thanks for bringing the atlas to our attention; even with the German text, I'm rather intrigued by it, and I've been musing over the samples; seems quite self-explanatory even for non-speakers. I *am* tempted - think I'll email them to see if an English edition is in the works ...

#33 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:41 AM

Peter,

Glad you like it. After having purchased this new Deep Sky Atlas, I felt very impressed and thought this one deserves praise. This was the reason to start this thread and to share my experience with this outstanding new publication here on CN, and answering to my best knowledge to all questions that arose in the meantime.

As a Swiss, I am perfectly happy with the German edition, but I hope that the publisher will also consider an English edition, for all of my fellow deep sky map lovers here on CN and the rest of the world, who really want to see it with an English legend & introduction. :)

Stephan

#34 Pollux556

Pollux556

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:02 PM

Post deleted by Pollux556

#35 esd726

esd726

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Rochester, IN

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:45 PM

Nice :). Like I said before, I wish I had enough to spend on it to get it. It doesn't REALLY bother me that it's not in English. From the pictures, the objects on the actual charts are enough in English (plus knowing what is there also helps when NOT in English) to make it look like a VERY nice addition to my other atlases. Just don't have that sort of $ just sitting around that I COULD spend on another one right now :bawling:.

#36 Pollux556

Pollux556

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2008

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:37 PM

For fun, I compared the double cluster in Perseus with GAOTS.

Edit: Not necessarily in scale.

Attached Files



#37 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:18 PM

Well, this would appear to be a decent atlas for 8" and down or for larger instruments used in heavy light pollution.
But Uranometria 2000.0 (now compressed to 1 volume) has over twice the DSO count and STILL comes up shy of displaying what CAN be seen in a 12.5" under dark skies.
I would contend that if the atlas is oriented to the visual observer it should show at least the number of objects visible in that aperture in perfect conditions, even if most observers won't see all the objects, because you never know what will or won't be visible to a particular observer.
That means this would be a decent atlas for a 4-8" scope owner, but not really adequate for larger scopes.
So that means it covers a lot of ground already covered by other atlases.
What is lacking is the printed atlas for, say, an 18" scope in pristine skies (probably over 100,000 DSOs). There was going to be one, but it never found a publisher (too small a target audience, computer atlases taking over, etc.).
Still, this looks nice, and I admire the creator for making another decent atlas available.

#38 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:58 AM

Well, this would appear to be a decent atlas for 8" and down or for larger instruments used in heavy light pollution.
But Uranometria 2000.0 (now compressed to 1 volume) has over twice the DSO count and STILL comes up shy of displaying what CAN be seen in a 12.5" under dark skies.
I would contend that if the atlas is oriented to the visual observer it should show at least the number of objects visible in that aperture in perfect conditions, even if most observers won't see all the objects, because you never know what will or won't be visible to a particular observer.
That means this would be a decent atlas for a 4-8" scope owner, but not really adequate for larger scopes.


Don,

The Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas is meant for 4-12" scope owners.

The publisher states under FAQ (scroll down to 5th question), that the visibility categories in the Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas are calculed for a typical rural sky with naked eye limiting magnitude of 6.5, for experienced observers.

With regard to the object selection, the publisher gives under Philosophie (Philosophy) the following informations as stated below. I traduced the original text of points 1.) & 2.), which refers to the object selection and visibility by aperture, from German to English:

"1.) Object Selection:
Quality, not quantity - conventional star atlases show deep sky objects regardless of whether they are visually visible or not. Usually much too many objects are listed that can not be seen. In contrast, others that are quite achievable with typical amateur telescopes are missing. The Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas shows only objects that are visually observable fact - and therefore significantly less than similar atlases. The maps are therefore exempt from invisible targets and show what is actually seen - more than 15,000 deep-sky objects."

"2.) Visibility Categories:
In the Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas all objects are registered by their actual visual visibility for telescope apertures of 4"(100mm), 8" (200mm) and 12" (300mm), so you can be sure therefore, that an object actually is visible when you look for it. They also recognize at first glance which objects might by difficult to be seen (also under a mag 6.5 sky). The visual observability for the three aperture categories was calculated with "Eye & Telescope" software and is matched to a typical country sky (mag 6.5 as specified above), hardly visible borderline cases were sorted out. This review is based solely on the overall brightness of the object, based on a complex algorithm that has been proven at "Eye & Telescope" for more than 10 years. Results of selection were compared with the 15,000 in the "Deep-Sky-List" documented observations and corrected accordingly. In addition to the three visibility categories, special challenges and objects for apertures over 12.5" are listed."


Stephan

#39 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:12 AM

Stephan,

Yes, I read that, but I disagree with the author's understanding of what is and isn't visible for a particular aperture.

What this gets to is an understanding of how to create a "visibility index" of what is visible and what is not visible in a particular aperture. This has been discussed extensively over the years by many people here on Cloudy Nights. And the conclusions we came to was that it was nearly impossible to do so. A ranking by total integrated magnitude didn't make sense because some faint objects ranked higher than some bright ones. A ranking by surface brightness didn't make sense because it favored small objects over large ones even if the large one was more visible (or even visible to the naked eye!).

So how did the authors decide what was visible in a particular aperture? By viewing all 15,000 objects? I doubt it.
Here is my discussion of how ranking objects by visibility fails:
http://www.eyepieces...ility-index.htm
(see Extended Information" for the article).

So it is my guess they used integrated magnitude to decide what was and wasn't visible in a particular aperture, and this doesn't even come close for galaxies alone and works very poorly for any form of extended nebula.

Last is the understanding of just exactly what is the limit of a particular aperture.

For instance, for stars, a 4" under absolutely perfect conditions may reach magnitude 15.0. Under bad conditions, as low as magnitude 10.5. Needless to say, the deep sky objects that can be viewed in the first set of conditions will be radically different than in the second set of conditions.

The author of the atlas used a rule to decide what was and wasn't going to be visible in a particular aperture of scope and, like the authors of the Millenium Sky Atlas, chose to be quite conservative. I would argue that a star atlas for visual use should contain all the objects possibly visible in perfect conditions for whatever aperture at which the atlas is aimed.

In my experience in the field over 50 years of observing, I think the authors erred on the side of conservatism in their choice of objects.
Uranometria has >31,000 objects shown on the charts and I am continually discovering that objects not on the charts are visible in my 12.5". When I had an 8", I noticed the same thing when using other atlases. When I got rid of my 8", I had 9300 objects in my log and had barely scratched the surface of the UMA-CVN-CBR-VIR area. I also noticed that a lot of objects were visible in the 8" that shouldn't have been, based on magnitude. So I stopped paying attention to visibility estimates and assumed I could see an object unless proven otherwise.

There isn't a problem with having an object listed that isn't visible in a particular aperture in poor conditions. It just pushes the observer to look for the object when conditions are better or when they have more experience in viewing objects at the limit. It's very upsetting to an observer to continually see objects that aren't in his charts, however. Then, tracking down the identification of the object becomes a chore--a pleasant chore, perhaps, but a chore nonetheless. Better to show more objects than can be seen at first, but which can be ferreted out by observing longer or returning to the site under better conditions.

Hence, I think this will be a great atlas for the 4" to 8" scope owner. For the 12" and larger scope, though? Not so great, in my opinion.

#40 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8763
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:51 PM

This nicely demonstrates how different people are. I want an atlas to show what I can almost certainly see - to go deeper I can always use Cartes du Ciel. The main problem I've been having with printed atlases is that I need/want a "small atlas" DSO selection on a "big atlas" scale. This Interstellarium atlas is really coming close to my ideal atlas. I'm just waiting a bit to see if international interest is sufficient to get an English version anytime soon.

#41 mwedel

mwedel

    Works with Sauropods

  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Claremont, CA

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:10 PM

So I stopped paying attention to visibility estimates and assumed I could see an object unless proven otherwise.


This is the greatest single line of advice I have ever heard about DSO observing. :goodjob:

#42 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:12 PM

Don,

Thank you for sharing your standpoint, based on over 50 years of observing. I highly appreciate your well-founded input to this discussion.

Generally, the deep sky atlas related discussion "How many deep sky objects are enough?" is an interesting and most likely never ending discussion.

Speaking of printed Atlasses, I think we have a lot of great choices today: Willman-Bell's "Uranometria", Piotr Brych's "Great Atlas of the Sky" (discontinued), Sky Publishing's "Millenium Sky Atlas" (discontinued), or even Gerhard Stropek's ring-bound Deep Sky Beobachteratlas, and many more. Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages.

There is no perfect solution which fits ALL needs, nor will ever be one. Even less for the observer at the telescope who needs/wants a tough and humidity-proof deep sky atlas companion with compact and convenient dimensions.
But for all of us who just want such a handy companion, Oculum's "Deep Sky Atlas" could be the perfect choice. I buyed it and would - despite of its high price for the water-proof Premium Version - buy it again at any time.

I look forward to read any further user comments on Oculum's new "Deep Sky Atlas".


Stephan

#43 esd726

esd726

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Rochester, IN

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:28 PM

This nicely demonstrates how different people are. I want an atlas to show what I can almost certainly see - to go deeper I can always use Cartes du Ciel. The main problem I've been having with printed atlases is that I need/want a "small atlas" DSO selection on a "big atlas" scale. This Interstellarium atlas is really coming close to my ideal atlas. I'm just waiting a bit to see if international interest is sufficient to get an English version anytime soon.

+1

#44 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 23167
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 26 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

And, with any computer atlas, like Cartes du Ciel, you can always print a chart at any scale you want, with any amount of depth in DSOs and stars you desire.
You could even duplicate any printed atlas but add just a few DSOs, etc.
Yes, in this computer era, you can pretty much print your own atlas.

#45 macpurity

macpurity

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Quad Cities, Iowa, USA

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:03 PM

I look forward to read any further user comments on Oculum's new "Deep Sky Atlas".


Just got an email today that my premium copy is on its way! Given that it is "blowing like stink" in the UK (nautical phrase), it may be slightly delayed. I'll offer a short report when it arrives. I expect it will be here within two weeks. Looking forward to the new addition to my collection of bound atlases.

I use hard copies as well as computer/iPad planetarium apps. Heck I even wrote my own custom star charting software (bashing the heck out of the Generic Mapping Tools in a Unix script), so if I want highly detailed charts including UCAC4 stars plotted, I can do that too. Helpful for use at the 16" or 20" club scopes. I anticipate that the Interstellarium atlas will become a favorite planning resource, as a way to get a slightly bigger picture.

Stephan, does the premium paper allow for penciled notes, or are the sheets too slick? I was going to say that I'm not very kind to my books because I write notes in the margins. But I have to say one of my favorite Astro books on my shelf is a very heavily annotated copy of Webb's guide (Dover version) which the previous owner read from cover to cover and copiously made his own notes. I have no idea who may wind up with my books; whoever it is will find my "personality" scribbled in the margins...

#46 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:04 AM

Stephan, does the premium paper allow for penciled notes, or are the sheets too slick?


MacP,

Glad your Premium copy is on the way!

The surface of the synthetical Polyart paper is not too slick and may be inscribed very well. You can use both, regular pencils and also write 'n rub foiling pens or similar products.
Oculum's Deep Sky Atlas webpage states that annotations made by walter soluble inks can be removed at any time, using just a little water.
In addition to this info, I just read elsewhere on a German site, that while annotations made with write 'n rub foiling pens (or water soluble inks) are removable from the Polyart paper of the Atlas, a very slight colour shade remains. The reason for this might be, that the Polyart paper has a micro coarse surface which holds really well any inscriptions or annotations.

Stephan

#47 Ragaisis

Ragaisis

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 16 May 2008
  • Loc: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:19 AM

The more I hear about this atlas, the more I like it. And given my scope is only 85mm, the depth is right.

#48 sabant

sabant

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2007

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:40 PM

Today I received my copy (Premium version). This is an atlas to behold. I own 8 different star atlasses from the Pocket Star Atlas to Millenium Star Atlas but this one is different!

#49 Stellarfire

Stellarfire

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1313
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

Today I received my copy (Premium version). This is an atlas to behold. I own 8 different star atlasses from the Pocket Star Atlas to Millenium Star Atlas but this one is different!


Glad you like it too. Welcome to the Premium IDSA family!

Stephan

#50 macpurity

macpurity

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Quad Cities, Iowa, USA

Posted 02 November 2013 - 02:40 PM

Today I received my copy (Premium version). This is an atlas to behold. I own 8 different star atlasses from the Pocket Star Atlas to Millenium Star Atlas but this one is different!


Mine arrived today, too. Less than a week after having been sent from the UK. Not bad!

Have only had a few minutes to look it over, but I agree with Sabant that it is different. I have quite a few atlases, as well, and I'll be using this one more than, say, the Millennium Atlas.

I had made an earlier comment about notating the pages. Now that I've seen the atlas in person, I doubt I'll be doing that. First, there are no margins; the atlas is printed all the way to the edge of the sheets. Secondly, it's too darn pretty to mark up! I've already marked the heck out of my Pocket Atlas, so I'll simply continue to add notes there.

Thanks, Stephan, for alerting the CN gang to the existence of this atlas. I appreciate that some folks would like it in English, but if you're using it to look at charts of the heavens, it doesn't really matter that much. The introductory material is fairly minimal and is probably covered in other Astro material.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics