wilash
Fairy Godmother
Reged: 09/30/03
Posts: 5746
|
|
There are also an E and F series that are very detailed as well. Mostly to do with the Virgo and LMC areas. I don't mind the strange symbols. They are easy to pickup and can offer quite a bit of information.
Here are some stats for the C_series charts:
Stars: 330,844
Double stars: 23,930
Variable stars: 2,091
Bight nebula: 460
Dark nebula: 243
Galaxies: 10,087
Globular clusters: 245
Open clusters: 1,999
Planetary nebula: 431
I think this atlas is great value for money. I really like how the different series charts complement each other.
|
wilash
Fairy Godmother
Reged: 09/30/03
Posts: 5746
|
|
Quote:
Wilash,
I REALLY appreciate you taking the time to scan and upload these! Thanks a mill!
I'll take a good look at these and then will make up my mind.
Again, thank you!
Michael, I was not that industrious - I shot them with a digital camera. The resolution is very low - someone would be angry if I posted huge files. But this will give you an idea of the atlas.
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30449
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Quote:
I really like how the different series charts complement each other.
This is as close as I've come to seeing a copy of this atlas. Thanks for the effort! It seems to me that the series of charts stratagy would pretty much eliminate the disadvantage of cluttering that might show on pages giving a broader scale.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo Galilei
|
The Meal
sage
Reged: 07/15/04
Posts: 301
Loc: Longmont, CO
|
|
Just came across this thread via google. I'm in the process of deciding between the Sky Atlas 2000.0 or something else for myself (and am trying to turn up relevant example blurbs from each of the atlases). Anyway a very belated thank you to wilash for sharing those photos with us. 
Clear skies, all,
~The Meal
--------------------
~Neal
10x50 Fully Multicoated Binos
XT8i Orion Dobsonian
|
jr_
sage
Reged: 07/28/03
Posts: 212
Loc: Valencia, Spain
|
|
I have tried the most popular deep sky atlas. My favourites are Uranometria, Sky Atlas 2000 (I have been using these two for almost 25 years), Millennium, and lately, the Herald-Bobroff Astroatlas. All of them are good, but all have drawbacks; none of them is perfect. The HB is very close to what any amateur seeks and likes: it provides at the same time large panoramic (constellation) views (I mean mainly section C) together with good limiting magnitude (9.0m) (and naturally, enlarged areas for more detail). Not all sky is enlarged: just the most crowded areas. However, if you want to catch really elusive objects, you need more stars around each object, not just in some areas. I think that any main atlas should show at least stars up to 9.0-9.5 magnitude, to assure to plot field stars close enough to the target area (at least one star 0.5 degrees around any object). In that sense, Millennium is far better, but it lacks of the panoramic sensations that Section C of HB provides, so comfortable for star-hopping. The HB is currently my favourite atlas, anyway.
For using it outdoors, I have reduced sections B (the northern one with brightest DSO where I plotted the constellations) and C to DIN A4 and stored them in a plastic folder with 60 transparent sheets, together with some extra data. The size is perfect and very handy. I prefer this format because the original was a bit oversized and I don't like to expose the original book to moisture. Plastic folders are more comfortable against wind and wet, and they protect very well the photocopies.
I have not photocopied more sections because I think that the solution I have found is better. I have prepared two extra folders with 10800 one-degree fields (108 maps by each two-sides page), each field showing the stars up to 12.5 magnitude around practically any object plotted in the C section, plus a lot more (especially planetary nebulae, and globular clusters, which are my favourite deep sky objects). To locate each object I prepared an index sorted by constellations, then by R.A. and then by DEC, where volume, page, subset and particular field are indicated for each object. I crossed some messages with Tom Leavitt some months ago about how should be the ideal atlas, and I think that finally I have got it. I attached a PDF page (it was designed to be printed at 600 dpi) to give an idea about how the pages look. I have used them several times and, well, the system is rather perfect.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
jr,
One-degree fields - I like them!
Have you used a software star chart to make them?
Sounds like all of the 200 pages with index would be great to have.
Selecting, printing and sorting them must have been a lot of work though.
|
jr_
sage
Reged: 07/28/03
Posts: 212
Loc: Valencia, Spain
|
|
Lars:
I used an old software that I developed some time ago. Look up the top of this thread and you will find more information. You can find an elder version of the program plus a set of data files in my web page, all is freeware.
I prepared about 2000 GIFs with all these maps. To get a hardcopy of the atlas, I printed mosaics of 9 pictures each of them with 6 maps, within each page, using a PowerPoint macro able to process huge lists, obtaining pages similar to that included in the attachment of my previous message, although better scaled.
--------------------
10" LX-200 classic
Binoc:25x100,20x80
Refr:12/15cm
Deep sky/software
http://www.uv.es/jrtorres
|
The Meal
sage
Reged: 07/15/04
Posts: 301
Loc: Longmont, CO
|
|
I ended up purchasing Tirion's Sky Atlas 2nd Ed. Deluxe Laminated version. Thought I'd put a little follow-up on that here (to maybe help someone else make the same decision).
There is some glare associated with the red LED at the very bottom of the chart, but its exceedingly simple to avoid putting myself in a position where it would affect my night vision. I did sense some small degradation of night vision by using the black stars on white background with the lamp on, but it wasn't so much to make me forgo the black-on-white. I'm really happy with my decision.
A common complaint with regards to the Sky Atlas 2000.0 is that the constellation lines aren't drawn in. Since I have the laminated version, I thought I'd take advantage of it by marking in the lines with a dry erase marker (sorry about the dark photo):
With the lines in black, that was too distracting for me, so instead I wiped them out and went back in with a green highlighter:
Also wanted to show the highlighter away from the (blue-background) Milky Way:
And finally a shot (that didn't turn out too well) showing the contrast of the green highlighter under my red LED headlamp:
I'm really happy!
Hope this helps someone else make a decision over which version of the Sky Atlas to get,
~The Meal
--------------------
~Neal
10x50 Fully Multicoated Binos
XT8i Orion Dobsonian
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 11091
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Uranometria 2000.0, second edition, combined with Uranometria DeepSky Field Guide.
More deep sky objects than Millenium atlas.
More detail and better scale than Tirion 2000 atlas.
I find it easier to use in the field than any computer program (I've used Megastar and The Sky.)
But, that being said, a print of a particular area from Megastar shows more objects, more stars, and can be any scale you want. That's even better for a specific area of study.
But for general use at the scope? U2000.0
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
FAB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/06/04
Posts: 2324
Loc: Blythe, CA USA
|
|
This really makes me feel old. For planning I use Antonin Becvar's Atlas of the Heavens II Catalog published in 1964 by Sky Publishing and its companion Atlas of the Heavens published in 1958 also by Sky Publishing. In the field I still use Norton's and probably will continue to do so, not because it's the best, but out of sheer inertia . . . in other words I'm used to it.
--------------------
Floie
10.0" Hardin Dob
6.0" Konus Refractor
3.0" Celestron Tabletop Newtonian
10X50 Binoculars
Bristoscope 772212 Microscope
http://home.earthlink.net/~blhtvl
&
http://home.earthlink.net/~astroclub
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 11091
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
This was my first atlas, too. I never thought the scale was adequate--a one degree circle was very small on the atlas. But, it was < $4 when I bought mine. The more recent upgrade is the Tirion Atlas 2000, with more deep-sky objects and 2000.0 positions for everything. I would suggest retiring the old Becvar and getting the Tirion, if only because the stars go fainter,which would make star hopping easier.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30449
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Quote:
This really makes me feel old. For planning I use Antonin Becvar's Atlas of the Heavens II Catalog published in 1964 by Sky Publishing and its companion Atlas of the Heavens published in 1958 also by Sky Publishing. In the field I still use Norton's and probably will continue to do so, not because it's the best, but out of sheer inertia . . . in other words I'm used to it.
A new copy of Norton's was the first reference I picked up when I got back into astronomy. Familiarity is a powerful draw.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo Galilei
|
FAB
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/06/04
Posts: 2324
Loc: Blythe, CA USA
|
|
Thanks for the input Don. I've been thinking of replacing the Becvars as they are sort of falling apart, and it's just possible I've gotten my money's worth from them over the past decades. I'll check the Tirion Atlas 2000. Incidently, I believe my first Norton's was also $4.00. It was a thin cloth bound black volume, and as I recall I bought it in the gift shop at Griffith Obs around 1952.
--------------------
Floie
10.0" Hardin Dob
6.0" Konus Refractor
3.0" Celestron Tabletop Newtonian
10X50 Binoculars
Bristoscope 772212 Microscope
http://home.earthlink.net/~blhtvl
&
http://home.earthlink.net/~astroclub
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1520
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Hmmm neat thread.
That Hb looks tempting.
Have Sky Atlas 2000 (old deluxe, old desk, and self laminated old field versions), Uranometeria, Bright Star, an old BAA multi-sheet one.
Favorite: Norton's. Still love it and use it more than others, now that i am a small aperature kinda guy.
A fun one i still have a photocopy of that might be of interest to owners of monster dobsonians or CCDers is Hodge's "Atlas of the Andromeda Galaxy". Out of print but used copies are occasionally available, or could inter-libary loan request it through a public library.
It charts the Globulars and HII regions in that galaxy.
Actually, quite a few are visible with high magnification w/ a 10" scope under really dark skies and persistence.
What is really cool now days is all the professional sky survey charts, etc. on line for everyone.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Edited by moynihan (11/18/04 10:55 PM)
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1520
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
wow, the Hodges Atlas is on-line too:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ANDROMEDA_Atlas/Hodge_contents.html
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 11091
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Quote:
Ed,
Could you or anyone give me any feedback on the following.
-"Observing Handbook and Catalogue of Deep Sky Objects"-by Luginbuhl, Christian B.
and
_The "Sky Spot Messier series" by Brent Watson
As usual any information would be most appreciated.
R/S,
Dan
The Luginbuhl and Skiff book is about 2500 deepsky objects and is an excellent observing guide for the Northern Hemisphere observer. It has recently become supplanted by the Night Sky Observer's Guide by Kepple and Sanner (Willmann-Bell) which has over 5000 DSO's and somewhat more info about each object.
Luginbuhl and Skiff's book is a classic, though, and may be of a little more relevance for the smaller scope (though there are a lot of observations with larger ones). My only complaint about this book is its binding. I've had two copies fall apart because the glue dried up and the leaves pulled out. I don't use it in the field any more because of this.
The NSOG is better bound.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 11091
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Quote:
I had another look again at The Night Sky Observer's Guide. The more I look at it, the more I realise just how good it is and how it'd be an ideal reference while observing. However, what I'm wondering is, do any of u have any suggestions as to how I could protect it from dew??
Buy a piece of transparent plexiglass that covers the opened book completely. You can read through it, and it will hold the pages in place in case you have a light breeze.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 6881
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ed,
Could you or anyone give me any feedback on the following.
-"Observing Handbook and Catalogue of Deep Sky Objects"-by Luginbuhl, Christian B.
and
_The "Sky Spot Messier series" by Brent Watson
As usual any information would be most appreciated.
R/S,
Dan
The Luginbuhl and Skiff book is about 2500 deepsky objects and is an excellent observing guide for the Northern Hemisphere observer. It has recently become supplanted by the Night Sky Observer's Guide by Kepple and Sanner (Willmann-Bell) which has over 5000 DSO's and somewhat more info about each object.
Luginbuhl and Skiff's book is a classic, though, and may be of a little more relevance for the smaller scope (though there are a lot of observations with larger ones). My only complaint about this book is its binding. I've had two copies fall apart because the glue dried up and the leaves pulled out. I don't use it in the field any more because of this.
The NSOG is better bound.
Number of objects covered doesn't necessarily translate into quality. I have never been as much of a fan of the NSOG mostly for that reason. It has a noticable amount of descriptive content that disagrees so much with what I (and others) have commonly seen that I find a number of its descriptions misleading or somewhat less than useful. Its coverage in its "aperture ranges" is often inconsistent (ie: some objects are covered on all the listed aperture ranges, while others aren't consistently covered). On a number of objects, the descriptions are too pessimistic (the overall trend of the book), while some others are too optimistic. Some of the factual material in it is also incorrect in several key areas (most notably, the use of nebular filters). Its a nice set of books, but it really needs a lot of cleanup work and some outright revision. For that reason, I would disagree that it has "supplanted" Luginbuhl and Skiff's work, as the quality of that book's material is generally quite good (the NSOG also appears to have relied heavily upon Luginbuhl and Skiff for at least some of the specific descriptive material found in NSOG). Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
|
redvis
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/30/05
Posts: 1148
Loc: Claremont, CA
|
|
I have the new Norton's Star Atlas (20th Edition) and am borrowing from my library the Cambridge Star Atlas. I have to say I prefer the Norton overall. The charts are great (once you get used to them!) However,in my opinion I felt the Cambridge charts were initially more intuitive but the Norton charts become just as intuitive if not moreso after use. Anyway, just my opinion. Plus the huge amount of reference material in Norton's is worth the price alone!
--------------------
|
desertstars
Deja moo
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 30449
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
One of my first investments was a copy of Nortons, which I still expect to put to use even now that I have an HB Astroatlas. Norton's is a great quick reference.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. - Galileo Galilei
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
