You are not logged in. [Login] Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online FAQ · Calendar

Speciality Forums >> Stellar Media Previous   Index   Next   Threaded

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all) LB16europe member Reged: 09/23/09 Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Jaxdialation]       #4118614 - 10/15/10 07:07 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: I compared the depiction of two objects between these two atlases (and H-B). The Great Atlas was easy winner. Way more detail. Which of the 3 TriAtlas versions are you talking about? Post Extras:       cuir Carpal Tunnel Reged: 03/03/07 Loc: Up north. Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Jaxdialation]       #4119973 - 10/16/10 03:42 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: is the Great Atlas of the Sky so much better than JR Torres' TriAtlas? I believe it is. Not by a huge margin, but it is. For one, the GAOTS is printed. Second, the Torres Tri-Atlas C set is disadvantaged by the smaller size of the pages. The more a chart is detailed, the larger a chart size is required to keep it all relevant and in context. I will continue to use my netbook and the C set when in need of extremely precise and magnified charts in the field, as the GAOTS is definitely NOT a field item. When at home, viewing a Nova or National Geographic or other show of that nature about space related topics, my SA 2000 Field edition is usually out and ready for quick reference. Time will tell if the GAOTS will take the SA 2000's place for that purpose, but I doubt about that because the pages of the GAOTS are fragile, and those on the SA 2000 field edition can be flipped much more rapidly. GAOTS is probably going to replace the SA 2000 Deluxe for my tabletop astronomy evenings, but that's just an assumption. Time will tell. I have both a SA 2000 Deluxe and a SA 2000 negative Field edition, and now the GAOTS. I guess I'm all set for large, detailed Atlases. Should I ever get the other two SA 2000 editions, The colored field and regular B&W field editions, it will only be for the personal satisfaction of having all four. My only remaining "want" is a Herald-Bobroff Astroatlas for field use. Post Extras:       KidOrion professor emeritus Reged: 07/07/07 Loc: Carbondale, IL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: cuir]       #4120058 - 10/16/10 04:19 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: My only remaining "want" is a Herald-Bobroff Astroatlas for field use. There's one going for $90 in the CN classifieds right now. Been there for a few days. Post Extras:       Rick Woods Postmaster Reged: 01/27/05 Loc: Inner Solar System Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4120344 - 10/16/10 06:45 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   That's a good price! I paid $80 for mine, new. You should also check out the Uranometria 2000, either edition. I have a preference for the first edition, but I think I'm in the minority. The TriAtlas-C certainly goes deeper than the GA, at least in the star fields I've checked; but everything Seb said in his first paragraph is very true. I have the TA-C loaded into my laptop, and I think there's plenty of room in my collection for both atlases. I don't think it's either-or; more like the more, the merrier! Post Extras:       JimK professor emeritus Reged: 09/18/05 Loc: Albuquerque, NM USA Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: cuir]       #4120646 - 10/16/10 09:22 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Quote: is the Great Atlas of the Sky so much better than JR Torres' TriAtlas? ... the Torres Tri-Atlas C set is disadvantaged by the smaller size of the pages. The more a chart is detailed, the larger a chart size is required to keep it all relevant and in context. ... FWIW Each Tri-Atlas is in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The printing can be done on ledger (11x17-inch) paper if a larger scale is needed - or even on a drawing plotter (but that would be expensive). I just resign myself to using a large rectangular magnifying glass since my eyes have a hard time seeing detail in red light. This also makes it easier for me to carry TriAtlas charts, since 8.5x11-inch works with the magnifier for me. Post Extras:       Rick Woods Postmaster Reged: 01/27/05 Loc: Inner Solar System Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: JimK]       #4120852 - 10/16/10 11:13 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Jim, I think he was talking about the amount of sky covered on each chart, not the physical page size. The GA with its greater area of the sky per chart has an advantage in that respect. Post Extras:       JimK professor emeritus Reged: 09/18/05 Loc: Albuquerque, NM USA Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Rick Woods]       #4121022 - 10/17/10 01:01 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Jim, I think he was talking about the amount of sky covered on each chart, not the physical page size. The GA with its greater area of the sky per chart has an advantage in that respect. Oh... thanks... I'll still use my magnifier on the TriAtlas - it was easier for me to print and use sheet protectors for something that I can use in the field. Maybe for others, too. But I'm glad that some people can enjoy a well printed atlas as well. Everyone has their own way of doing things - variety is good. Post Extras:       KidOrion professor emeritus Reged: 07/07/07 Loc: Carbondale, IL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Rick Woods]       #4121561 - 10/17/10 10:08 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Rick-- WRT Uranometria, I still have my first edition, despite having bought the second. I've been using the first edition in the field recently, for times when Sky Atlas 2000 isn't deep enough. (Yeah, I'm aware of the outdated star positions and the lists of errata and all the other gripes people had with it; I still like using it.) I don't think I could get rid of either edition. I'd love to get a copy of the GA, though. I've pretty much exhausted my astronomy allowance for the year by getting one of the Radians from OPT, though, and I don't know if I can justify another atlas. Maybe if I start playing the lottery.... Post Extras:       cuir Carpal Tunnel Reged: 03/03/07 Loc: Up north. Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4121604 - 10/17/10 10:35 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Rick has interpreted me correctly. I was, indeed, refering to the portion of sky covered per chart. I also have the latest Uranometria, and I find it has the same problem as the Tri Atlas; It covers too litle sky per chart, and it is also much less detailed. Post Extras:       Rick Woods Postmaster Reged: 01/27/05 Loc: Inner Solar System Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4122141 - 10/17/10 02:27 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Rick-- WRT Uranometria, I still have my first edition, despite having bought the second. I've been using the first edition in the field recently, for times when Sky Atlas 2000 isn't deep enough. (Yeah, I'm aware of the outdated star positions and the lists of errata and all the other gripes people had with it; I still like using it.) I don't think I could get rid of either edition. I like it too, but I didn't know about any outdated star positions. What's up with that? The things the 1st ed. have over the 2nd are: way more stars (50,000 more!), the marks allowing you to move the grid to 1950.0 coordinates, and the great essay by George Lovi in the beginning. It also bins the stars like the GA does, which I prefer. The 2nd edition should have retained these features. (Except maybe the binning, which a lot of people don't like). Post Extras:       KidOrion professor emeritus Reged: 07/07/07 Loc: Carbondale, IL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Rick Woods]       #4122287 - 10/17/10 03:31 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The binning never really bothered me that much, as it was easier to determine magnitudes with fewer sizes (although the more-realistic view with the non-binned stars is certainly appealing in its own way). As I understand it, the star positions used in the first edition were from epoch 1855.0, and were not updated. (Brian Skiff remarked on this in the February 1988 issue of Astronomy.) I don't recall much beyond that; it certainly hasn't affected the usefulness (for me) of the atlas. Also, they supposedly used the uncorrected NGC, resulting in a lot of non-existent objects being plotted, and a lot of incorrect positions for existing objects. Post Extras:       Rick Woods Postmaster Reged: 01/27/05 Loc: Inner Solar System Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4122577 - 10/17/10 05:52 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   1855.0!! I never heard that before. I checked my magazine file; I have the January and March 1988 Astronomy, but not February. (Grrr!) Post Extras:       KidOrion professor emeritus Reged: 07/07/07 Loc: Carbondale, IL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Rick Woods]       #4122973 - 10/17/10 09:09 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: 1855.0!! I never heard that before. I checked my magazine file; I have the January and March 1988 Astronomy, but not February. (Grrr!) As it so fortuitously happens, the former president of my club just gave me a metric buttload of old issues of Astronomy and S & T, and I managed to track this one down: Skiff: "The star list from this atlas was drawn from the venerable Bonner Durchmusterung (BD), published in 1863. Hence, though the promotional copy for Uranometria 2000.0 may state the coordinates are for epoch 2000, the star positions are for epoch 1855! The BD star positions aren't all that great by contemporary standards, and one wonders what 150 years of proper motion has done to reduce the accuracy of star positions in Uranometria 2000.0. To be sure, the authors corrected egregious cases of large proper motion. Still, for me at least, a nagging doubt remains." I suspect what he means is that the coordinates for the stars were simply advanced to epoch 2000 without accounting for proper motion; there's no way they would have left the coordinates at 1855... would they? Skiff does acknowledge that the atlas is (was) a step up from most modern atlases (MSA hadn't been released yet, of course), but considers the first edition of U2000.0 "flawed by its sources." Post Extras:       Rick Woods Postmaster Reged: 01/27/05 Loc: Inner Solar System Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4125973 - 10/19/10 01:36 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Well, I can't argue with that (any of it!). Still works pretty good, though. Post Extras:       Jaxdialation Post Laureate Reged: 04/01/07 Loc: Northeast, FL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: Rick Woods]       #4126357 - 10/19/10 09:20 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   That's interesting to know. Post Extras:       turtle86 Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else Reged: 10/09/06 Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4126386 - 10/19/10 09:33 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Thanks for the info about the first edition of Uranometria. Looks like the second edition of Uranometria doesn't have the same problem: http://www.willbell.com/u2k/pdf/U2K2-Stars.pdf I do think the first edition is still worth owning... Post Extras:       KidOrion professor emeritus Reged: 07/07/07 Loc: Carbondale, IL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: turtle86]       #4126886 - 10/19/10 12:47 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Thanks for the info about the first edition of Uranometria. Looks like the second edition of Uranometria doesn't have the same problem: http://www.willbell.com/u2k/pdf/U2K2-Stars.pdf I do think the first edition is still worth owning... Oh, absolutely. I used it faithfully until the 2nd ed came out, and now I use the 1st ed in the field a lot more. I don't have any interest in selling either of them. Post Extras:       Jaxdialation Post Laureate Reged: 04/01/07 Loc: Northeast, FL Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4127559 - 10/19/10 05:01 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Has anyone done any comparisons of the Great Atlas with the Millennium Star Atlas? Post Extras:       George N Carpal Tunnel Reged: 05/19/06 Loc: Binghamton & Indian Lake NY Re: Great Atlas: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: KidOrion]       #4128220 - 10/19/10 09:46 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Quote: 1855.0!! I never heard that before. .... Skiff: "The star list from this atlas was drawn from the venerable Bonner Durchmusterung (BD), published in 1863. Hence, though the promotional copy for Uranometria 2000.0 may state the coordinates are for epoch 2000, the star positions are for epoch 1855! The BD star positions aren't all that great by contemporary standards, and one wonders what 150 years of proper motion has done to reduce the accuracy of star positions in Uranometria 2000.0. To be sure, the authors corrected egregious cases of large proper motion. Still, for me at least, a nagging doubt remains." I suspect what he means is that the coordinates for the stars were simply advanced to epoch 2000 without accounting for proper motion; there's no way they would have left the coordinates at 1855... would they?.... Yep, that’s it: they did not adjust for proper motion, except for a few high pm stars. Also, those old star positions were determined by a guy watching stars drifting past a lighted wire in a 6-inch scope while someone else recorded what he saw, plus the time from a mechanical clock. That data was then manually re-calculated to RA/Dec. That leaves a lot of room for observational and math errors compared to modern computerized methods, or even a photographic star atlas. There was also a systematic error difference between the northern and southern observations in that 1863 BD catalog. All of this let to the change in database for U2000 second edition. Post Extras:       George N Carpal Tunnel Reged: 05/19/06 Loc: Binghamton & Indian Lake NY Re: Great Atlas of the Sky: First (brief) Impressions. [Re: 18UCinVA]       #4128255 - 10/19/10 09:58 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: GA: NGC 6950 - missing Harvard 20 - missing Roslund 3 - missing P64.7+5 - plotted but not labeled as a pn All are easily visible in an 8" scope I don’t know about the others you mention, but NGC 6950 is shown as “non-existent” in TheSky and listed as such in the RNGC, plus it’s not listed in any of the other star cluster catalogs. See the "historical note" for this "object" on the NGC/IC Project website. While the cluster probably exists, or at least there’s a concentration of stars at Herschel’s location that may, or may not be a true cluster, it’s not surprising that GA does not show a cluster that’s not in any of the modern catalogs. Post Extras:       Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)

Previous   Index   Next   Threaded

Extra information 1 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum. Moderator:  droid, okieav8r  Print Thread Forum Permissions       You cannot start new topics       You cannot reply to topics       HTML is disabled       UBBCode is enabled Thread views: 17166 Jump to *Announcements and News* -----   Cloudy Nights Announcements   Discussion of CN Articles, Reviews, and Reports   Celestial Events*General Astronomy* -----   Beginners Forum   General Observing and Astronomy   Outreach   Light Pollution*Equipment Discussions* -----   ATM, Optics and DIY Forum   Binoculars   Binoviewers   Cats & Casses   Classic Telescopes   Equipment   Eyepieces   Mounts   Observatories   Reflectors   Refractors    Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy*Astrophotography and Sketching* -----   Beginning and Intermediate Imaging   Film Astrophotography   DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing   CCD Imaging & Processing   Solar System Imaging & Processing   Sketching   Astro Imaging/Sketching Contest *Observing* -----   NEO   Planetary and Solar System Observing   Lunar Observing   Deep Sky Observing   Double Star Observing   Solar   Variable Star Observing and Radio Astronomy*Telescope Specific Forums* -----   Celestron NexStar    NexStar GPS / CPC Telescopes   Questar Forum   Meade ACF/RCX / LX / GPS    Meade ETX*Speciality Forums* -----   Arizona Science and Astronomy Expo   NEAF (Northeast Astronomy Forum) and NEAIC (Northeast Astro Imaging Conference)   AstroArt   Astronomy Clubs and Star Parties   Astronomy Software & Computers   AstroWebsites   Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others   Space Rocks   Stellar Media*Swap and Shop* -----   Shop and Swap Audio Components*CN Feedback and Vendor Announcements* -----   Vendor and Group Announcements*International Year of Astronomy 2009 - Forums are now closed.* -----   IYA Archive Info

CN Forums Home