Telescope Reviews: Re: 3Atlas (PDF) project:: 9, 11 and 13 mag sky at

Hi everybody,

I am sorry for the delay. I have been trying several color setups and making some corrections. I have generated a set of charts for section A in color. This is the link of the new set:

Section A in color / 300dpi

I have to replace the driver to get 600 dpi color maps. I resampled them but they are still less accurate than the older charts. I didn't print the new chart set, just seeing the look on the screen (the old set is in the web still).

(Arbacia and Senpai) The grid is grayish now and I have avoided red colors as you have suggested (although I am not imaginative enough to design a good color set, I am afraid); only a deep red but with blue/green components has been used in galaxies. I can modify the colours as you prefer. Just tell me your preferences.I have used in the field only the BW set with extraordinary results. The best color set (=the appropriate color combination for night observing) for color charts is unknown still for me. I can make the proofs you want, no problem. Senpai, I personally prefer use the red color in the desktop, but during the night it will make the object invisible.

I tried my (about 10) sample colour charts in the darkness. The orange grid was barely visible with a LED flashlight, and my conclussion was that I need to design very carefully the colors before proceeding; so I went to the BW charts and delayed the color matter to next proofs. Printing in color makes the use in night conditions much harder. A good color combination is absolutely essential.

What I have linked is just a proof, but will require a good color printer to get a neat vector representation. I printed several charts in an HP Color LaserJet 2605 and the results were fantastic, but I cannot use that printer for reproducing 660 charts!!!. My final C charts (I mean my personal set) will be BW, but I can distribute colour charts, what you prefer.

In my opinion, colour outputs are nice for consulting at the desktop, but I the BW printouts are more functional in the field and cheaper to reproduce. But there is no problem in making colour outputs (except the web space to store the files).

I have thought a procedure to move the labels (not the best one, I am sure), although I still have to think about it. This will require some weekends of work, I am afraid, because the objects should be drawn with a completely different system.

About storage, I can share the files from my desktop PC with emule. I use to work with a notebook, so there is no problem in leaving the files in the desktop PC (no interference in my work), although this is a temporary solution. I am not using emule, but I can. I would consider any alternative we could find. My intention is to help, and any solution is welcome.

(Peter) For me, the whole A and B section is a binocular atlas. The A section shows only the brightest objects ( I can even restrict more the selection conditions). So it is just to know the best to see in a quick way. The B charts are the "horse of battle", the most useful for general purpose. And the C charts, gives the power we need to tackle really hard objects. Most of time I think that the B charts will me enough.

I would like to print the Milky Way in soft blue as in the Sky Atlas 2000. Or even better: getting a more accurate isolines set. Well, another good idea to add...

(Starman) I have tried 11 to 13 magnitude charts. At 8º, the 13 charts are excellent for galaxy fields, but too cluttered for Milky Way fields. And the 11, insuffcient for GX fields but quite OK for MW fields. I prefer having reference stars, as much as possible. I think that the best solution is adapt the magnitude to the charts making a small survey before printing each chart. But perhaps this solution is not ideal for everybody (mag will vary according to the chart).

I am planning to replace the labels surveying the surroundings, as mentioned before, but it is quite hard to design something giving response to the infinite variety of overlapping situations that can happen in the plots. It not easy at all, and my solution probably will be only partial. I cannot revise manually the charts, that would be just unfeasible. Well, we will see.

I coincide with you on my preference on BW charts.

The C set is using the NGC and IC data from the NGC/IC project; the database for this section is a new one (=less than six months old), and I included the revised cataloges by the NGC/IC project. However, I am not so sure about the A and B section because the database is a mixed one coming from an older source created during the NGC revision process. It certainly includes identity corrections, but surely not all of them. Note also that A and B charts includes not all the NGC and IC, and identity corrections are less probable for bright objects. The C charts are completely correct in that sense, and I can replace NGC or IC data by the NGC project in the next proof. My database system is flexible and allow modifications easily.

I will prepare testing maps of the C set to discuss on the number of stars.

Edited by jr_ (05/17/07 06:38 PM)

Post Extras