Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Sky Atlas 2000 Laminated field version-worth it?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

#1 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:37 AM

Comments on the sky atlas 2000 laminated field version?
S&T is now selling it for $80.

I usually use the S&T pocket sky atlas which has worked well.
I also own the Deluxe Sky Atlas 2000 which is not as good in the field.

http://click.e.skyan...f907af4369ef...

#2 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22874
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 11 July 2014 - 08:59 AM

It is a good price if you like laminated. I don't, since it makes it problematical to write on the atlas. Which I used to do all the time. Back in the days when I used a print atlas. ;)

#3 cliff mygatt

cliff mygatt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2311
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2009

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:12 AM

Yes, I would go with the laminated version. I have the black field with white stars and it works great under dark skies. If there is any moisture, you will be glad you have it laminated. Good luck!

#4 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:16 AM

How is viewing the stars with a black background compare with a white background? Also, couldn't I use a marker to write on the laminate?

#5 Edward E

Edward E

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1415
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2006

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:17 AM

I agree with Unc Rod here. I have the deluxe version, Edition 1, that I used in the field, in the soggy Southeast, for 20 years and never had an issue with it.

#6 jhors

jhors

    Riddle me this

  • *****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2007

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:43 AM

How is viewing the stars with a black background compare with a white background? Also, couldn't I use a marker to write on the laminate?

One unforeseen consequence of the field version is that I end up seeing red dots of varying sizes all over. :lol:

I have both field and desk and like them both. If I only had one, it would be the desk version. It is easier for me to read in the field and it is easier to make notes on. Although, I must say the field edition is more aesthetically pleasing, imo.

#7 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22874
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 11 July 2014 - 04:20 PM

Let me add a couple of further observations:

Despite living on the uber humid dew plagued Gulf Coast, I never had a problem with the unlaminated SA2000.

Even in my 40s, I found it easier to use black star on a white sky.

;)

#8 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 12867
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 11 July 2014 - 05:20 PM


Even in my 40s, I found it easier to use black star on a white sky.

;)



me also-white stars on a black background is difficult to see

edj

#9 cbwerner

cbwerner

    Bicycle Repairman

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 6872
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2005

Posted 11 July 2014 - 07:56 PM



Even in my 40s, I found it easier to use black star on a white sky.

;)



me also-white stars on a black background is difficult to see

edj


And I thought that I was the only one . . . :cool:

#10 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16902
  • Joined: 18 May 2006

Posted 12 July 2014 - 05:59 AM

How is viewing the stars with a black background compare with a white background?


This has come up periodically on Cloudy Nights and elsewhere for decades. I would say that about 90% of respondents -- including me -- much prefer black stars on a white background. But the other 10% is equally ardent in favor of white stars on a black background.

You could probably print out some sample pages for yourself and find out firsthand. But beware that an almost solid black page puts a lot of strain on an inkjet printer.

#11 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 12 July 2014 - 08:19 AM

I actually had tried the earlier versions of Peterson's guide to astronomy which have a black background and white stars( as I recall). I didn't like it. The price for the laminated looked good so I was thinking about buying it.
I will stay with the Pocket Sky Atlas which is excellent in the dark. I recently downloaded the pdf for Ipad and I will try it out. I bought some red gift shrink wrap which will work and allows me to click on the Ipad.

Also, I have found that the Sky Atlas 2000 Deluxe version is difficult to use in the field- due to its bulk and it is not as good for reading with red light as the pocket sky atlas.

#12 esd726

esd726

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2004

Posted 12 July 2014 - 04:35 PM

I used it all the time, up until I bought more "in depth" atlases (Some of the printable ones and lately..Interstellarum Premium version.)
It worked great with all the dew come late evening/early morning, and I like it being bound. I made constellation lines with a silver Sharpie on mine. I like the white on black, always seemed more "natural" to me. :shrug: I also had the unbound field version years ago but it being "loose" always seemed to cause problems for me. Not sure if bound is worth 2x though either.

#13 Nakedgun

Nakedgun

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2014

Posted 15 July 2014 - 12:13 AM

Like you, I'm one of the "10%" Tony referred to. I bought the spiral bound/laminated, and used it for years that way but ended up unwinding the binding and placing the individual charts in the S&T portfolio-valise type carrier. Much simpler, this way, to get the chart I need. Don't know if the carriers are available, anymore.

BTW, Tony, any progress on the "enhanced PSA project" to report?


#14 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16902
  • Joined: 18 May 2006

Posted 15 July 2014 - 05:07 AM

I bought the spiral bound/laminated, and used it for years that way but ended up unwinding the binding and placing the individual charts in the S&T portfolio-valise type carrier.


If you're going to do that, you might consider getting the unlaminated edition, which comes as separate unbound sheets. Much cheaper -- and lighter.

I folded all the unbound sheets mapwise, into eights. That makes a nice, portable package. And like a road map, they're easy to unfold to the part you want in the field.

#15 youngamateur42

youngamateur42

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2098
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2012

Posted 15 July 2014 - 03:30 PM

Here's a slightly different idea. I have the Sky Safari app and I also own Sky Atlas 2000, unlamited deluxe edition. So when I'm going to be out looking for new objects, this is what I do. I pull out the big charts and check out the constellation I'm interested in that particular night. I make an observing list in the sky safari app of all the said interested. Sky Safari (3, plus version) goes deeper than the sky atlas so when I'm out observing the objects, I'll occasionally come across an object that wasn't in the atlas. All I take out is the Sky Safari on my iPod Touch. No soggy paper, and greatly simplifies my observing. Just one less thing to carry out there. Just my $0.02.

#16 KidOrion

KidOrion

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2007

Posted 15 July 2014 - 09:24 PM

I use the unlaminated deluxe edition as my main "axe," as it were. It's gotten completely sodden with dew numerous times, and dries out well. Of late, I've also been using an iPad with the TriAtlas and Alvin Huey's guides downloaded to it; between those three things, I feel pretty well covered.

#17 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 19267
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003

Posted 16 July 2014 - 10:43 AM

Back in the day before Sky Safari I used Sky Atlas 2000, it is a great atlas.

#18 davidmcgo

davidmcgo

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2004

Posted 17 July 2014 - 07:24 PM

I have the laminated SA2000 and don't really use it since I got the Pocket Sky Atlas. PSA takes way less table space, goes nearly as deep, and fills in the same niche between naked eye and Uranometria, which I use for dimmer targets. Plus PSA fits in the lid of my Wood Wonders case.

The laminated SA2000 is also organized by declination and has no graphic key. So a fair amount of flipping charts is needed in an evening. It also doesn't show dark nebula or carbon stars.

It is attractive and great advancement in cartographic design, but wasn't the most user friendly atlas.

If laminated is needed, Astro Systems sells water resistant treated PSA versions for under $40.

Dave

#19 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16902
  • Joined: 18 May 2006

Posted 18 July 2014 - 04:42 AM

I have the laminated SA2000 and don't really use it since I got the Pocket Sky Atlas. PSA takes way less table space, goes nearly as deep, and fills in the same niche between naked eye and Uranometria, which I use for dimmer targets.


Actually, Sky Atlas 2000.0 goes much, much deeper than the Pocket Sky Atlas. It shows about three times as many stars -- critical for star-hopping -- and at least twice as many deep-sky objects. But I agree that if Uranometria is the workhorse, the PSA complements it better than SA2K would.

As a stand-alone atlas, the PSA is much more limiting than SA2K.

The laminated SA2000 is also organized by declination and has no graphic key. So a fair amount of flipping charts is needed in an evening. It also doesn't show dark nebula or carbon stars.


Intriguing, most people prefer the Dec organization, which is used by almost all star atlases, to the RA organization of the PSA.

SA2K shows plenty of dark nebulae, but not carbon stars. Labeling carbon stars might just have been the most brilliant of all the PSA's many innovations.

#20 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:38 AM

The Deluxe is more difficult to read in the dark. I find that the Pocket Sky atlas is much better with red light.

#21 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 18 July 2014 - 09:42 AM

I am still getting used to Sky Safari. I recently bought some red shrink wrap which easily molds to my Ipad and doesn't hinder clickability. Sky Safari is excellent for identifying lower magnitude stars. But for star hopping, I am in still in the early stages.

#22 brucepiano

brucepiano

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2007

Posted 18 July 2014 - 10:11 AM

Actually, Sky Atlas 2000.0 goes much, much deeper than the Pocket Sky Atlas. It shows about three times as many stars -- critical for star-hopping


Are you referring to labeled stars? The number of background stars seem about the same.
Compare chart 22 in the Deluxe and 58 in the Pocket atlas.
About the same number of background stars. However, not all stars are labeled such as 12 Sco south of 13 Sco.

#23 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    In Memoriam

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 20656
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005

Posted 18 July 2014 - 03:25 PM

SA2K shows plenty of dark nebulae


I was gonna say...!

#24 davidmcgo

davidmcgo

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2004

Posted 19 July 2014 - 07:39 PM

My 1987 printing of the SA2000 field edition does not label a single dark nebula. No Barnard anything except Barnard's star and Barnard's dwarf galaxy.

Did the deluxe include them or were they added in a later printing?

Dave

#25 rockethead26

rockethead26

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6444
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2009

Posted 19 July 2014 - 07:52 PM

My 1989 Deluxe version shows only bright nebula, no dark nebula. The notch of the Horsehead is noted.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics