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

Uranometria 2000.0

This topic has been archived.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

#26 George N

George N

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,744
  • Joined: 19 May 2006

Posted 11 December 2014 - 01:34 AM

Was not the accuracy of the DSO's plotted in the 2nd ed of Uranometria improved considerably? As I remember it the 1st ed has a long list of errata.

 

I spend about 50% of my time under the stars imaging, and have found the Field Guide to be very valuable for finding "the next target". Once one is familiar with the field of view covered by scope/CCD and the expected performance on various types of objects, it is relatively easy to scan the listing for the chart you are currently imaging on for a target that would "work" with your imaging set up. For that matter, the Field Guide also works well for visual observing as long as you are not star hopping - at least when doing my usual: working in the same constellation-sized patch of sky for 1 to 3 hour periods, rather than chasing all over the sky (really helps with not having to move my ladder around a lot). 



#27 macpurity

macpurity

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2004

Posted 11 December 2014 - 05:00 PM

I'm always keen on talking over the pluses and minuses of star atlases, even if their future publication seems to becoming more doubtful (with the exception of Cambridge Univ Press' English version of Interstellarum). For fun, I took a single sample region (right end of Orion's belt) and scanned in images from each of four atlases:

  • Uranometria (2nd edition)
  • Interstellarum (German edition)
  • Millennium Atlas
  • José Torres' Tri-Atlas, series C

You can see them side-by-side and as full-sized scans when looking at this web page.



#28 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,285
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:01 AM

>There is an interesting new one, called the "Interstellarum Deep-Sky Atlas", with stars to 9.5 and only slightly more DSOs than the MSA.  Tony might like that one.  It's bound for outdoor use and has waterproof pages.

 

It's available at a 40% discount from Obsession Telescopes - but only for Obsession owners - he sells it to non-owners at 25% off list price; see: http://www.obsession...copes.com/news/

Cambridge also has the cheaper desktop version, in addition to water resistant version.



#29 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 12 December 2014 - 10:22 AM

The 1st edition has a few topographical errors in Auriga for example however, the reason I prefer it is because the accuracy of the appearance of the stars through the eyepiece are perfect. 1 deg fields through an eyepiece using it are so easy to hop from one star to another. No software I use does that as well no matter how I plot the program magnitude and that is the specific reason I only use the first edition.


Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 12 December 2014 - 10:22 AM.


#30 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,544
  • Joined: 14 May 2009

Posted 12 December 2014 - 01:33 PM

I use the original Johann Bayer Uranometria 1603.

Would that with a Galileo scope?



#31 izar187

izar187

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4,173
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006

Posted 13 December 2014 - 07:01 AM

Another vote for the MSA with Uranometria inside.

 

The MSA is just incredibly well done.

 

Eventually got the 2nd ed. of U2K because a 13" can see many more dso's than are plotted in the MSA.

 

Both are keepers.

 

It makes sense about the advantages of the single volume Uranometria.

So maybe...



#32 tag1260

tag1260

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,561
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2012

Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:02 PM

Copy of Vol 1 arrived but it's First  Edition. I'll enjoy it just the same. Also have First Edition Vol. 2 and Deep Sky on the way. Thanks for all the replies and eventually I'll probably get the All Sky edition but for now, these should do the trick.

 

Thanks again


Edited by tag1260, 14 December 2014 - 06:02 PM.


#33 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,285
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:14 PM

Copy of Vol 1 arrived but it's First  Edition. I'll enjoy it just the same. Also have First Edition Vol. 2 and Deep Sky on the way. Thanks for all the replies and eventually I'll probably get the All Sky edition but for now, these should do the trick.

 

Thanks again

If you have vol 1 & 2 you don't necessarily need the all sky edition, but you may want vol 3 to get minor details on objects (1-2 lines per object).



#34 bumm

bumm

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,789
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2011

Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:35 PM

Copy of Vol 1 arrived but it's First  Edition. I'll enjoy it just the same. Also have First Edition Vol. 2 and Deep Sky on the way. Thanks for all the replies and eventually I'll probably get the All Sky edition but for now, these should do the trick.

 

Thanks again

I've been using the first edition since it first came out and I love the thing.  If there's any problem for me it's that the charts don't "flow into each other" as well as later editions.  Occasionally, I'll think about getting the third edition, but if the first shows 50,000 more stars, I might have second thoughts about that...  I use it for starhopping, and I don't know if the 5000 additional DSOs in later editions would be good targets for my 8 inch scope anyway.

                                                                                                                     Marty



#35 tag1260

tag1260

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,561
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2012

Posted 14 December 2014 - 07:43 PM

I guess my JMI NGC-Max will tell me what chart an object is on. My only question is, will the edition matter or are the charts all numbered the same between them.  I'll have to see as I haven't used it yet (either one, the Max nor book.)  I do have the DEEP SKY edition on the way as well.  Thanks.



#36 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    In Memoriam

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 20,656
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005

Posted 14 December 2014 - 08:11 PM

 

Copy of Vol 1 arrived but it's First  Edition. I'll enjoy it just the same. Also have First Edition Vol. 2 and Deep Sky on the way. Thanks for all the replies and eventually I'll probably get the All Sky edition but for now, these should do the trick.

 

Thanks again

If you have vol 1 & 2 you don't necessarily need the all sky edition, but you may want vol 3 to get minor details on objects (1-2 lines per object).

 

Be sure it's Deep Sky 1st edition.



#37 tag1260

tag1260

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,561
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2012

Posted 14 December 2014 - 09:25 PM

That's what it's supposed to be. However, I thought the Vol. 1 was supposed to be  Edition 2, so who knows.



#38 George N

George N

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,744
  • Joined: 19 May 2006

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:02 PM

I guess my JMI NGC-Max will tell me what chart an object is on. ......

 

NGC-MAX works only with the 1st edition. The charts in the 2nd (3rd??) are numbered differently because the "flow" is different.



#39 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 91,099
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002

Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:09 PM



I'm always keen on talking over the pluses and minuses of star atlases, even if their future publication seems to becoming more doubtful (with the exception of Cambridge Univ Press' English version of Interstellarum). For fun, I took a single sample region (right end of Orion's belt) and scanned in images from each of four atlases:

  • Uranometria (2nd edition)

  • Interstellarum (German edition)

  • Millennium Atlas

  • José Torres' Tri-Atlas, series C

You can see them side-by-side and as full-sized scans when looking at this web page.

 

Thanks for posting that interesting comparison of atlases.  My deep paper atlases are the Uranometria (2nd edition) and the Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas.

 

Dave Mitsky



#40 tag1260

tag1260

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,561
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2012

Posted 19 December 2014 - 06:00 PM

Deep[ Sky Edition is here and it's the first edition. Now when my Southern Skies gets here I'll be all set!!!!



#41 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,499
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:05 PM

 



I'm always keen on talking over the pluses and minuses of star atlases, even if their future publication seems to becoming more doubtful (with the exception of Cambridge Univ Press' English version of Interstellarum). For fun, I took a single sample region (right end of Orion's belt) and scanned in images from each of four atlases:

  • Uranometria (2nd edition)

  • Interstellarum (German edition)

  • Millennium Atlas

  • José Torres' Tri-Atlas, series C

You can see them side-by-side and as full-sized scans when looking at this web page.

 

Thanks for posting that interesting comparison of atlases.  My deep paper atlases are the Uranometria (2nd edition) and the Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas.

 

Dave Mitsky

 

 

I have Uranometria, H-B and MSA myself. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses but they are all excellent. Sky Safari isn't too shabby either:

 

image.jpg



#42 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 28 December 2014 - 09:51 AM

Love Sky Safari and use it all the time but star plots are not as accurate at the eyepiece if you are using it to hop. I tried to set the magnitude star plots and U2000 1st edition has everything beat. It's older but amazing. The concern others have regarding the organization of the charts is understandble but it doesn't bother me as I am used to it anyway but mostly because Urantometria isn't an atlas you use for hopping page to page anyway IMO. Usually I'll spend a night on just a couple of pages which I have already bookmarked anyway because each chart has so many interesting details. If I was hopping around that far apart, then I'd just use Sky Atlas 2000. They both compliment each other well since SA2000 isn't detailed enough for eyepiece hopping using stars.

 

Btw guys, what was the reason they changed the PK's to a new designation? I forgot. Regardless, all these sources have enough material to last a lifetime. 


Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 28 December 2014 - 09:54 AM.


#43 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,143
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003

Posted 28 December 2014 - 11:20 AM

Planetary nebulae?

Try this:

http://heasarc.gsfc..../plnebulae.html



#44 KidOrion

KidOrion

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,048
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2007

Posted 28 December 2014 - 03:51 PM

I do wish, when they'd updated the DSFG, that they'd kept the Henize/Abell/Minkowski/etc. names for planetaries in the "Alternate Names" notes.  Now it seems as if most of them only give the PN number with the PK number as the only alternate.  Something of a PITA to have to cross-reference between sources again.

 

/first-world astronomy problems



#45 catalogman

catalogman

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,161
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2014

Posted 03 January 2015 - 06:28 PM

For comparison with the other four atlases, attached is a screenshot of the same field from the

DSO catalogue supplied with Cartes du Ciel in Distro Astro 3.0. (The fainter stars are from the

Hipparchos and UCAC4, both of which I had to install because DA3 does not include them.)

For the screenshot, I changed to the B & W view; the DSO's in this view are brighter than 14,

but this can be changed in the menu.

 

                                                                                                             -- catalogman

Attached Thumbnails

  • DistroAstro_BW.png


#46 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,143
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003

Posted 03 January 2015 - 08:34 PM

Any computer atlas could be printed at whatever scale is required.

I typically print sample finder pages from Megastar for small galaxy groups at a scale of 1.5 degree x 1 degree per page.

That would make a star atlas thousands of pages--impractical.

But I print each page with galaxies to m.16 and stars to m.17, which NO printed atlas comes close to.

Such is the compromise with any printed star atlas.

And my DSC has many times the number of DSOs found in Uranometria 2000.0.

 

YET, U2000.0 is still useful in the field.

As I explore the DSC's data, though, I'd bet I use U2000.0 less and less.



#47 izar187

izar187

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4,173
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006

Posted 04 January 2015 - 02:03 PM

Printing pages...  no thank you for me.

I did once upon a time.

Choose to no more.

 

Though I realize that for correcting errors and updating things, this is indeed the way to go for printed charts at the scope.

 

I choose the whole sky charted out with me at the scope, for when doing deeper deep sky.

On a book stand.

 

U2K warts and all, with the BSA for the large scale perspective.

The DSFG for U2K in the car nearby.



#48 izar187

izar187

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4,173
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006

Posted 04 January 2015 - 08:53 PM

I have penciled in some few corrections in truth.

So you're right, one can make them.

 

Fonts are large enough for me to read at the scope.

That's the only place I use atlases.

Where I want grid patterns, so I can find targets by the coordinates gleaned off web pages and forums.

 

I confess to not having the Cambridge.

For no real reason either.

I've used it, and like it.

 

Seasonal is a classic, and my first atlas.

I believe I'm on my 3rd one.

A Hubbard, followed by a Meade, and presently a Celestron.

 

I believe you on all points.

But printing my own is just too much futzing for my part of the hobby these days.

 

Haven't made the change to electronic either.

In spite of all it has to it's recommendation. 



#49 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46,143
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003

Posted 04 January 2015 - 09:02 PM

You might like this one--print and bind:

http://www.geocities...85/atlas_85.htm

Not too many pages, either.



#50 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    In Memoriam

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 20,656
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005

Posted 05 January 2015 - 01:42 AM

 

U2K warts and all, with the BSA for the large scale perspective.

 

 

BSA?




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