Looking for an upgrade Star Atlas...

[emadmoussa]

I am after a star atlas covering up to magnitude 14 at least. I think I dug most interesting things out of my Cambridge one. Plus it's quite limited on textual information.

I also found that black and white star charts to be more convenient if you're using a red torch... So I prefer a black and white version.

I was wondering about printing out some of the available ones online, but adding the cost of printing, binding and laminating it seems easier just buying an official book.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Are you sure about mag 14? I find that above certain limits charts become so crowded star patterns are harder to identify. Mine goes to 8.5, and I sometimes consult charts limited at 10-11 or so, but beyond that things can get hairy (except for AAVSO comparison charts for faint objects, there I go as far as the scope allows).

[emadmoussa]

Yes, I'm aware of that. With several tests it seems that I could hit mag 14 from my back garden. However, mag 11-12 could for me as well. Although being a great Atlas, my Cambridge star chart is showing more limitations over time. Is the Star Atals 2000.0 a better option?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have never used the Cambridge atlas, but I still use the Sky Atlas 2000.0 as my workhorse. Very nice, and personally I do like the colour version.

I am seriously looking at printing and binding all the excellent charts found here: http://www.deepskywatch.com/deepsky-atlas.html

Stars down to mag 10.2, DSOs down to 14. Quite a bit deeper than the Sky Atlas, and it shows me all stars I could sensibly see in my 70mm finder.

[emadmoussa]

I have never used the Cambridge atlas, but I still use the Sky Atlas 2000.0 as my workhorse. Very nice, and personally I do like the colour version.

I am seriously looking at printing and binding all the excellent charts found here: http://www.deepskywatch.com/deepsky-atlas.html

Stars down to mag 10.2, DSOs down to 14. Quite a bit deeper than the Sky Atlas, and it shows me all stars I could sensibly see in my 70mm finder.

Aha, this is the online printable version I was thinking of. Quite rich.  I previously spoke with the printer regarding this one (I think it's around 120 pages), they said that if they laminate them they won't be able to bind all the pages together in one book-like chart.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Aha, this is the online printable version I was thinking of. Quite rich.  I previously spoke with the printer regarding this one (I think it's around 120 pages), they said that if they laminate them they won't be able to bind all the pages together in one book-like chart.

I am planning a double-sided version on decent quality paper, but no lamination (cannot make pencil marks to indicate which objects have been observed). I would prefer a ring-binder like set-up anyway, as that can be opened more easily.

[emadmoussa]

I am planning a double-sided version on decent quality paper, but no lamination (cannot make pencil marks to indicate which objects have been observed). I would prefer a ring-binder like set-up anyway, as that can be opened more easily.

It seems that will be my other alternative. Especially that my project was going to cost about £60...

[Brent]

I've posted this a couple of times before but it might help:

I use the TriAtlas here : JR's website on Deep Sky Astronomy

Excellent maps down to 13th magnitude and a real money saver!

I've only printed the A and B sets so far as they are enough for me at the moment. I then used some software to cross reference the Messier and NGC catalogues to the atlas. Pictures of the finished article are below.

In the future I'll probably get my wife to laminate them at work ( )  and use a more weatherproof binder, but it's done it's job fine for a couple of years now.

      

       

       

      

[crashtestdummy]

I have the deepskyhunter one and highly recomend it.had it printed in A3 and Matt laminated.prefer it to the tri atlas personally.

[emadmoussa]

I have the deepskyhunter one and highly recomend it.had it printed in A3 and Matt laminated.prefer it to the tri atlas personally.

If you don't mind me asking, my local printer asked for a fortune to print, laminate and bind this Atlas. I think they estimated it at £90.  Did you use a printing service?

[crashtestdummy]

Yeah cost me just over £80 but that was professionally done on good quality paper and it's stood up well to dew so to me it's worth it.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I can generally leave my atlas inside (in the dark kitchen), so dew is not such a problem. Having it done well is ultimately worth it, I suppose.

[emadmoussa]

Yeah cost me just over £80 but that was professionally done on good quality paper and it's stood up well to dew so to me it's worth it.

I suppose an atlas that lasts a life time is worth it.

[emadmoussa]

I've posted this a couple of times before but it might help:

I use the TriAtlas here : JR's website on Deep Sky Astronomy

Excellent maps down to 13th magnitude and a real money saver!

I've only printed the A and B sets so far as they are enough for me at the moment. I then used some software to cross reference the Messier and NGC catalogues to the atlas. Pictures of the finished article are below.

In the future I'll probably get my wife to laminate them at work ( ) and use a more weatherproof binder, but it's done it's job fine for a couple of years now.

very nice.. a lot of work spent on it I assume.

[crashtestdummy]

Yeah it keeps getting dewed up and I wipe it clean and the next day it's as goods new and because of the Matt laminate you can mark your ticked targets off(I underline in green sharply).

[iamjulian]

Deep sky hunter, double sided for every chart above minus 35 degrees, on heavy paper, fitted into a 40 page "display book". Printing was about £20 and display book from Amazon was £6.

[Brent]

very nice.. a lot of work spent on it I assume.

A couple of hours printing and an hour getting the index formatting the way I wanted it.

Cost was £3 max (ink, paper and plastic pockets) as I use compatible inks and stole the folder from my wife

[emadmoussa]

Yeah it keeps getting dewed up and I wipe it clean and the next day it's as goods new and because of the Matt laminate you can mark your ticked targets off(I underline in green sharply).

what I have in mind...you can scribble on laminated paper and wipe it clean afterwards. I currently use sticky arrows it can get pretty crowded

[emadmoussa]

A couple of hours printing and an hour getting the index formatting the way I wanted it.

Cost was £3 max (ink, paper and plastic pockets) as I use compatible inks and stole the folder from my wife

same here. Sometimes I feel I got married just for the free folders

[macpurity]

Brent's printing and binding the TriAtlas is a true labour of love! I also rely on the TriAtlas, but in PDF and App form, viewing it on my iPad tablet. Coupled with Sky Safari for iPad, this makes for a great combination for planning and viewing.

There is an atlas called The Great Atlas of the Sky, published by Piotr Brych of Poland. I believe it may be nearly out of print and is quite costly. Not sure who might be carrying it in the UK (not at the Book Depository). Copies are still avaiable from Agena Astro in the US. It's very handsome, probably has the most detail found in any printed atlas.

At the Book Depository are copies of Interstellarum's Deep Sky Atlas which is very handsome. A bit pricey, however.

My labour of love is having downloaded a bunch of Astro catalogues (including UCAC5) and writing my own Unix scripts to plot regions of about 2deg (decl) and 20-30mins (RA). I make and print these on an "as needed" basis. I also use a planetary ephemeris from JPL to compute planetary positions and plot them.

There are many alternatives to obtain the detail you want! Cheers!

[macpurity]

Actually, I use UCAC4, not UCAC5 for the really low magnitude stars.

Here is an example of a portion of a chart my script system can produce. This is in southern Lyra, between beta Lyr and the Ring Nebula (M57, NGC 6720). Lines of declination and RA are in J2000, not in current date coordinates. The gray dots are below mag 10 from UCAC4.

[acr_astro]

Hi Emad,

I'm not sure whether you've already upgraded...

In one of your posts, you were asking "Is the Star Atlas 2000.0 a better option?". As far as I know, the Cambridge shows stars down to 6.5mag and has a scale of a bit more than 3mm/°.  So from that point-of-view, the Star Atlas 2000.0 with its stars down to 8.5mag and a scale of a bit more than 8mm/° is definitely an improvement.

In addition to that, I'd like to point as well on the German "Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas" which I recently got for Christmas. For me this is big step beyond my Sky Atlas 2000.0 since it shows stars down to 9.5mag and at a scale of 15mm/°. But it's not only the scale and depth which I appreciate with that book. The atlas shows DS objects classified whether you can see them with 4", 8", 12" or even larger aperture. And that's really handy when being in the field and looking "what else in the area might be of interest". For nebula, the atlas gives a filter recommendation too.

Clear skies!

Achim