Interstellarum or Unanometria?

[Kobayashi Maru]

I assume this is the correct forum?

Looking for a step up from the Cambridge star atlas. Interstellarum or Uranometria all sky?

Both are approximately the same price.....I probably can't go wrong but views would be appreciated. I suppose I should also consider their supporting guides.

Thanks in advance.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Kobayashi Maru

[RobertI]

I only have Interstellarum, but I have found it to be a brilliant resource, very thoughtfully put together, and good for planning sessions. A couple of the features I like are the way it indicates what is the minimum scope size for each object (4”, 8” or 12”) and also shows you what filters are best on each nebula.

[Paz]

I have both and I would also recommend interstellarium, its easy to use and the field guide is also good.

[Kobayashi Maru]

3 hours ago, Paz said:

I have both and I would also recommend interstellarium, its easy to use and the field guide is also good.

Can I ask why the preference? My main concern re Unanometria is that it's a book rather than spiral bound so may be difficult to use in the field. I do like its map scale though.

[Nyctimene]

I' m owner of both, Uranometria and IsDSA; and I also prefer the Interstellarum.  As Rob already pointed out, the IsDSA evaluates the visibility of targets, whereas the Uranometria just gives the object's position - no matter of what brightness (this you'll have to look up in the 3rd volume, the Deep Sky Field guide). For planning, it's way faster to use the IsDSA suggestions for the appropriate scope size. Even the very useful planetarium software programs, e.g. SkySafari (very recommendable!) or Stellarium, are of limited value, because they don't give figures of the very important surface brightness of targets (one of the reasons, why I'm still using the Uranometria field guide, which lists them!). The IsDSA uses the software "Eye and Telescope" to determine the visibility, and these algorithms are verified by many observations.

Interstellarum and SkySafari Plus/Pro are my most used tools nowadays, when it comes to planning and star hopping.

Stephan

[Paz]

2 hours ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

Can I ask why the preference? My main concern re Unanometria is that it's a book rather than spiral bound so may be difficult to use in the field. I do like its map scale though.

Interstellarium gives you more information on a plate and I think is more simple to use than Uranometria, also the field guide for interstellarium gives images giving you an idea of what targets look like, whereas the Uranometria field guide gives you empirical metrics only. You can tell from the metrics how doable a target is but Interstallarium makes it easier to assess. The spiral binding is not a pro or con for me as I don't use paper maps in the field any more, I only use them indoors for planning targets and for reviewing what I've seen afterwards. If I was using them in the field then the spiral binding is certainly an advantage to Interstellarium (and I think the paper used for interstallarium would hold up better in the field than the paper in Uranometria). In the field I use Sky Safari like I would use a paper map and find things manually.

 

 

[Jiggy 67]

On 08/03/2023 at 08:08, RobertI said:

I only have Interstellarum, but I have found it to be a brilliant resource, very thoughtfully put together, and good for planning sessions. A couple of the features I like are the way it indicates what is the minimum scope size for each object (4”, 8” or 12”) and also shows you what filters are best on each nebula.

Totally agree. I also made a Telrad template for Interstellarium.........

 

[RobertI]

2 hours ago, Jiggy 67 said:

Totally agree. I also made a Telrad template for Interstellarium.........

 

Great idea!

 

[Ratlet]

That's a brilliant idea!

[josefk]

could  i ask a follow up question here to those who have the Uranometria Field Guide - in your opinion(s) is it useful as a standalone reference for the qualities and characteristics of DSO even without the Atlas volumes or is it laid out in such a way that it only comes into its own with the matching Atlas? Cheers

[Paz]

9 hours ago, josefk said:

could  i ask a follow up question here to those who have the Uranometria Field Guide - in your opinion(s) is it useful as a standalone reference for the qualities and characteristics of DSO even without the Atlas volumes or is it laid out in such a way that it only comes into its own with the matching Atlas? Cheers

The field guide is really designed to compliment the atlas. If you were to look up a dso in the index it then only refers you to the page of the atlas that that dso appears in and it says what type if dso it is. Then in the field guide you turn to the pages covering the relevant page of the atlas, then go to the section for the right type if dso and there is your list of, say, open clusters on that page with details like magnitude, ra, Dec, etc.

Having said that theres nothing to stop anyone from using it as a stand alone reference.

[josefk]

thanks @Paz - it's tricky not being able to thumb through it but i can imagine it from how you describe it. I may take the leap anyway (to use standalone) because i can still see a few copies available new and that situation is probably time limited (when its gone its gone).

I have Sky Safari Pro so possibly do have all the info it provides but i prefer using books at the weekend after spending all week starting at a screen 🙂

Cheers

[Piero]

15 minutes ago, josefk said:

thanks @Paz - it's tricky not being able to thumb through it but i can imagine it from how you describe it. I may take the leap anyway (to use standalone) because i can still see a few copies available new and that situation is probably time limited (when its gone its gone).

I have Sky Safari Pro so possibly do have all the info it provides but i prefer using books at the weekend after spending all week starting at a screen 🙂

Cheers

It contains a rich amount of tabular data. Descriptions are minimalistic and I agree that it works best when combined with the atlas rather than standalone. 

It's a great guide.

[Bajastro]

I have both Interstellarum and Uranometria.
I recommend having both, but for the preparation of visual observations, Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas is better because of the grouping of objects that are visible in the 4", 8" and 12" telescope.
Although I do not hide many objects described as visible in the 8" can be seen at low magnification also in a very good APO 4", such as a Pickering Triangle (part of Veil) with UHC filter of course.