<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Heads up
Review: .
Stargazers residing in the Earth's northern hemisphere who are contemplating purchase of this (Northern) volume should be aware the title refers to the CELESTIAL hemisphere, not Earth's. What's the difference, you ask? Well let me tell you....Basically, the sky atlas covers only the area from Polaris ('North Star') down to about Orion's Belt - everything south of there is contained in the 'Southern' book. Indeed, it doesn't even include the entire Orionus - cutting him off at the knees, in effect. So instead of obtaining sky maps that disclude everything south of Earth's equator (which 'uppers' normally would have little use for), this division discludes half the desired viewable sky! The opposite is of course true for denizens of the lower-half of our dear blue vehicle. The 'bottom line' is that to have an EFFECTIVE atlas, you're gonna have to spring for BOTH volumes - so be prepared for the extra expense. One plus is the scale; larger even than the infamous Sky Atlas 2000.0 with its unwieldy poster-size maps of ~17×22" (add another 12" to the required footprint for an opened book; ergo 17 tall by 34" wide - a factor no one seems to consider) which pretty much relegates it (Sky Atlas) to an indoor reference, unless you have a sizeable reading table available at your viewing site!
But I digress....
The increased scale allows for finer detail, of course, and corresponds to the inclusion of stars down to magnitude 9.5 (Star Atlas limits to 8.5) with a better 'spread' for comparison to telescopic view. This greater scale with smaller pages does translate to more charts (about 260 in this one volume, ~vs~ Sky Chart's 26), but this is no complaint - the detail IS appreciated by the more studious ..of us astro-freaks. Another nicety is the generous overlap of the borders, which minimize somewhat the necessity of having to go to another page when referencing a particular area. Probably one of the 'handiest' features is inclusion in the margins of index-reference numbers to adjoining charts (sorely lacking in the Sky Atlas), which makes up somewhat for that maddening right-left reversal of borders on adjoining opened pages - the necessity of which absolutely escapes me, but for which I've seen hints of correction in the soon-forthcoming new issue. Another plus is the textual introduction and Uranography sections preceeding the charts. Do yourself a favor and read them first - it might help you avoid the extra expense of the 'Field Guide' to better understand the valuable resource you already hold. But as said - you need both Northern & Southern volumes to have an effective tool. So heads up!
.
*ôô*
Rating: 
Summary: The best star atlas available for the what it cost
Review: The Uranometria 2000 is a big step up from the old Norton's Star Atlas and a must have for any serious deep sky observing. As a comet hunter this book saves me a great deal of time working with unwieldy cd rom star atlases which, although they contain much more information on the night sky, are not as ready to hand. I reccomend this very informative and lucid atlas to anyone who has the desire to discover the mysteries of the night sky. Patrick Stonehouse
Rating:
Summary: The best star atlas available for the what it cost
Review: The Uranometria 2000 is a big step up from the old Norton's Star Atlas and a must have for any serious deep sky observing. As a comet hunter this book saves me a great deal of time working with unwieldy cd rom star atlases which, although they contain much more information on the night sky, are not as ready to hand. I reccomend this very informative and lucid atlas to anyone who has the desire to discover the mysteries of the night sky. Patrick Stonehouse
Rating:
Summary: First *deep* deep-sky atlas
Review: This review refers to the 1988 edition, and to both volumes (north and south, both of which are needed to cover the whole sky. The publication of Uranometria marked a new era in sky atlases. Never before had an atlas had a large enough scale so that the view through a small telescope looked reasonbly close to what you saw on the page. Norton's and all others could not show enough stars to approximate the view through even a modest amateur telescope. Now, since Uranometria goes to stellar magnitude 9.5, and an 8-inch scope will see to magnitude 14, you can say the situation is still the same. But in fact U2000 is closer, and with a little experience matching views is a cinch, which was not always true with smaller scale atlases. The two volumes include 473 charts, making finding the right one a bit of a chore - the flip side of a large scale. For some reason Tirion chose to arrange the charts in a weird way. Right ascension on a chart increases from right to left (naturally), but RA from one chart to the next increases left to right - so the left edge of the left hand page matches with the right edge of the right hand page. It took me a long time to get used to that. My two volumes have been marked with comets and asteroids I've observed along the way, as well as observing notes on the deep-sky objects, so I don't know if I'll care to replace them with the new edition, even though (as I understand) the new charts, based of the Tycho and Hipparcos catalogs will be far more accurate. But for a new observer who plans to be halfway serious, and can't quite spring for the Millenium Sky Atlas, the new edition of Uranometria will be indispensible.
<< 1 >>
| 
