http://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&feed=atom&action=historyA New Atlas? - Revision history2024-03-29T10:45:06ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.31.1http://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=17339&oldid=prevApi at 04:00, 17 April 20182018-04-17T04:00:05Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 04:00, 17 April 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l67" >Line 67:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- c17h27no3 <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Jim Mosher </del><small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- c17h27no3 <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">JimMosher </ins><small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td></tr>
</table>Apihttp://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=17281&oldid=prevApi at 14:28, 16 April 20182018-04-16T14:28:14Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 14:28, 16 April 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l67" >Line 67:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/</del>c17h27no3 <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[Image:C17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] </del><small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- c17h27no3 <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td></tr>
</table>Apihttp://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=13252&oldid=prevApi at 02:42, 16 April 20182018-04-16T02:42:27Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:42, 16 April 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l67" >Line 67:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- c17h27no3 <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/</ins>c17h27no3 <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[Image:C17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] </ins><small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td></tr>
</table>Apihttp://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=10353&oldid=prevApi at 00:10, 16 April 20182018-04-16T00:10:59Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 00:10, 16 April 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l67" >Line 67:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/</del>c17h27no3 <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[Image:c17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] </del><small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- c17h27no3 <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- Jim Mosher <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td></tr>
</table>Apihttp://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=10335&oldid=prevApi at 00:09, 16 April 20182018-04-16T00:09:39Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 00:09, 16 April 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><div id="content_view" class="wiki" style="display: block"> In the LPOD of [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/December_1,_2007 December 1], 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers could contribute a consistent set of images that would become the core of a new ''Observer's Photographic Atlas of the Moon''. This page is a forum to collect ideas and comments about the need for a new atlas, its desired characteristics, and other relevant topics. This is a wiki so its easy for you to add text to this page or to use the "discussion" tab above for more lengthy comments. Jump in! Chuck Wood<br /> <br />  This page might be the spark which ignited the creation of the wonderful and handy [http://lpod.wikispaces.com/21st+Century+Atlas+of+the+Moon 21st Century Atlas of the Moon] by C.A.Wood and M.Collins.<span class="membersnap">- <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/</del>DannyCaes <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[Image:DannyCaes-lg.jpg|16px|DannyCaes]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/DannyCaes DannyCaes] </del><small>Sep 30, 2013</small></span><br /> <br />  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><div id="content_view" class="wiki" style="display: block"> In the LPOD of [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/December_1,_2007 December 1], 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers could contribute a consistent set of images that would become the core of a new ''Observer's Photographic Atlas of the Moon''. This page is a forum to collect ideas and comments about the need for a new atlas, its desired characteristics, and other relevant topics. This is a wiki so its easy for you to add text to this page or to use the "discussion" tab above for more lengthy comments. Jump in! Chuck Wood<br /> <br />  This page might be the spark which ignited the creation of the wonderful and handy [http://lpod.wikispaces.com/21st+Century+Atlas+of+the+Moon 21st Century Atlas of the Moon] by C.A.Wood and M.Collins.<span class="membersnap">- DannyCaes <small>Sep 30, 2013</small></span><br /> <br />  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Questions:==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Questions:==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''1: Is there a need for a new photographic lunar atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Yes. The currently available ones (table below) all were created to satisfy their authors, but they don't work for me for the reasons listed as comments. In the table "Sections" is the number of pieces the Moon is divided into, and "Pages" is the number of pages showing the Moon (multiple illumination views). "Names" means that the atlas identifies named craters, and "Letters" means it also shows lettered craters. "Copernicus" is the diameter in mm of Copernicus to indicate scale. Rükl's non-photographic ''Lunar Atlas'' is added for comparison.<br /> ''Table to be completed/added to.''<br />  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''1: Is there a need for a new photographic lunar atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Yes. The currently available ones (table below) all were created to satisfy their authors, but they don't work for me for the reasons listed as comments. In the table "Sections" is the number of pieces the Moon is divided into, and "Pages" is the number of pages showing the Moon (multiple illumination views). "Names" means that the atlas identifies named craters, and "Letters" means it also shows lettered craters. "Copernicus" is the diameter in mm of Copernicus to indicate scale. Rükl's non-photographic ''Lunar Atlas'' is added for comparison.<br /> ''Table to be completed/added to.''<br />  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l67" >Line 67:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 67:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>|}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 [[Image:c17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/JimMosher [[Image:JimMosher-lg.jpg|16px|JimMosher]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/JimMosher JimMosher] </del><small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><br />  In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br />  Consistent scale<br />  Moderate to high resolution<br />  Consistent lighting<br />  Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br />  Names, not letters<br />  30-40 sections<br />  Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br />  Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br />  Closeup images of selected features<br />  Good descriptions of selected features<br />  Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br />  Good libration supplemental limb views<br />  Spiral binding (to open flat)<br />  Long axis vertical - along terminator<br />  Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 [[Image:c17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br />  Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Jim Mosher </ins><small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br />  Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br />  More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br />  I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br />  Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br />  Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div></td></tr>
</table>Apihttp://the-moon.us/index.php?title=A_New_Atlas%3F&diff=7&oldid=prevApi: Created page with "<div id="content_view" class="wiki" style="display: block"> In the LPOD of [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/December_1,_2007 December 1], 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers cou..."2018-04-11T03:26:57Z<p>Created page with "<div id="content_view" class="wiki" style="display: block"> In the LPOD of [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/December_1,_2007 December 1], 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers cou..."</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div><div id="content_view" class="wiki" style="display: block"> In the LPOD of [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/December_1,_2007 December 1], 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers could contribute a consistent set of images that would become the core of a new ''Observer's Photographic Atlas of the Moon''. This page is a forum to collect ideas and comments about the need for a new atlas, its desired characteristics, and other relevant topics. This is a wiki so its easy for you to add text to this page or to use the "discussion" tab above for more lengthy comments. Jump in! Chuck Wood<br /> <br /> This page might be the spark which ignited the creation of the wonderful and handy [http://lpod.wikispaces.com/21st+Century+Atlas+of+the+Moon 21st Century Atlas of the Moon] by C.A.Wood and M.Collins.<span class="membersnap">- [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/DannyCaes [[Image:DannyCaes-lg.jpg|16px|DannyCaes]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/DannyCaes DannyCaes] <small>Sep 30, 2013</small></span><br /> <br /> <br />
==Questions:==<br />
'''1: Is there a need for a new photographic lunar atlas?'''<br /> <br /> Yes. The currently available ones (table below) all were created to satisfy their authors, but they don't work for me for the reasons listed as comments. In the table "Sections" is the number of pieces the Moon is divided into, and "Pages" is the number of pages showing the Moon (multiple illumination views). "Names" means that the atlas identifies named craters, and "Letters" means it also shows lettered craters. "Copernicus" is the diameter in mm of Copernicus to indicate scale. Rükl's non-photographic ''Lunar Atlas'' is added for comparison.<br /> ''Table to be completed/added to.''<br /> <br />
{| class="wiki_table"<br />
| '''Author'''<br /><br />
| '''Sections/Pages'''<br /><br />
| '''Page Size'''<br /><br />
| Copernicus<br /><br />
| '''Names'''<br /><br />
| '''Descriptions'''<br /><br />
| '''Comments'''<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Hatfield<br /><br />
| 16/~80<br /><br />
| 8.5X11"<br /><br />
| 17 mm<br /><br />
| letters<br /><br />
| no<br /><br />
| low res images, convenient size<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Legault & Brunier<br /><br />
| 25/95<br /><br />
| 14X10.5"<br /><br />
| 7 mm<br /><br />
| many<br /><br />
| some<br /><br />
| small scale, too large<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Chong, Lim & Ang<br /><br />
| 30/82<br /><br />
| 9.5X12"<br /><br />
| 5 mm<br /><br />
| names<br /><br />
| yes<br /><br />
| small scale, some overexposed images<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Rükl<br /><br />
| 76/76<br /><br />
| 8.5X11.5"<br /><br />
| 37 mm<br /><br />
| letters<br /><br />
| all<br /><br />
| large scale, selected closeups<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Westfall<br /><br />
| 141/188<br /><br />
| 8.5x11"<br /><br />
| 16 mm<br /><br />
| names<br /><br />
| some<br /><br />
| poor res, awkward arrangement<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Bussey & Spudis<br /><br />
| 144/144<br /><br />
| 9.5X11"<br /><br />
| 36 mm<br /><br />
| letters<br /><br />
| no<br /><br />
| inconstant illumination, spacecraft view<br /><br />
|-<br />
| Viscardy<br /><br />
| 220/440<br /><br />
| 11.5X13"<br /><br />
| 43 mm<br /><br />
| letters<br /><br />
| some<br /><br />
| heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale<br /><br />
|}<br />
<br /> In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).<br /> <br /> '''2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?'''<br /> <br /> Consistent scale<br /> Moderate to high resolution<br /> Consistent lighting<br /> Single view adequate (and more do-able)<br /> Names, not letters<br /> 30-40 sections<br /> Sections have geologically significant boundaries<br /> Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin<br /> Closeup images of selected features<br /> Good descriptions of selected features<br /> Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?<br /> Good libration supplemental limb views<br /> Spiral binding (to open flat)<br /> Long axis vertical - along terminator<br /> Coated paper to prevent moisture damage <span class="membersnap">- [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 [[Image:c17h27no3-lg.jpg|16px|c17h27no3]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/c17h27no3 c17h27no3] <small>Dec 1, 2007</small></span><br /> Normal and mirror-reversed views? <span class="membersnap">- [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/JimMosher [[Image:JimMosher-lg.jpg|16px|JimMosher]]] [http://www.wikispaces.com/user/view/JimMosher JimMosher] <small>Dec 3, 2007</small></span><br /> Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas<br /> <br /> More ideas are in the [http://www2.lpod.org/wiki/August_4,_2007 August 4] LPOD.<br /> <br /> '''Other Ideas?'''<br /> I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007<br /> <br /> '''Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?'''<br /> Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.<br /> Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:OPAM-map.jpg|OPAM-map.jpg]]</div></div>Api