[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) NAMN LM Charts
At 12:25 PM 10/20/97 -0400, George Zay asked:
>However you got those charts onto your website in the first place, couldn't
you >simply enter smaller copies of the charts themselves that would show
slightly >larger areas of the sky with the appropriate star count area included?
George,
I am not sure since I don't have the equipment to do it. This is a guess,
but I imagine you could. However, at some point I would think the file sizes
become so large that it could take a long time to load the images. Then I
would receive complaints about how long it took the NAMN site to load up......
>I'm not a whiz bang with computers myself, but I gather a lot
>of folks that got these lofty titles are and it would seem to not be a big
>matter to make the charts slightly larger.
I know. By the way, the NAMN web site is not maintained by me as I neither
have the computer facilities nor the knowledge to be webmaster. Gary Kronk
has been kind enough to provide this work for us.
>Couldn't you cut out a larger area of the sky off a plotting chart and then
>reduce it to an appropriate size while photocopying? from there isn't there
>some way to run the chart thru a photo reader? Like I said, I'm not a whiz
bang >with computers, but it appears that all this has been done by someone
before with the original charts?
The answer to this one is the same as above. I think it is possible....
>Would posting a chart onto this list like one does a photo be useful or
would >that not be possible to transfer it to your website?
I am not sure. This would be a question for Gary.
>Whether IMO is the source or not, doesn't make the charts that any more
>useful in practice does it? I haven't had the chance to look and see if IMO
>has the same charts or not, but if they are identical in sky area covered as
>you have on the NAMN website, the complaint is the same. If something is
>screwed up, why be contented about it?
Sure it does! Are you not in favor of IMO? Are you not in favor of
standardized methods? If you are, then we should now be in agreement that
making LM estimates with the "standard" charts of IMO is the way to go. How
is this "screwed up?"
The point I was trying to make in my last message was that we are using IMO
charts. Whether or not they meet your expectations is really beyond my
control. I do not have the ability to improve them to your specifications.
If the staff of IMO is able to create new ones that are an improvement, I
will again seek their permission to use them. I am sorry that I can't solve
this for you. But I would again suggest you contact IMO for more information.
Mark