ASTRO:Help me, Help you.

Web page says it all:

If you are a professional or amateur astronomer and you've ever had an image
of the sky whose location or coordinates you did not know-or did not
trust-then Astrometry.net is for you. Input an image and we'll give you back
precise coordinates ("astrometry") for every pixel, plus lists of known
objects falling inside the field of view.

We have built this astrometry service to create correct, standards-compliant
astrometric meta data for every useful astronomical image ever taken, past
and future, in any state of archival disarray. We hope this will help
organize, annotate and make searchable all the world's astronomical
information.



http://astrometry.net/

G wrote:
Web page says it all:

If you are a professional or amateur astronomer and you've ever had an image
of the sky whose location or coordinates you did not know-or did not
trust-then Astrometry.net is for you. Input an image and we'll give you back
precise coordinates ("astrometry") for every pixel, plus lists of known
objects falling inside the field of view.

We have built this astrometry service to create correct, standards-compliant
astrometric meta data for every useful astronomical image ever taken, past
and future, in any state of archival disarray. We hope this will help
organize, annotate and make searchable all the world's astronomical
information.



http://astrometry.net/

Considering all the major CCD software and telescope control software
already has this ability I'm not sure what the point is. Even back in
film days I kept precise records of the shot. I never found myself
"Lost in Space." The imaging software I use, CCDSoft records all
details of the shot. The location in the sky to a fraction of a second
of arc, the exposure time, the telescope used, the CCD used, the filter
used, the temperature of the camera's CCD and much more. The data is
several pages long in fact. They seem to give only a fraction of what I
already have available.

Once I bring up the astrometry on the image I have the precise position
and ID of everything in the image as well as its computed magnitude. If
it is an asteroid I can get info on how fast it is moving. I plug the
coordinates into the Minor Planet Center's webpage and get an ID of the
asteroid. That's assuming it is a really minor one. The major ones,
several hundred, are already identified on my screen and I can input the
orbits of ALL the others if I wish to have a very cluttered screen.
Ditto with comets.

I use nothing special in the way of software that isn't used by any
other serious imager. In fact, most have more than I do!

Looking over the website their examples seem to identify only major
objects. The shot of M100 showed dozens of galaxies but only three NGC
galaxies were identified including M101. There were several other NGC
galaxies in the image as well as dozens of fainter one. Why were not
the rest identified? My software would have identified nearly all of
them. Some appear to be anonymous and are cataloged only by position.
That's not noted either. Maybe it is how it was set but if you are
trying to convince me this is a service I need that sure doesn't come close.

Rick


--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

That's him told then!


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


G wrote:
Web page says it all:

If you are a professional or amateur astronomer and you've ever had an
image
of the sky whose location or coordinates you did not know-or did not
trust-then Astrometry.net is for you. Input an image and we'll give you
back
precise coordinates ("astrometry") for every pixel, plus lists of known
objects falling inside the field of view.

We have built this astrometry service to create correct,
standards-compliant
astrometric meta data for every useful astronomical image ever taken,
past
and future, in any state of archival disarray. We hope this will help
organize, annotate and make searchable all the world's astronomical
information.



http://astrometry.net/

Considering all the major CCD software and telescope control software
already has this ability I'm not sure what the point is. Even back in
film days I kept precise records of the shot. I never found myself
"Lost in Space." The imaging software I use, CCDSoft records all
details of the shot. The location in the sky to a fraction of a second
of arc, the exposure time, the telescope used, the CCD used, the filter
used, the temperature of the camera's CCD and much more. The data is
several pages long in fact. They seem to give only a fraction of what I
already have available.

Once I bring up the astrometry on the image I have the precise position
and ID of everything in the image as well as its computed magnitude. If
it is an asteroid I can get info on how fast it is moving. I plug the
coordinates into the Minor Planet Center's webpage and get an ID of the
asteroid. That's assuming it is a really minor one. The major ones,
several hundred, are already identified on my screen and I can input the
orbits of ALL the others if I wish to have a very cluttered screen.
Ditto with comets.

I use nothing special in the way of software that isn't used by any
other serious imager. In fact, most have more than I do!

Looking over the website their examples seem to identify only major
objects. The shot of M100 showed dozens of galaxies but only three NGC
galaxies were identified including M101. There were several other NGC
galaxies in the image as well as dozens of fainter one. Why were not
the rest identified? My software would have identified nearly all of
them. Some appear to be anonymous and are cataloged only by position.
That's not noted either. Maybe it is how it was set but if you are
trying to convince me this is a service I need that sure doesn't come
close.

Rick


--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Web page says it all:

If you are a professional or amateur astronomer and you've ever had an
image of the sky whose location or coordinates you did not know-or did not
trust-then Astrometry.net is for you. Input an image and we'll give you
back precise coordinates ("astrometry") for every pixel, plus lists of
known objects falling inside the field of view.

We have built this astrometry service to create correct,
standards-compliant astrometric meta data for every useful astronomical
image ever taken, past and future, in any state of archival disarray. We
hope this will help organize, annotate and make searchable all the world's
astronomical information.


Why post this? I mean, I can imagine you mention your site/program when it's
finished ... but it isn't. Your program is still in beta testing?
And I also question the use of it ... there is software around that all
ready can do that. And besides this all: your service is also "taking the
fun out of it". Isn't part (or for some a major part) of the fun in astro
photography to discover yourself what you have captured?

Menno

TW wrote:

That's him told then!

The press releases I've seen for this site go on and on about how
amateurs have no idea when where or what they took in there photos
making them worthless to science and this site will add back that info.

I found that very demeaning and very false. Every one of my frames has
every bit of the "meta data" they say is missing and they will find for
me. But my meta data (which is part of the image file) also has far
more data than they say they will find for me as most of it is necessary
to fully analyze the image yet can't be derived from just the picture
file. It must be provided by the photographer, things like aperture,
CCD used, filters used, exposure time etc. To tell me I don't know what
the heck we're taking is very insulting to most all amateur astronomers.
Then to tell me they can analyze the data with most of the needed data
missing and do so better than I can with the data they don't have is
just too much for my system to bear. I provide data for a major AGN
researcher at McDonald Observatory. He's never found my meta data
lacking. Yet its just the standard data CCDSoft or any other major
imaging software for CCDs provides.

Most professional astronomers recognize and often use the expertise of
amateurs world wide, they don't demean them like the astronomer did in
the press releases I saw did. But to imply they can get more science
out of a basic JPEG image rather than the original FITS data taken by
the amateur is hogwash. Now if the project was to collect and catalog
all calibrated amateur FITS files (not the internet JPG image) for
research that could be a very good thing. Combine that with a library of
old film photos from all sources, then you'd have something worthwhile.
But that's not what is being done as I read the press releases.

The site is still in the beta stage and has little info as yet.

Rick

Why post this? I mean, I can imagine you mention your site/program when
it's
finished ...
Um, it's not my website nor do I run or manage it. I was given this link by
another AA guy. I just thought it would be interesting to help out.

but it isn't. Your program is still in beta testing?
Again not my website. Not my program.

And I also question the use of it ...
Ok.

there is software around that all ready can do that.
True: They are also always improving on the star maps and charts of the
night sky. Other programs are being made or revised. Starry Night and others
always updating and coming out with more and more...

And besides this all: your service is also "taking the
fun out of it". Isn't part (or for some a major part) of the fun in astro
photography to discover yourself what you have captured?
Taking the fun out of it? I don't understand this? If I was doing this, I
would always be having fun, doing something I love to do...



Menno


Apparently, some of you think I run this website or program. No I don't. I
was just showing this to anyone who would think this would be a good thing
to help. But it has offended well 3 of you so far. I wasn't after offended
you guys. Or be-littling you, ****ing on your cereal or what ever. To me
when I read the website. I thought this would be a website to contribute.
For anyone who might want to help out. Since we all here contribute in some
way or another. Didn't think it was going to start a flame war...

The "Help me, Help you" Phrase in the Subject header. Was taken from the
Movie Jerry McGuire movie. Sorry if it looks like ME as myself. I just
thought of that phrase when I wondered about what I should put in the
Subject header. Just popped in my head...

Jesus Christ Rick!
Chill out, have a beer or glass of wine. Damn you having a bad night?
Seem to have hit a button or something...
Dude, I having nothing to do with this website.
Contact these guys, Core Team Members of
astrometry.badhorriblesoftwareguys.com


Put your rant in an email to them...
When I read the website over. I had a different idea of what this website
was for...
There's a couple of guys in my astro group who showed me this. Who want to
help them out...
I'll show your post to them. I haven't signed up yet. I was thinking about
it. But I don't know now...

(Began Heavy Sarcasm)
PS: Can I have my butt back now? After you chewed me out...
(End Heavy Sarcasm)




"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


TW wrote:

That's him told then!

The press releases I've seen for this site go on and on about how amateurs
have no idea when where or what they took in there photos making them
worthless to science and this site will add back that info.

I found that very demeaning and very false. Every one of my frames has
every bit of the "meta data" they say is missing and they will find for
me. But my meta data (which is part of the image file) also has far more
data than they say they will find for me as most of it is necessary to
fully analyze the image yet can't be derived from just the picture file.
It must be provided by the photographer, things like aperture, CCD used,
filters used, exposure time etc. To tell me I don't know what the heck
we're taking is very insulting to most all amateur astronomers. Then to
tell me they can analyze the data with most of the needed data missing and
do so better than I can with the data they don't have is just too much for
my system to bear. I provide data for a major AGN researcher at McDonald
Observatory. He's never found my meta data lacking. Yet its just the
standard data CCDSoft or any other major imaging software for CCDs
provides.

Most professional astronomers recognize and often use the expertise of
amateurs world wide, they don't demean them like the astronomer did in the
press releases I saw did. But to imply they can get more science out of a
basic JPEG image rather than the original FITS data taken by the amateur
is hogwash. Now if the project was to collect and catalog all calibrated
amateur FITS files (not the internet JPG image) for research that could be
a very good thing. Combine that with a library of old film photos from all
sources, then you'd have something worthwhile. But that's not what is
being done as I read the press releases.

The site is still in the beta stage and has little info as yet.

Rick

I wasn't chewing you out at all. You were just passing on the info you
had received. I don't "Kill the Messenger", or didn't realize that's
how it sounded. I knew you had no connection with it. I'm truly sorry
it sounded that way.

I was just expressing my frustration at those who are pushing this as
something it isn't. Or doesn't appear to be anyway. I've seen three
press releases from them. Each told me, in a different way, I am too
stupid to know what is in my own pictures. That I have no idea what a
proper meta tag for a photo is and I am negligent for not saving this
data. I found that all very insulting. I wrote back to explain this
and was told again I didn't know what the heck I was doing and but they
wanted to help me know what I was taking images of. That is, they sent
me another form letter with the same crap in it.

As I mentioned. If they want to be a storehouse for ALL usable astro
photos taken by all astronomers, pro and serious amateur, world wide in
a searchable database so a researcher could pop up an area of the sky
that they're interested in and see it over a century of time that would
be a super project that could turn up some interesting discoveries of
transient events, such as Mc Neil's Nebula in past appearances, as well
as errors in proper motion data and many other things like comet and
asteroid recoveries.

But to do it by telling amateur astronomers that they are too stupid to
put the needed info in their photos and that they could somehow divine
important things such as the type of CCD, telescope and filters used
(needed to know the spectral response of the photo as well as
compression distortions from NABG CCD's and do so from a JPG image full
of artifacts and compression distortions of color and intensity, blows
my mind. I didn't know they were psychic. Without that data the
usefulness of such a large database would be compromised. But they
don't seem to trust amateurs to know this and in fact tell us we don't.

It gets worse when you look at what they say they want to do in the
future. The releases all said they hope to be able to eventually
analyze a photo to the point where they can tell where on the earth and
when it was taken. Uh -- that's in my meta tag guys and with far more
accuracy than you could ever hope to derive from studying a photo. I
can see that useful for old photos found stashed in some University
archive however. Still looking at the plate and emulsion used should
narrow down things about as much as deriving proper motions from the
plates which seems to be their idea. Finding several double stars and
determining their brightness might be an even more accurate way as each
will have a different period so would hit the exact same ratio of
brightness only once every few decades in some cases. That could pin it
down to the day. Yet that isn't mentioned, only using much less
accurate proper motion is. It leaves me wondering how much thought went
into this, very little it seems.

The main thrust at their website (very different from the press releases
I got) is that they'll tell beginners what's in their photos. That's
fine though Aladin, an on line database run by SIMBAD has been doing
that for years now and will tell you far more about what's in the photo
than this outfit will, even leading you to all papers written on these
objects. So if that's their intent they are reinventing the wheel and
doing a far less complete job of it. Though I'll admit ALADIN isn't
user friendly and takes some getting used to. Maybe they should write a
better interface for ALADIN rather than reinvent it. Besides, as I
mentioned, standard software used by imagers does the ID for you. And
does a far more complete job. Or a visit to your local astronomy club
will also get your beginner photos ID'd for you and no fancy computer
system needed.

My feeling is these guys invented a way to ID any starfield without
first knowing the general area to look. This is new, I'll give them
that! But now are looking for a use for it and this is the best they
can come up with. They then give it a lot of spin, likely the same spin
they gave getting the grant money to do this, and now are stuck with
trying to find a use for it to get more grant money. Something very
hard to come by! It could be useful in the case of old archived photos
in which the location data has been lost. Thus my suggestion that this
be an archive for photos of all era's to look for events that have been
overlooked.

But to tell me I am too ignorant or dumb to meta tag the data I take
sure isn't the way to get me interested in helping the project!


Rick



G"Laptop" wrote:
Jesus Christ Rick!
Chill out, have a beer or glass of wine. Damn you having a bad night?
Seem to have hit a button or something...
Dude, I having nothing to do with this website.
Contact these guys, Core Team Members of
astrometry.badhorriblesoftwareguys.com


Put your rant in an email to them...
When I read the website over. I had a different idea of what this website
was for...
There's a couple of guys in my astro group who showed me this. Who want to
help them out...
I'll show your post to them. I haven't signed up yet. I was thinking about
it. But I don't know now...

(Began Heavy Sarcasm)
PS: Can I have my butt back now? After you chewed me out...
(End Heavy Sarcasm)

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:15:15 -0500, "G\"Laptop\""
wrote:


Why post this? I mean, I can imagine you mention your site/program when
it's
finished ...
Um, it's not my website nor do I run or manage it. I was given this link by
another AA guy. I just thought it would be interesting to help out.

but it isn't. Your program is still in beta testing?
Again not my website. Not my program.

And I also question the use of it ...
Ok.

there is software around that all ready can do that.
True: They are also always improving on the star maps and charts of the
night sky. Other programs are being made or revised. Starry Night and others
always updating and coming out with more and more...

And besides this all: your service is also "taking the
fun out of it". Isn't part (or for some a major part) of the fun in astro
photography to discover yourself what you have captured?
Taking the fun out of it? I don't understand this? If I was doing this, I
would always be having fun, doing something I love to do...



Menno


Apparently, some of you think I run this website or program. No I don't. I
was just showing this to anyone who would think this would be a good thing
to help. But it has offended well 3 of you so far. I wasn't after offended
you guys. Or be-littling you, ****ing on your cereal or what ever. To me
when I read the website. I thought this would be a website to contribute.
For anyone who might want to help out. Since we all here contribute in some
way or another. Didn't think it was going to start a flame war...

The "Help me, Help you" Phrase in the Subject header. Was taken from the
Movie Jerry McGuire movie. Sorry if it looks like ME as myself. I just
thought of that phrase when I wondered about what I should put in the
Subject header. Just popped in my head...

I was going by the "We have built this astrometry service" part.
--
This message has been brought to you by solar and wind power. Who needs the national grid?
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A fella was saying to his friend,
"My wife seems to have developed some sort of fixation that her collection of fur coats will be stolen.
When I came home early one day last week, I found she'd hired someone to GUARD them!
In fact, she stationed the poor guy right inside the closet!"

Rick Johnson wrote:

I wasn't chewing you out at all.

Just everything he's doing. Give the guy a break. Your keyboard will last
longer!



You were just passing on the info you
had received. I don't "Kill the Messenger", or didn't realize that's
how it sounded. I knew you had no connection with it. I'm truly sorry
it sounded that way.

I was just expressing my frustration at those who are pushing this as
something it isn't. Or doesn't appear to be anyway. I've seen three
press releases from them. Each told me, in a different way, I am too
stupid to know what is in my own pictures. That I have no idea what a
proper meta tag for a photo is and I am negligent for not saving this
data. I found that all very insulting. I wrote back to explain this
and was told again I didn't know what the heck I was doing and but they
wanted to help me know what I was taking images of. That is, they sent
me another form letter with the same crap in it.

As I mentioned. If they want to be a storehouse for ALL usable astro
photos taken by all astronomers, pro and serious amateur, world wide in
a searchable database so a researcher could pop up an area of the sky
that they're interested in and see it over a century of time that would
be a super project that could turn up some interesting discoveries of
transient events, such as Mc Neil's Nebula in past appearances, as well
as errors in proper motion data and many other things like comet and
asteroid recoveries.

But to do it by telling amateur astronomers that they are too stupid to
put the needed info in their photos and that they could somehow divine
important things such as the type of CCD, telescope and filters used
(needed to know the spectral response of the photo as well as
compression distortions from NABG CCD's and do so from a JPG image full
of artifacts and compression distortions of color and intensity, blows
my mind. I didn't know they were psychic. Without that data the
usefulness of such a large database would be compromised. But they
don't seem to trust amateurs to know this and in fact tell us we don't.

It gets worse when you look at what they say they want to do in the
future. The releases all said they hope to be able to eventually
analyze a photo to the point where they can tell where on the earth and
when it was taken. Uh -- that's in my meta tag guys and with far more
accuracy than you could ever hope to derive from studying a photo. I
can see that useful for old photos found stashed in some University
archive however. Still looking at the plate and emulsion used should
narrow down things about as much as deriving proper motions from the
plates which seems to be their idea. Finding several double stars and
determining their brightness might be an even more accurate way as each
will have a different period so would hit the exact same ratio of
brightness only once every few decades in some cases. That could pin it
down to the day. Yet that isn't mentioned, only using much less
accurate proper motion is. It leaves me wondering how much thought went
into this, very little it seems.

The main thrust at their website (very different from the press releases
I got) is that they'll tell beginners what's in their photos. That's
fine though Aladin, an on line database run by SIMBAD has been doing
that for years now and will tell you far more about what's in the photo
than this outfit will, even leading you to all papers written on these
objects. So if that's their intent they are reinventing the wheel and
doing a far less complete job of it. Though I'll admit ALADIN isn't
user friendly and takes some getting used to. Maybe they should write a
better interface for ALADIN rather than reinvent it. Besides, as I
mentioned, standard software used by imagers does the ID for you. And
does a far more complete job. Or a visit to your local astronomy club
will also get your beginner photos ID'd for you and no fancy computer
system needed.

My feeling is these guys invented a way to ID any starfield without
first knowing the general area to look. This is new, I'll give them
that! But now are looking for a use for it and this is the best they
can come up with. They then give it a lot of spin, likely the same spin
they gave getting the grant money to do this, and now are stuck with
trying to find a use for it to get more grant money. Something very
hard to come by! It could be useful in the case of old archived photos
in which the location data has been lost. Thus my suggestion that this
be an archive for photos of all era's to look for events that have been
overlooked.

But to tell me I am too ignorant or dumb to meta tag the data I take
sure isn't the way to get me interested in helping the project!

Rick

G"Laptop" wrote:
Jesus Christ Rick!
Chill out, have a beer or glass of wine. Damn you having a bad night?
Seem to have hit a button or something...
Dude, I having nothing to do with this website.
Contact these guys, Core Team Members of
astrometry.badhorriblesoftwareguys.com


Put your rant in an email to them...
When I read the website over. I had a different idea of what this website
was for...
There's a couple of guys in my astro group who showed me this. Who want to
help them out...
I'll show your post to them. I haven't signed up yet. I was thinking about
it. But I don't know now...

(Began Heavy Sarcasm)
PS: Can I have my butt back now? After you chewed me out...
(End Heavy Sarcasm)