Astronomy Magazines and Images

[avandonk]

I think it is about time that Astronomy Magazines have a CD or DVD with high resolution images of the images they publish. The magazine format does not do them justice.
What do all of you think?
Would you be willing to pay more?

Bert

[rogerg (Roger)]

Hmm... I would prefer not to pay more money (and don't think a CD would make it worth more money), and wouldn't want a high resolution copy of my image included for copyright reasons, but that's just me

I think they should just dedicate more pages to pictures, allowing them to include images 1/2 and full page. But I bet that would only cost them more and not increase their income, so we would end up having to foot the bill in increased cost ... so perhaps not better after all.

[Argonavis (William)]

Astronomy does provide desktop wallpaper:

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ss&id=129

and often the images that you see in Astronomy magazine will be on the imagers website (if they maintain one) in a higher resolution format.

of course, the usual copyright provisions apply.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

I agree that the print quality is not terribly good. Many women's magazines have better print quality ... or so I've heard..

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Maybe a dedicated 'Large size, Hi-Res' astro imaging website is an alternative.

One a bit like LPOD, but rather than the site owner selecting 'one' pic to display per day, all submissions of large size format would be displayed.

Just an idea

[mojo (Terry)]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Maybe a dedicated 'Large size, Hi-Res' astro imaging website is an alternative.

IceInSpace could host hi res images, it's just that we decided on 150KB because most images can be reduced to 150KB while still retaining a decent representation of the object in question. It's also a matter of logistics. From an administration point-of-view, whatever gets uploaded to the site, has to be downloaded and backed up off-site.

Mike and I have discussed whether to increase the file size but in the end, it's not often that you really need a ~1MB image of anything. That is, do you honestly need to see a very hi res image? Would it really make a difference to your 'viewing pleasure'? What would you do with it? If you really need a hi res image to use for something then you need the person's permission and can get a hi res image from them.

As for magazines. The images they publish are often taken with Toucam's or DMK camera's that are inherently low res camera's. So, I assume, they publish what they can get. Also, I Imagine, magazines have space constraints - They try to get as much content into the magazine as they can. I'm sure someone like Greg Bryant could better explain the logistics behind publishing hi res images in magazines. Email and ask? There's probably a good reason for it?

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

I agree that the print quality is not terribly good. Many women's magazines have better print quality ... or so I've heard..

Do they make a Womens Astronomy magazine?
I didn't know that, where do you buy it from?