IIS Almanac - quantification

[Kevnool (Kev)]

I would buy a copy of this.
Great idea Chris.
Go for it.
Although i,m not into astrophotography the concept is great.
Cheers Kev.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

32 contributors to date - and that'd make a 40-odd page book.

More to roll in over the next couple of weeks I'll bet.

[Alchemy (Clive)]

you will probably get half the i dont know yet voters too.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

Chris when you need the cash i,ll pay with paypal its the easist.
Cheers Kev.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by Kevnool

Chris when you need the cash i,ll pay with paypal its the easist.
Cheers Kev.

Whoa Nelly!! Thanks for the vote of confidence Kev, but we're still in preliminary concept evaluation stage!

I guess that if it does get off the ground, Mike would provide some mechanism via which to purchase copies - much like he uses to take IISAC and beanie payments - which include (if I'm not mistaken) PayPal.

Watch this space!

[Jen]

Im watching this space

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Have we reached the limit in terms of numbers of people willing or 'willing but not yet'?

Mike did you have a plan to email everyone in an effort to reach those that may not have seen this thread?

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi Chris

I'm just working on a few articles that people have submitted and after I've done (and uploaded) those, I'll be sending out an email and will direct them to this thread.

So will be a few more days, sorry. Been flatout last couple of weeks

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Of course Mike - take your time.

[Quark (Trevor)]

Hi Chris,

Sounds like a good idea and I would contribute some of my Saturn storm and Titan transit images, if they were deemed worthy.

Cheers
Trevor

[Big Dave (Dave)]

Let me know if I can help out- good idea Cris.

Originally Posted by Omaroo

32 contributors to date - and that'd make a 40-odd page book.

More to roll in over the next couple of weeks I'll bet.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Cheers Trevor

Actually, you raise a point that must be discussed. Do we need to impose a base-line quality standard on images supplied, or do we just print what we get as someones "best" image, as long as it is mechanically suitable for press (i.e adequate resolution)?

I tend to bend toward the latter. I don't think that anyone should have to compete with the quality that others are able to produce. If a shot is someones best shot - then so it should be treated as just that, and included for that very reason.

So - I think that everyone should be able to make up their own mind as to whether or not a shot they've produced with their own equipment is good enough to sit alongside other images in the same book - some of which will be world-beating. There will be no competition, and I'd like to suggest that images are presented in authors name order.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Cheers Trevor and Dave

Thanks to Ben, we may have sourced a supplier (well, a relative!) with an Indigo digital press All we need now are reliable numbers, and we'll organise a quote based on these.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Chris,

Here's a thought. I know that typically planetary images are very low resolution compared to their cousins -- the DSLRs and dedicated CCDs of the world, and so may cause a few issues with print quality (if being blown up). With that in mind, it may be an idea that planetary imagers submit multiple/different images (to form a mosaic) to make up for "one" DSLR/CCD image, as it were.

Of course, if they were happy to just have the one image in the middle of the page, surrounded by black or white or grey, or any other neutral tone/colour which would still allow you to see detail and contrast in their image, then, that would be a goer, too.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Humayun

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by Octane

Chris,

Here's a thought. I know that typically planetary images are very low resolution compared to their cousins -- the DSLRs and dedicated CCDs of the world, and so may cause a few issues with print quality (if being blown up). With that in mind, it may be an idea that planetary imagers submit multiple/different images (to form a mosaic) to make up for "one" DSLR/CCD image, as it were.

Of course, if they were happy to just have the one image in the middle of the page, surrounded by black or white or grey, or any other neutral tone/colour which would still allow you to see detail and contrast in their image, then, that would be a goer, too.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Humayun

These are very valid points Humayun. The Indigo digital press utilizes liquid electro photography (LEP) to create offset and photo quality prints. I'm going to be talking to the printer in order to get their recommendation as to what we need to supply in terms of minimum resolution given the variable quality levels the press is able to output. If we were to emulate magazine quality, which is usually produced by laying down a 4-colour CMYK rosette pattern on paper in a web offset press at a line screen of 200lpi, we need to apply the rule of thumb which states that in order to support that print line screen we need to offer images at 1.5-2.5 times that line screen in actual image resolution terms. Therefore I'd be looking at a minimum resolution off 300dpi. For an 8 inch (200mm) trim size, that equates to images that will need to be at least 2,400 pixels wide to span the entire page panel on one side.

So... you're right. Planetary images are usually produced by webcam-style devices at resolutions typically ranging from 640 (in x) to 1024. So - a planetary imager might give us a selection of four images to work with and we can tile them as you say. BUT - there's nothing to say that we can't scale an image up and present it under-resolved. We can artificially increase its resolution in Photoshop (an absolute no-no in the advertising industry...LOL!) and look forward to a large planet like Saturn or Jupiter on the page, but lookin' a tad fuzzy!

Anyway... I'll issue a set of guidlines, and people can make up their own minds as to whether an image they intend to include is going to have to be artificially scaled or placed in a tile arrangement with a few others. You see plenty of planetary images that Mike, Anthony, Paul and others produce that look mighty fine in AS&T

[Paul Haese]

Couple of things that I am curious about?

In the case where you get a lot of contributors; who selects which images are used? Obviously if you got over 100 contributors you would need to start thinning out the contributors. The selection process could lead to someone being offended.

And, what happens if you get a glut of contributors from one part of imaging, say for instance planetary imaging or a deep sky object that is the same? There are a lot of people doing that and I can see some might get offended if they are not published. Or is the idea that all the contributors will be published?

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Couple of things that I am curious about?

In the case where you get a lot of contributors; who selects which images are used? Obviously if you got over 100 contributors you would need to start thinning out the contributors. The selection process could lead to someone being offended.

And, what happens if you get a glut of contributors from one part of imaging, say for instance planetary imaging or a deep sky object that is the same? There are a lot of people doing that and I can see some might get offended if they are not published. Or is the idea that all the contributors will be published?

Every imager will choose their own single favourite image Paul, and all contributions will be used. This book isn't necessarily about the images perse, it's about the imagers. Everyone gets to enter their own favourite. If we get two M42's then we'll ask both imagers if they could have an alternative that they might want to contribute, but if not then that's fine too. At least we'll offer them that courtesy. Both images will likely be different anyway. Planetary imagers don't have many planets to realistically choose from, so we're bound to get a few Jupiters and Saturns - and moons.

The idea is that we present the "imager" on a page, along with a photo of themselves or their rig (or both) and their favourite image that they've taken. Depending on the price, we'll limit the impending page count up front (like 66 pages for example), so the first 66 imagers to contribute after we open the gates will be printed in the book, and anyone after that will be first in line for next time. I'd keep a count displayed so people are aware.

[Paul Haese]

Thanks Chris.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

Originally Posted by Omaroo

Every imager will choose their own single favourite image Paul, and all contributions will be used. This book isn't necessarily about the images perse, it's about the imagers. Everyone gets to enter their own favourite. If we get two M42's then we'll ask both imagers if they could have an alternative that they might want to contribute, but if not then that's fine too. At least we'll offer them that courtesy. Both images will likely be different anyway. Planetary imagers don't have many planets to realistically choose from, so we're bound to get a few Jupiters and Saturns - and moons.

The idea is that we present the "imager" on a page, along with a photo of themselves or their rig (or both) and their favourite image that they've taken. Depending on the price, we'll limit the impending page count up front (like 66 pages for example), so the first 66 imagers to contribute after we open the gates will be printed in the book, and anyone after that will be first in line for next time. I'd keep a count displayed so people are aware.

Based on the discussion so far it appears to be moving towards being a simple directory of Australian astrophotographers. Not exactly a bad thing at all, but not necessarily something people will pay $60+ for. Unless you're going to make it a "best of" type book, there needs to be some other angle to grab peoples interest. Anyway, most folks who want to know who's who in the australian astrophotography community will be googling or browsing IIS to find them, and typically those imagers will have a web presence already. So what in this book will make someone want to spend $60+?

Moreover, when I browse a $60+ picture book, I want to go oooo aaaaah, not hoooo huuuum. That means, whether you like it or not, you're going to have to exert some editorial control over the quality of content ... to make the book attractive enough for people to want to spend their hard earned $$ on. Basing content on the altruistic notion of printing anything anyone gives you (because you're afraid of offending someone?) on a first in best dressed basis won't work IMHO. Yep, you'd probably end up with a committee of people deciding what's in and what's out. .

Wanna know what I think? Why not have an area in IIS that functions like what you're proposing and has a picture book feel about it? You could have bios, images and links that illustrate every person who images in Australia (and who wants to be publicised). Mike doesn't have much on - I'm sure he'd build something pretty quickly - call it a top 100 list of Australian astro-photographers ... eh Mike?

Just my 2c.

Cheers, Marcus

[Jen]

Well thats an easy pic for me so far i have only one pic of the moon
(but weather its good enough for the book or not is a different thing )

Unless there is an afocal section in the book count mine in