Pete wrote:
> >2) Imagers for the most part image the same 'bright things'
> as every other
> >imager and in my 'limited' experience rarely care about what
> faint fuzzies
> >they are imaging in the vast lumpy darkness surrounding the
> 'bright thing'.
>
> I would suggest that your "limited experience" is an
> admission that this is an "uninformed and inflammatory
> opinion" that is best taken to CalAstro, or better yet, /dev/null.
Yeah -- how can Gort say that, considering it was an imager (me) chasing down
the faint fuzzies in my image that started the thread in the first place? ;-)
FWIW, I do agree with him on one point: The Sky's explanation for their
catalog errors is a cop out.
Chris Marriot's Sky Map Pro (I own both) has the vast majority of these
errors corrected, and was the main reference I used to label my image. It
was in making the comparison between The Sky and SkyMap Pro that I discovered
the errors, prompting a wider search. Of the 40 or so galaxies in my image,
The Sky had 6 mis-labeled or mis-positioned, SkyMap Pro had 1. Not trying to
convince anybody to switch -- I own both because both have features that suit
my needs in different ways -- but just trying to provide some empirical data
:)
Paul