Have you seen this new 4" telescope prototype?

Apologies if you already have seen this.
http://unistellaroptics.com/en/product

Has anyone taken part in the demos they've done?

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Borkum Riff
wrote:

Apologies if you already have seen this.
http://unistellaroptics.com/en/product

Has anyone taken part in the demos they've done?

Well, it's interesting, but I don't know that this is the best
approach. They don't say anything about the technology, but my initial
assumption would be that they use a low noise sensor (zero readout
noise, as we see increasingly used in night vision technology) and a
display of some sort in the eyepiece. If you're going to do that, why
have an eyepiece at all. It's an imaging device, and an external
viewer and storage system makes much more sense.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:12:22 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Borkum Riff
wrote:

Apologies if you already have seen this.
http://unistellaroptics.com/en/product

Has anyone taken part in the demos they've done?

Well, it's interesting, but I don't know that this is the best
approach. They don't say anything about the technology, but my initial
assumption would be that they use a low noise sensor (zero readout
noise, as we see increasingly used in night vision technology) and a
display of some sort in the eyepiece. If you're going to do that, why
have an eyepiece at all. It's an imaging device, and an external
viewer and storage system makes much more sense.

The "technology" is called imaging and has been used by astrophotographers for decades. Instead of displaying the image on a computer screen they are probably using a small readout as you would find on the back of a digital camera and magnifying the image with an eyepiece. The sensor is a cheap and cheerful color chip as found in cellphones, CMOS versions of which are now offered to Astro-imagers in the form of astrocameras sold by a number of Chinese companies (QHY as an example).

Normally imagers assemble the parts and stick them on the back of their telescopes. This company went one step further and provides a totally integrated package so you don't have to think, just aim and look.

Razzy

On 20/09/2017 22:14, Razzmatazz wrote:
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:12:22 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Borkum Riff
wrote:

Apologies if you already have seen this.
http://unistellaroptics.com/en/product

Has anyone taken part in the demos they've done?

Well, it's interesting, but I don't know that this is the best
approach. They don't say anything about the technology, but my
initial assumption would be that they use a low noise sensor (zero
readout noise, as we see increasingly used in night vision
technology) and a display of some sort in the eyepiece. If you're
going to do that, why have an eyepiece at all. It's an imaging
device, and an external viewer and storage system makes much more
sense.

The "technology" is called imaging and has been used by
astrophotographers for decades. Instead of displaying the image on a
computer screen they are probably using a small readout as you would
find on the back of a digital camera and magnifying the image with an
eyepiece. The sensor is a cheap and cheerful color chip as found in
cellphones, CMOS versions of which are now offered to Astro-imagers
in the form of astrocameras sold by a number of Chinese companies
(QHY as an example).

Normally imagers assemble the parts and stick them on the back of
their telescopes. This company went one step further and provides a
totally integrated package so you don't have to think, just aim and
look.

It might have a place in science outreach though. Many members of the
public are less than impressed with grey views of faint fuzzies through
even quite large telescopes unless you choose wisely. They have been
spoilt by all these deep space Hubble calendars and coffee table books.

Saturn, Jupiter, Double Cluster, M13, M42 and M57 never fail to impress.
Galaxies are harder M31 usually goes down badly. M81/82 slightly better.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 10:26:00 UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/09/2017 22:14, Razzmatazz wrote:
Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:12:22 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 05:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Borkum Riff
wrote:

Apologies if you already have seen this.
http://unistellaroptics.com/en/product

Has anyone taken part in the demos they've done?

Well, it's interesting, but I don't know that this is the best
approach. They don't say anything about the technology, but my
initial assumption would be that they use a low noise sensor (zero
readout noise, as we see increasingly used in night vision
technology) and a display of some sort in the eyepiece. If you're
going to do that, why have an eyepiece at all. It's an imaging
device, and an external viewer and storage system makes much more
sense.

The "technology" is called imaging and has been used by
astrophotographers for decades. Instead of displaying the image on a
computer screen they are probably using a small readout as you would
find on the back of a digital camera and magnifying the image with an
eyepiece. The sensor is a cheap and cheerful color chip as found in
cellphones, CMOS versions of which are now offered to Astro-imagers
in the form of astrocameras sold by a number of Chinese companies
(QHY as an example).

Normally imagers assemble the parts and stick them on the back of
their telescopes. This company went one step further and provides a
totally integrated package so you don't have to think, just aim and
look.

It might have a place in science outreach though. Many members of the
public are less than impressed with grey views of faint fuzzies through
even quite large telescopes unless you choose wisely. They have been
spoilt by all these deep space Hubble calendars and coffee table books.

Saturn, Jupiter, Double Cluster, M13, M42 and M57 never fail to impress.
Galaxies are harder M31 usually goes down badly. M81/82 slightly better.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The problem would seem to be that resolution is still limited to the objective aperture of the device on offer. Brighter is not sharper.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:25:55 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

It might have a place in science outreach though.

As does imaging. I find that most people prefer to look at a live view
on a screen to looking through an eyepiece (at public gatherings).

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:27:07 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

The problem would seem to be that resolution is still limited to the objective aperture of the device on offer. Brighter is not sharper.

Yeah, but once you get above a few inches, resolution is limited by
the atmosphere. Even under the best conditions, 10-12 inches defines
the resolution limit without employing adaptive optics.

On 21/09/2017 14:37, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:25:55 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

It might have a place in science outreach though.

As does imaging. I find that most people prefer to look at a live view
on a screen to looking through an eyepiece (at public gatherings).

It is a bit of a problem though that public expectations have been
altered by the magical Hubble pictures so that actual views of the true
object through a telescope are thought by most to be grey and boring.

Saturn is a major exception to the rule. There is almost nobody who
doesn't go *WOW* the first time they look at it in a decent scope.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:22:37 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 21/09/2017 14:37, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:25:55 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

It might have a place in science outreach though.

As does imaging. I find that most people prefer to look at a live view
on a screen to looking through an eyepiece (at public gatherings).

It is a bit of a problem though that public expectations have been
altered by the magical Hubble pictures so that actual views of the true
object through a telescope are thought by most to be grey and boring.

Saturn is a major exception to the rule. There is almost nobody who
doesn't go *WOW* the first time they look at it in a decent scope.

Saturn, Jupiter, and the Moon are the only objects that routinely seem
to inspire observational awe in almost everyone.

I don't think people have been spoiled by Hubble. I think the vast
majority of people have always considered the telescopic views of
faint fuzzies to be boring. It's one reason why so few people are
amateur astronomers. (Heck, I'm an avid astronomer, and I have very
little interest in looking at most things through an eyepiece.)

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:57:07 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's one reason why so few people are
amateur astronomers. (Heck, I'm an avid astronomer, and I have very
little interest in looking at most things through an eyepiece.)

Trust me on this one, you are no astronomer, an astrophotographer with an interest in optics perhaps but to call yourselves astronomers is pretense of the highest order, amateur or otherwise.

Most rushed off to the astrophotography forums when astronomy showed up in the newsgroup so at least congratulate yourself that you stuck around but that is as far as it goes.