|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:12:42 PM UTC-5, Sketcher wrote:
Six years ago one could get a 50mm Galileoscope for $15 - double the aperture for 1/23 the price. *That* was a good deal! Sketcher, To sketch is to see. On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 6:16:09 PM UTC-6, Linus Das wrote: http://www.macrumors.com/review/ican...sky-telescope/ Where's Shawn Grant when you need him? No doubt LdB will think it's amazing. You could also buy old copy lenses that made great finders and could be used for taking pictures too. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On 8/18/2015 7:16 PM, Linus Das wrote:
http://www.macrumors.com/review/ican...sky-telescope/ Where's Shawn Grant when you need him? No doubt LdB will think it's amazing. Not amazing but interesting. There has been some discussion about using smart phones as astro viewing cameras in the video/electronic viewing forums. Adapters are available to attach an iPhone directly to telescopes. Not surprising but it has been reported that one can see more with an iPhone on a telescope than with an eyepiece. That's just another example of innovative thinking by people interested in the modern ways of viewing the sky. New ideas and new equipment bring new people into the hobby. With those people come more ideas, more interest and more innovation. I realize this is difficult for the traditionalists to understand. The shapes of Constellations and deep sky objects change about as fast as the traditionalists ability to adapt to new ideas. Their methods and equipment have been used for hundreds of years. Why would anyone want to change now? In keeping with the spirit of the group here's an interesting report from a Mallincam user. Rather than cutting and pasting remarks as most here seem to do I prefer to pass it along in my own words. A Mallincam user was invited to set up his equipment at a traditionalists outreach event. Naturally he had to set up away from the main group to keep the rest of the participants happy. At first the traditionalists had the attention of the visitors but the visitors found the Mallincamer's setup and began to congregate around his screen. When almost all the visitors were gathered around the Mallincam setup the event organizer came over and tried to force the visitors back to the other telescopes. The Mallincamer felt that his setup was very popular with the visitors but for some reason not very popular with the traditionalists. I don't believe he expects to get invited back. Any of you traditionalists care to explain why the organizer would want to force the visitors back to the eyepieces? I think there may have been a few disgruntled traditionalists grumbling about not being the center of attention? That's what is really all about, isn't it? When they were newcomers into the hobby the traditionalists looked up to those with the skills and knowledge needed to be see enough through an eyepiece to make viewing worthwhile. Over the years they acquired the skills and knowledge and expected to became the ones others looked up to. Something went very wrong. New equipment and ideas came along. People can see more with the new equipment than the traditionalists could ever dream about seeing with their eyepieces. Those traditional viewing skills became as useful as buggy whips and ice boxes. Nobody there to look up to them. No longer the center of attention, just another worn out relic from the past. "Where did everybody go?". You all know where they went. You know you can join them anytime. You know that unlike a traditionalist clique, all are welcome to participate. Not just those who are like them. LdB |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 1:45:28 PM UTC-6, LdB wrote:
At first the traditionalists had the attention of the visitors but the visitors found the Mallincamer's setup and began to congregate around his screen. When almost all the visitors were gathered around the Mallincam setup the event organizer came over and tried to force the visitors back to the other telescopes. Well, I certainly agree here that the event organizer was acting in a way contrary to the best interests of amateur astronomy, and to the duty of public outreach. I think the eyepiece has a valid place in amateur astronomy - people want to see things with their own eyes, and _in some contexts_ seeing things from an electronic image doesn't beat the even better images in books or from the Hubble. Imaging, though, also has a place - attaching a camera to my telescope, for example, provides me with astronomical images to which *I* hold the copyright, as the most basic example. There are things in the sky that move and change, too, and so images I take can actually add to what we have - in trivial ways, or even, under some circumstance, more valuable ones. So coexistence - not the idea that only one type of observing is valid and has a real place - is what I support. John Savard |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 3:45:28 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 8/18/2015 7:16 PM, Linus Das wrote: http://www.macrumors.com/review/ican...sky-telescope/ Where's Shawn Grant when you need him? No doubt LdB will think it's amazing. Not surprising but it has been reported that one can see more with an iPhone on a telescope than with an eyepiece. It has also been reported that sasquatch live in the woods. And of course afocal iPhone "astrophotography," as usually practiced, requires an eyepiece. I have not seen a cell phone image of Jupiter that even meets, let alone exceeds, what I can see in through the eyepiece. So you must be wrong, LsD. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:08:03 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Well, I certainly agree here that the event organizer was acting in a way contrary to the best interests of amateur astronomy, and to the duty of public outreach. That story was very likely an exaggeration and perhaps even an outright lie.. Even if there was ANY grain of truth to it the fact remains that video astronomy carries a much higher cost of entry for large numbers of newbies who are unsure of their or their children's interest in what is to them a new hobby. What the so-called "traditionalists" might try, should such a situation ever actually arise, is to be prepared to show the many superior pictures available on the Internet; that will make the video look far less compelling. However, the eyepiece views of many showpiece objects will certainly win out over the flat, grainy, distorted views on the video monitor and in most cases such tactics won't be needed. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Thursday, 27 August 2015 12:46:41 UTC+2, wrote:
Even if there was ANY grain of truth to it the fact remains that video astronomy carries a much higher cost of entry for large numbers of newbies who are unsure of their or their children's interest in what is to them a new hobby. What the so-called "traditionalists" might try, should such a situation ever actually arise, is to be prepared to show the many superior pictures available on the Internet; that will make the video look far less compelling. However, the eyepiece views of many showpiece objects will certainly win out over the flat, grainy, distorted views on the video monitor and in most cases such tactics won't be needed. Imagine a video camera producing many more frames per second than is possible at present. Now add the software and computing power to choose and center the best images from the live video. One could quite literally watch the picture becoming steadily sharper as one watched. There are quite a number of astro videos on YT. Most look worse than visual because the eye is far more forgiving than a camera. Though that begs the question why the eyes watching the video are not more forgiving. Perhaps we "traditionalists" should close one eye while watching YT astro videos? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 12:58:42 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 27 August 2015 12:46:41 UTC+2, wrote: Even if there was ANY grain of truth to it the fact remains that video astronomy carries a much higher cost of entry for large numbers of newbies who are unsure of their or their children's interest in what is to them a new hobby. What the so-called "traditionalists" might try, should such a situation ever actually arise, is to be prepared to show the many superior pictures available on the Internet; that will make the video look far less compelling. However, the eyepiece views of many showpiece objects will certainly win out over the flat, grainy, distorted views on the video monitor and in most cases such tactics won't be needed. Imagine a video camera producing many more frames per second than is possible at present. Now add the software and computing power to choose and center the best images from the live video. One could quite literally watch the picture becoming steadily sharper as one watched. There are quite a number of astro videos on YT. Most look worse than visual because the eye is far more forgiving than a camera. Though that begs the question why the eyes watching the video are not more forgiving. Perhaps we "traditionalists" should close one eye while watching YT astro videos? I've even tried looking at videos and images through tubes, to simulate an eyepiece view, and the images still look fake. It might have something to do with the eye's constant accommodation and ciliary adjustments when looking through an eyepiece. Or maybe there is difference in saccadic movements between looking at a monitor versus looking through an eyepiece, or maybe subtle color shifts, or lack of contrast in the video images. The eyepiece view provides a sense of being in the presence of the astronomical object; the video is just a flat image. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
$349 for a 25-mm refractor?
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 3:03:19 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 8/27/2015 5:46 AM, wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 11:08:03 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: Well, I certainly agree here that the event organizer was acting in a way contrary to the best interests of amateur astronomy, and to the duty of public outreach. That story was very likely an exaggeration and perhaps even an outright lie. Even if there was ANY grain of truth to it the fact remains that video astronomy carries a much higher cost of entry for large numbers of newbies who are unsure of their or their children's interest in what is to them a new hobby. What the so-called "traditionalists" might try, should such a situation ever actually arise, is to be prepared to show the many superior pictures available on the Internet; that will make the video look far less compelling. However, the eyepiece views of many showpiece objects will certainly win out over the flat, grainy, distorted views on the video monitor and in most cases such tactics won't be needed. A traditionalist accusing a real astronomer of exaggerating and lying? No, an experienced amateur astronomer accusing an ignorant buffoon of exaggerating and lying. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
5" or 6" refractor | Dan | Amateur Astronomy | 35 | June 1st 05 09:44 PM |
150 f/5 refractor? | Uncle Bob | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | January 12th 05 08:02 AM |
C-6 refractor vs 8" Newt ! First light report...New refractor convert! | Orion | Amateur Astronomy | 94 | April 20th 04 10:02 AM |
Where to buy a 6" refractor? | MikeW | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | March 1st 04 01:38 AM |
40" refractor! | gswork | Amateur Astronomy | 66 | February 17th 04 10:25 AM |