|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
Not that it isn't strong. People still do it, but imaging has become much more widespread with the availability of cheap astrocameras and regular digitals that can be used. Good mounts cost a lot though. The reason visual astronomy might grow stronger is because of image quality. It must occur to some, "Why spend thousands of dollars on this when google is FILLED with fantastic images taken by other people, images that are probably better than what I can produce, unless I'm blessed with a top-flight location, gear and dedication?" When people see a guy with a C14 in Florida produce images of planets that 10 years ago required a spacecraft to obtain, it must have a bit of a deadening effect on their aspirations of imaging planets, as an example. Deep-sky is another area. Some are doing 16 hour exposures, and honing exceptional skill in post-processing. That takes more of an effort than in the film days when you did your hour long exposure, (with always slightly-trailed star images) and printed it.
http://www.ptgrey.com/case-study/id/10406 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Thursday, 16 August 2018 07:03:18 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Not that it isn't strong. People still do it, but imaging has become much more widespread with the availability of cheap astrocameras and regular digitals that can be used. Good mounts cost a lot though. The reason visual astronomy might grow stronger is because of image quality. It must occur to some, "Why spend thousands of dollars on this when google is FILLED with fantastic images taken by other people, images that are probably better than what I can produce, unless I'm blessed with a top-flight location, gear and dedication?" When people see a guy with a C14 in Florida produce images of planets that 10 years ago required a spacecraft to obtain, it must have a bit of a deadening effect on their aspirations of imaging planets, as an example. Deep-sky is another area. Some are doing 16 hour exposures, and honing exceptional skill in post-processing. That takes more of an effort than in the film days when you did your hour long exposure, (with always slightly-trailed star images) and printed it. http://www.ptgrey.com/case-study/id/10406 Competition has always been the driving force behind most "improvements" in human practices. Except for "fine" art. Which is absolute proof that time runs backwards within this very narrow and totally irrelevant aberration. Many cave people were far better artists than most "modern [****] artistes." Fortunately they enjoy financial support for their daubs otherwise they would starve. Modern _astronomical_ artists, like Damian Peach, are the rare exception. The vast majority of those supplied with exactly the same "artists materials" would struggle indefinitely to match his remarkable skills. That does no mean that there are not those who will not attempt to do so. The investment in time, tools, geography, patience and dedication should never be underestimated. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:03:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: Not that it isn't strong. People still do it, but imaging has become much more widespread with the availability of cheap astrocameras and regular digitals that can be used. Good mounts cost a lot though. The reason visual astronomy might grow stronger is because of image quality. It must occur to some, "Why spend thousands of dollars on this when google is FILLED with fantastic images taken by other people, images that are probably better than what I can produce, unless I'm blessed with a top-flight location, gear and dedication?" When people see a guy with a C14 in Florida produce images of planets that 10 years ago required a spacecraft to obtain, it must have a bit of a deadening effect on their aspirations of imaging planets, as an example. Deep-sky is another area. Some are doing 16 hour exposures, and honing exceptional skill in post-processing. That takes more of an effort than in the film days when you did your hour long exposure, (with always slightly-trailed star images) and printed it. It's easier and cheaper all the time to create great astronomical images. The sort of images in the reference here are possible for nearly anybody, with extremely modest equipment and super cheap mounts. Planets require little in that respect. Deep sky still requires quite good mounts, but that requirement is getting less over time, even as low cost mounts are getting better in terms of performance. I haven't noticed that the existence of great images in National Geographic has resulted in any decrease in the millions of amateur photographers. No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs are interested in pursuing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
Astronomy for many of you begins and ends with magnification equipment and its accessories hence there is no spiritual/inspirational connection to the exercise which remains the same through many centuries after a poetic description was once written down -
"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job The importance of the first annual appearance of a star is lost on those who can't see past astro-photography however for those who have a feel for what is being said in that ancient description or in 21st century dynamical terms, the event is loved for the seasonal and orbital event it is. I can understand that those who passed through the academic system and received the approval of 'astronomer' from a peer process would balk at any sense that they are anything less however only the spiritual/inspirational side of humanity can affirm the talent for astronomy just as in music, art,literature and anywhere an individual comes away better from the experiences. There is no collective initiation into astronomy through degrees or certificates and although I recognise practical considerations of timekeeping and speculative astronomy where competence is recognised, unfortunately pseudo-intellectual pursuits don't respect the limitations between timekeeping and its role in astronomy. Astronomical fads come and go but something common with our astronomical ancestors remain whether people can tap into that energy or not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
Gerald wrote...
"Astronomy for many of you begins and ends with magnification equipment and its accessories hence there is no spiritual/inspirational connection to the exercise..." Gerald, you could not be more wrong if you tried. Just being under a really dark and transparent night sky is incredibly inspirational, telescope or no telescope. For me this is the ultimate "what does it all mean?" moment where I enjoy life to the max. My 20 or 30 nights per year spent this way are what I look forward to most of all. My daughters even asked me about moon phases when planning their weddings because they knew I didn't want to miss any new-moon observing weekends! \Paul A |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 7:17:41 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
Gerald wrote... "Astronomy for many of you begins and ends with magnification equipment and its accessories hence there is no spiritual/inspirational connection to the exercise..." Gerald, you could not be more wrong if you tried. Just being under a really dark and transparent night sky is incredibly inspirational, telescope or no telescope. \Paul A You are not under anything and therein lies the limitation that prevents a more expansive astronomy from being established as a pursuit and as an important component of individual existence. There is a plane of understanding that stretches back to antiquity where an element of discipline links what is observed from its effects on the surface (an example being the first annual appearance of a star) but this type of astronomical understanding really took off after Copernicus albeit only amaong afew - " He [Copernicus] thus speaks of "sunrise" and "sunset," of the "rising and setting" of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the ecliptic and of variations in the equinoctial points, of the mean motion and variations in motion of the sun, and so on. All these things really relate to the earth, but since we are fixed to the earth and consequently share in its every motion, we cannot discover them in the earth directly, and are obliged to refer them to the heavenly bodies in which they make their appearance to us. Hence we name them as if they took place where they appear to us to take place; and from this one may see how natural it is to accommodate things to our customary way of seeing them." Galileo If possible you should gently remind your daughter that astronomy is not only a nighttime exercise whether with a telescope or not but involves all the great cycles of daylight and darkness, the cyclical changes in the tides and moon, the cyclical daily cycle of life or the seasonal changes in vegetation or animals near the poles. In other words there are so many ways to tap into astronomy that you miss nothing in daylight. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Friday, 17 August 2018 10:03:48 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:03:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: Not that it isn't strong. People still do it, but imaging has become much more widespread with the availability of cheap astrocameras and regular digitals that can be used. Good mounts cost a lot though. The reason visual astronomy might grow stronger is because of image quality. It must occur to some, "Why spend thousands of dollars on this when google is FILLED with fantastic images taken by other people, images that are probably better than what I can produce, unless I'm blessed with a top-flight location, gear and dedication?" When people see a guy with a C14 in Florida produce images of planets that 10 years ago required a spacecraft to obtain, it must have a bit of a deadening effect on their aspirations of imaging planets, as an example. Deep-sky is another area. Some are doing 16 hour exposures, and honing exceptional skill in post-processing. That takes more of an effort than in the film days when you did your hour long exposure, (with always slightly-trailed star images) and printed it. It's easier and cheaper all the time to create great astronomical images. The sort of images in the reference here are possible for nearly anybody, with extremely modest equipment and super cheap mounts. Planets require little in that respect. Deep sky still requires quite good mounts, but that requirement is getting less over time, even as low cost mounts are getting better in terms of performance. I haven't noticed that the existence of great images in National Geographic has resulted in any decrease in the millions of amateur photographers. No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs are interested in pursuing. Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs are interested in pursuing. Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment. Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment. Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires particularly expensive kit. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Saturday, 18 August 2018 08:42:06 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs are interested in pursuing. Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment. Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment. Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires particularly expensive kit. It's very hard to replicate good images with a phone with its lens limitations and tiny sensors. I'd hate to be a wildlife photog stuck with a phone. Astronomical images are concerned with technical quality. In fact, astronomy shooters put-up with artifacting (as a consequence of seeking detail/resolution) in shots that no terrestrial photographer would tolerate. It's an interesting subject. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Observational astronomy might experience a resurgence
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:12:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Saturday, 18 August 2018 08:42:06 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: No, I don't see any resurgence in visual astronomy. As the skies continue to get brighter for most people, and as imaging becomes easier and cheaper, that's likely to be the direction most amateurs are interested in pursuing. Maybe they're just more dedicated and prolific, but the best images I see (even of planets) are not done on cheap equipment. Just like the best nature photography tends to be done with more expensive equipment. Not because you can't take great pictures with just a phone, but because serious photographers (that is, like you say, dedicated and prolific) tend to use high end equipment. Most people aren't trying to be the best. They're quite satisfied with simply being good. And in astroimaging, that no longer requires particularly expensive kit. It's very hard to replicate good images with a phone with its lens limitations and tiny sensors. I'd hate to be a wildlife photog stuck with a phone. Astronomical images are concerned with technical quality. In fact, astronomy shooters put-up with artifacting (as a consequence of seeking detail/resolution) in shots that no terrestrial photographer would tolerate. It's an interesting subject. It is not at all hard to take superb pictures with a phone. I take landscape and wildlife images that way all the time, and people don't believe it was just a phone. And you can take superb astroimages with $1000 setup. Again, it's not about being best, it's about being good. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Observational evidence that the earth is undergoing an expansion | Surfer[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 46 | July 26th 11 02:21 PM |
100% observational certainty | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | March 17th 09 06:57 PM |
Outlines of an observational experiment. | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 3rd 08 12:50 PM |
observational techniques that famous astronomers used | [email protected] | Research | 8 | February 2nd 05 02:53 PM |
Proper Astronomy Observational Logs | Greg Dortmond | UK Astronomy | 3 | December 22nd 03 01:40 PM |