Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On 09/01/2017 01:10, RichA wrote:
Image stabilization. To damp images in case of wind, or touching the
scope to reduce or eliminate damp-time, using high-power eyepieces,
taking images. Camera stabilization is reaching incredible quality,
you can now (with some of them) take hand-held images with normal
lenses with 1-4 second exposure times. Stabilization isn't needed on
scopes all the time, obviously, since we have tripods and mounts, but
sometimes it would be an advantage when looking at objects where
critical resolution is required.

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

http://diffractionlimited.com/produc...aptive-optics/

and

http://www.sxccd.com/sxv-ao-lf

For instance. Otherwise you are stuck with patience and a MkI eyeball.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:04:34 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 09/01/2017 01:10, RichA wrote:
Image stabilization. To damp images in case of wind, or touching the
scope to reduce or eliminate damp-time, using high-power eyepieces,
taking images. Camera stabilization is reaching incredible quality,
you can now (with some of them) take hand-held images with normal
lenses with 1-4 second exposure times. Stabilization isn't needed on
scopes all the time, obviously, since we have tripods and mounts, but
sometimes it would be an advantage when looking at objects where
critical resolution is required.

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

I think Rich's interest is in image stabilization for visual telescope
use, not imaging.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:09:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

Martin is talking about stabilization techniques for imaging.

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:09:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

Martin is talking about stabilization techniques for imaging.

That's great. But, imaging doesn't -compete- with looking through an eyepiece, if looking through an eyepiece is what you prefer.

I spent a few minutes last night looking at the Moon with a 1.4x opera glass. Quite an interesting view, actually.

On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 10:00:35 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 02:44:45 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 02:59:03 UTC+1, StarDust wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
Image stabilization. To damp images in case of wind, or touching the scope to reduce or eliminate damp-time, using high-power eyepieces, taking images. Camera stabilization is reaching incredible quality, you can now (with some of them) take hand-held images with normal lenses with 1-4 second exposure times. Stabilization isn't needed on scopes all the time, obviously, since we have tripods and mounts, but sometimes it would be an advantage when looking at objects where critical resolution is required.
However, I wouldn't want it if it costs as much as the ridiculously overpriced stabilization in binoculars.

I guess, DSO object are too dim for the image stabilization to work and planets need too high magnification.

The human eye has a remarkable ability to overcome image movement and to grab a fleeting moment's clarity.
The insistence by amateurs to capture an image of what they see has driven delayed processing and best image software selection like Registax.
Even I was able to produce images at the first few attempts which I thought completely impossible without huge investment.

Software which can process and grab best image quality during the actual capture period, perhaps aided by faster processing, may be the way forward for Solar System imaging.

Stable, commercial mountings, piers and tripods still remain in the realm of multi-thousand dollar investments.
Perhaps they need serious competition from upstart Chinese manufacturers or DIY/ATM examples to bring down prices?

A sturdy steel pole in the garden, set in concrete, offers a level of stability which overcomes many problems of vibration.
Thanks to massive mountings and piers I used to take extra focal images of the Solar System by simply holding a cheap digital camera up to the eyepiece.
To do so with many commercial mountings and their flimsy tripods would be to invite violent shaking of the image.

It is the constant repetition of the same design mistakes which I find so irritating.
Is there absolutely no user feedback to the factories churning out the same crappy designs year after year?

True. And some of those designs are very old. The basic cheap scope Tasco-style equatorial is 50 years old or more, the "G5" which is at least better which was preceded by the Vixen GP mount is 35 years old or so.
The original crude Edmund 1960's 1" solid shaft mounts were tuning forks,
despite their mass and even Unitron mounts weren't that great, except in fit
and finish.

It's really not the mounts, it's that the telescopes that were placed on them often tended to be too large, too long or too heavy for a particular mount.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:09:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:09:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

Martin is talking about stabilization techniques for imaging.

That's great. But, imaging doesn't -compete- with looking through an eyepiece, if looking through an eyepiece is what you prefer.

Many amateur astronomers prefer imaging to viewing through an
eyepiece, and the equipment they choose reflects that. It is
reasonable to use the word "compete" in this sense. In particular,
Martin was comparing two imaging techniques, and making the case that
one method would produce better results than another, which is also a
reasonable use of "compete".

Would you have a problem if someone said "A 3-inch telescope isn't
going to compete with a 24-inch telescope when it comes to visually
seeing fine detail in dim extended objects"?

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:27:59 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:09:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:09:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

Martin is talking about stabilization techniques for imaging.

That's great. But, imaging doesn't -compete- with looking through an eyepiece, if looking through an eyepiece is what you prefer.

Many amateur astronomers prefer imaging to viewing through an
eyepiece, and the equipment they choose reflects that.

Great. So what?

It is
reasonable to use the word "compete" in this sense. In particular,
Martin was comparing two imaging techniques, and making the case that
one method would produce better results than another, which is also a
reasonable use of "compete".

brown drifted off-topic, so his comments are largely irrelevant.


Would you have a problem if someone said "A 3-inch telescope isn't
going to compete with a 24-inch telescope when it comes to visually
seeing fine detail in dim extended objects"?

Strawman argument.

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:51:45 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:44:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:27:59 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:09:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 10:22:26 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:09:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

It is already available as a reasonably priced addon for those that want
it. But it is never going to compete with a webcam and lucky seeing
based registax like wavelet post processing strategies.

Compete? How? I prefer looking through an eyepiece to looking at a screen.

Martin is talking about stabilization techniques for imaging.

That's great. But, imaging doesn't -compete- with looking through an eyepiece, if looking through an eyepiece is what you prefer.

Many amateur astronomers prefer imaging to viewing through an
eyepiece, and the equipment they choose reflects that.

Great. So what?

So there is a kind of competition between the two.

So what? There is also competition between amateur astronomy and watching TV.

It is
reasonable to use the word "compete" in this sense. In particular,
Martin was comparing two imaging techniques, and making the case that
one method would produce better results than another, which is also a
reasonable use of "compete".

brown drifted off-topic, so his comments are largely irrelevant.

No, he simply interpreted the question as applying to imaging.

The topic applies to visual, since Rich mentioned IS(Image Stabilized) binoculars and "looking at objects."

Would you have a problem if someone said "A 3-inch telescope isn't
going to compete with a 24-inch telescope when it comes to visually
seeing fine detail in dim extended objects"?

Strawman argument.

You shouldn't use terms you don't understand.

You shouldn't make strawman arguments without a clear understanding of how stupid they make you look, peterson.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 03:48:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So there is a kind of competition between the two.

So what? There is also competition between amateur astronomy and watching TV.

So what?