|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 4:01:31 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
You can even do lucky imaging with a smart phone. You can buy a little adapter with a barlow lens for less than $50 that will project the image from your telescope right to the lens of the smart phone. You take short video sequences and stack them with freeware like Registax or AutoStakkert. Just ignore Snell's rantings. He just wants to argue, not provide useful information or dialogue. His twisted ideas will die with him, nobody will follow his lead. RichA didn't mention "lucky imaging" you dumb***. I don't rant, you do, ugha. Go **** ********, ugha. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
"Chris.B" wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 03:25:25 UTC+2, RichA wrote: On Monday, 20 July 2015 10:47:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:19:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: The images are mostly horrible, compared with still camera, even with expensive video cameras. Most astronomical subjects are static, don't change in any time-frame where 1/5-1/30th second would make sense. But they do sell cameras for this. Video cameras are the ideal choice for planetary imaging, because of the ability to use "lucky imaging", essentially a form of post-processed adaptive optics. Images are selected for good seeing and stacked for high dynamic range. This approach creates the highest possible resolution images. Yes, I should have been more clear. I was referring to video of deepsky objects as opposed to still images. Astronomical video cameras usually allow exposures up to 30 seconds, while still outputting a conventional video stream. This allows the camera to be connected to a simple monitor, with no need for an intermediate computer. I've found this useful for public observing. At our school observatory, we have a binocular telescope. With an astronomical video camera on the 12" OTA, and an eyepiece on the 16" OTA, we are able to put up a live screen image for a group, which keeps people engaged while waiting for the eyepiece. Also, because the video image shows more than they eye can see, it gives people a better sense of what they're going to see at the eyepiece, which helps them see more when they're looking. Outreach seems to be their forte. Even a compact digital camera focusing screen can become a video monitor as we pause to frame, focus and then "snap" objects seen through the telescope. The single frames captured become stills from the video seen via the focussing screen. The same video can be passed via a cable from the camera to a common TV screen to act as our video monitor. This is the method I used to capture Solar transits of Venus and Mercury. Even taking some quite satisfying "snaps" of the moon thanks to a massive and very forgiving equatorial mounting avoiding shaking. Compact digital cameras' lack of a simple remote shutter release is quite unforgivable IMO. The method does rather lack the "magical" images possible from using stacking with skill but is still satisfying in obtaining a record of a rare event. You can use the timer instead of cable release. Many compact cameras now have bluetoth remote capability.A selfie stick can be used as a remote and is very cheap |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 13:51:05 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote:
You can use the timer instead of cable release. Many compact cameras now have bluetoth remote capability.A selfie stick can be used as a remote and is very cheap Thanks, but timers are too crude for taking snaps at precise but opportune moments of best centring, object framing and freedom from vibration. Neither of my compact digital cameras has Bluetooth capability nor any form of remote shutter release. No doubt one could easily arrange something mechanical like a suitable lever. Or even use a solenoid to depress the shutter button via a hand-held switch or even a bell push. I have simply relied on holding the camera to the eyepiece. Sometimes with, and sometimes without, a centring adapter tube for the nose of the camera lens. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
"Chris.B" wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 13:51:05 UTC+2, Mike Collins wrote: You can use the timer instead of cable release. Many compact cameras now have bluetoth remote capability.A selfie stick can be used as a remote and is very cheap Thanks, but timers are too crude for taking snaps at precise but opportune moments of best centring, object framing and freedom from vibration. Neither of my compact digital cameras has Bluetooth capability nor any form of remote shutter release. No doubt one could easily arrange something mechanical like a suitable lever. Or even use a solenoid to depress the shutter button via a hand-held switch or even a bell push. I have simply relied on holding the camera to the eyepiece. Sometimes with, and sometimes without, a centring adapter tube for the nose of the camera lens. I made a wooden frame to hold a cable release above the shutter button. I also now have an adaptor for mobile phone or compact camera so I can use the bluetooth remote on the iPhone but it takes some time to adjust the adaptor for the iPhone and I haven't set it up for the 8" newtonian yet although I did try on on binoculars attached to a tripod. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On 7/21/2015 2:57 AM, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 02:46:53 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote: On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 03:25:25 UTC+2, RichA wrote: On Monday, 20 July 2015 10:47:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:19:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: The images are mostly horrible, compared with still camera, even with expensive video cameras. Most astronomical subjects are static, don't change in any time-frame where 1/5-1/30th second would make sense. But they do sell cameras for this. Video cameras are the ideal choice for planetary imaging, because of the ability to use "lucky imaging", essentially a form of post-processed adaptive optics. Images are selected for good seeing and stacked for high dynamic range. This approach creates the highest possible resolution images. Yes, I should have been more clear. I was referring to video of deepsky objects as opposed to still images. Astronomical video cameras usually allow exposures up to 30 seconds, while still outputting a conventional video stream. This allows the camera to be connected to a simple monitor, with no need for an intermediate computer. I've found this useful for public observing. At our school observatory, we have a binocular telescope. With an astronomical video camera on the 12" OTA, and an eyepiece on the 16" OTA, we are able to put up a live screen image for a group, which keeps people engaged while waiting for the eyepiece. Also, because the video image shows more than they eye can see, it gives people a better sense of what they're going to see at the eyepiece, which helps them see more when they're looking. Outreach seems to be their forte. Even a compact digital camera focusing screen can become a video monitor as we pause to frame, focus and then "snap" objects seen through the telescope. The single frames captured become stills from the video seen via the focussing screen. The same video can be passed via a cable from the camera to a common TV screen to act as our video monitor. This is the method I used to capture Solar transits of Venus and Mercury. Even taking some quite satisfying "snaps" of the moon thanks to a massive and very forgiving equatorial mounting avoiding shaking. Compact digital cameras' lack of a simple remote shutter release is quite unforgivable IMO. The method does rather lack the "magical" images possible from using stacking with skill but is still satisfying in obtaining a record of a rare event. I put a surveillance camera on a C11 and shot Jupiter into a VCR in 1988. Was the first time I got a record of how bad seeing conditions could be. Video Astronomy has evolved a fair amount since the days of webcams and security cameras. Even the term Video Astronomy has evolved. It is often refereed to as Near Live Viewing or Electronic Viewing. Live viewing cameras have evolved some as well. Their sensitivity and resolution have increased considerably. Some have cooling and unlimited exposure times to improve the viewing. Electronics "Filters" allow on the fly processing and live stacking. Many of the processes used by Astro Photographers are available to the near live viewer and are applied to the view as it is being watched. Viewing at 4K is not the same as viewing with those half inch detectors used a few years ago. Electronic viewing is more expensive than viewing with an eyepiece but it is a lot less expensive than Aperture Fever. It is in fact the only practical cure for the affliction other than the inevitable. I use a variety of live viewing cameras on a 10" telescope and few DSLR lenses that give me an equivalent view of telescopes that would be impractically large and too expensive for most viewers. With the equipment I have I can say without the slightest hesitation that I have enjoyed viewing more in the five or so years as a Video Astronomer than I did in fifty years viewing with an eyepiece. That sentiment is shared by many. All you have to do is to participate to discover that fact for yourself. You might even take some pride in the fact that one of the most innovative people involved in developing and building Astro Viewing Cameras is one of your fellow countrymen. Check things out for yourself. All it takes is a mind opened enough to allow in a ray of sunshine. It may even give you another excuse to insult the 'Mericans. You have all been to this website by now but I'll include the link just because it is one of the most popular and effective Outreach programs found today. http://www.nightskiesnetwork.com/ LdB |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:01:54 PM UTC-4, LsD wrote:
I use a variety of live viewing cameras on a 10" telescope and few DSLR lenses that give me an equivalent view of telescopes that would be impractically large and too expensive for most viewers. Your small telescope is in a observatory. A much larger and more capable telescope located in an observatory would not be "impractically large" either. You need to make apples to apples comparisons. Your views are not "equivalent" either. Visually, seeing an object in the eyepiece is nearly always a far richer experience than seeing it on a video screen. With the equipment I have I can say without the slightest hesitation that I have enjoyed viewing more in the five or so years as a Video Astronomer than I did in fifty years viewing with an eyepiece. I can say without the slightest hesitation that I have enjoyed visual astronomy much more than imaging. Check things out for yourself. All it takes is a mind opened enough to allow in a ray of sunshine. Have you considered opening up your mind a bit, LsD? It may even give you another excuse to insult the 'Mericans. Strange that Americans don't generally seek to insult the Canadians, even though they probably have plenty of ammunition available should they wish to. You have all been to this website by now but I'll include the link just because it is one of the most popular and effective Outreach programs found today. http://www.nightskiesnetwork.com/ I would -never- recommend that site to a beginner, nor anyone really. "No live broadcasts at this time." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 2:45:48 PM UTC-4, LdB wrote:
Considering how little there is to enjoy when looking through an eyepiece... You should get your vision checked out, LsD. While you are at it, have them check you for brain activity. Why don't you describe to the group how you attempted to image and what sort of equipment you used. I don't need to do so, but you need to demonstrate the efficacy of video imaging. Nightskiesnetwork isn't much help there. Someone here may help you understand why many eyepiece observers have taken up imaging. Perhaps they just wanted to see what all those little fuzzy specks really looked like. I can't help you, I don't image. Yes, you are imaging if you are looking at an image on a monitor. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:45:48 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote:
Of course one has to understand the concept of progress. When a person realizes things can change for the better his life improves. Those that reject new ideas waste away into oblivion, smug in the knowledge that the old ways are the only ways. I don't believe that anyone here would ever claim that people reject modern technologies. As I have said before, your favorite facet of the hobby, whatever that might be, is perfectly fine, if that sort of thing appeals to you. Have a great time. On the other hand, I don't believe that anyone here (yourself being an exception), is at all 'smug in the knowledge that the old ways are the only ways'. Take wood carving, for example. Hundreds of years ago people fashioned amazing carvings of, for example, bird carvings, using various hand tools, knives and awls and shavers, etc. In my cabinet shop I had a CNC router that could create carvings that were just as amazing, only it could perform hundreds of times faster and never made a mistake. Does such a machine negate the beautiful carvings that many folks today still create using 'the old ways'? Of course not. There will always be those who appreciate something hand-made over something created by the hundreds using modern technology, and that is the way it should be. You have an incredibly huge ego to proclaim that your very small facet of amateur astronomy is the ONLY proper way to enjoy the night sky. How absurd of you. I have many friends who are imagers. These guys set up their stuff, start a series of photos whereas their cameras take a large series of exposures, which they will stack together after they get home and do their processing magic, to produce wondrous images that your video setup could only dream of seeing, no comparison at all to what you produce. At a large star party I attended earlier this month, many of these imagers, after getting their exposures going, wander over to my big dob and while away some hours gathering actual 'live' photons, and they enjoy every minute of it. Every one of the 400+ attendees enjoy astronomy through a telescope, and no a single video observer attended. So there! \Paul A |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:08:48 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap: On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 11:45:48 AM UTC-7, LdB wrote: Of course one has to understand the concept of progress. When a person realizes things can change for the better his life improves. Those that reject new ideas waste away into oblivion, smug in the knowledge that the old ways are the only ways. I don't believe that anyone here would ever claim that people reject modern technologies. As I have said before, your favorite facet of the hobby, whatever that might be, is perfectly fine, if that sort of thing appeals to you. Have a great time. On the other hand, I don't believe that anyone here (yourself being an exception), is at all 'smug in the knowledge that the old ways are the only ways'. Take wood carving, for example. Hundreds of years ago people fashioned amazing carvings of, for example, bird carvings, using various hand tools, knives and awls and shavers, etc. In my cabinet shop I had a CNC router that could create carvings that were just as amazing, only it could perform hundreds of times faster and never made a mistake. Does such a machine negate the beautiful carvings that many folks today still create using 'the old ways'? Of course not. There will always be those who appreciate something hand-made over something created by the hundreds using modern technology, and that is the way it should be. Indeed, I make my own beer and wine. I make my own soap and I make my own candles. These products are superior to those mass produced. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Video astronomy. What is the point?
On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 8:40:51 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
Indeed, I make my own beer and wine. I make my own soap and I make my own candles. These products are superior to those mass produced. I used to make my own beer, which I felt was superior to almost anything I could buy... but then came the microbrewery revolution, and all bets were off. Today's craft beers are awesome, for the most part, and I have not made a brew since! So many beers, so many choices, and most of them terrific! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|