Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 9:44:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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?

Your reading comprehension stinks, peterson.

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 10:11:05 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

True.

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 11:27:59 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. 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"?

Just saw an article in one of the magazines, "Is visual astronomy dead?" Or something to that effect.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:53:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Just saw an article in one of the magazines, "Is visual astronomy dead?" Or something to that effect.

It isn't dead, and it isn't dying. But it's certainly losing market
share to imaging.

On Saturday, 14 January 2017 03:51:35 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:53:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Just saw an article in one of the magazines, "Is visual astronomy dead?" Or something to that effect.

It isn't dead, and it isn't dying. But it's certainly losing market
share to imaging.

I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers?
No matter how you may brag about seeing the spokes of Saturn's rings in your 70mm Apo you can never prove it.
A published image is proof of your skill and instrumentation.
Provided, of course, you didn't borrow one from Hubble and make it look worse.
Then there is the chance to spend lots of money on the pretty imaging 'toys.'
A bit like plastering your hot-rod in chrome. Or your rat-rod in fake rust.
It's a competitive consumer society out there, after all.
Amateur astronomy is just another facet of that overall picture.
Or, perhaps, imaging, is just another response to light pollution?
I must admit to enjoying seeing a permanent record of my visual observations.
Even if my afocal 'snaps' never remotely matched the superb views with my MkI eyeball.

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 9:51:35 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:53:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Just saw an article in one of the magazines, "Is visual astronomy dead?" Or something to that effect.

It isn't dead, and it isn't dying.

Why would it be?

But it's certainly losing market
share to imaging.

Nope.

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 2:34:21 AM UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 14 January 2017 03:51:35 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:53:24 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Just saw an article in one of the magazines, "Is visual astronomy dead?" Or something to that effect.

It isn't dead, and it isn't dying. But it's certainly losing market
share to imaging.

I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers?
No matter how you may brag about seeing the spokes of Saturn's rings in your 70mm Apo you can never prove it.
A published image is proof of your skill and instrumentation.
Provided, of course, you didn't borrow one from Hubble and make it look worse.
Then there is the chance to spend lots of money on the pretty imaging 'toys.'
A bit like plastering your hot-rod in chrome. Or your rat-rod in fake rust.
It's a competitive consumer society out there, after all.
Amateur astronomy is just another facet of that overall picture.
Or, perhaps, imaging, is just another response to light pollution?
I must admit to enjoying seeing a permanent record of my visual observations.
Even if my afocal 'snaps' never remotely matched the superb views with my MkI eyeball.

Imaging is becoming more accessible but not replacing visual. It's not an either-or situation.

I can understand what contributors mean when they talk about 'visual' astronomy as if astronomy is anything less than a visual exercise however, what the large majority of magnification enthusiasts mean by visual astronomy is looking up at the sky rather than the more substantive looking out into the celestial arena.

The sight of Venus out there on its own presently has that lovely dual purpose where it rises and falls but also the slight effort given towards knowing it is emerging from behind the Sun (rises) and turns back in front of the Sun (falls).

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-T...015%2Beng..jpg

The Earth too can be seen to rise and fall from Mars due to the same perspective change in orbital position but the RA/Dec visual observers have been reluctant to take that single step into interpretative astronomy and leave the theoretical and speculative agenda behind to exercise their normal judgments of motions.

What person would venture out into a street by foot or by car with a dysfunctional mindset in judging relative speeds and motions yet when it comes to astronomy this is exactly what most here are prepared to ignore ?. It is less fascinating than it is a question as to why anyone would choose to knowingly disregard their normal faculties of objects in motion.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:34:19 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers?

I don't think so. I think it's because you can do so much more with so
much less. I'm not talking about people with expensive scopes, mounts,
and cameras. Most of the young people I see getting interested in
astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos
($1000-$2000), and are either imaging with DSLRs or with astronomical
cameras that are under $1000. So it's a pretty low entry cost, and you
have quick, tangible, good results. You are not limited nearly as much
by poor skies as you are with visual astronomy, there's a low learning
curve and therefore reduced time commitment- with modern equipment you
don't need to learn the sky deeply, know how to star hop, interpret
charts, or train your eye. And, of course, there's the simple reality
that many people (especially younger people) just enjoy the technology
as much as they enjoy the astronomy itself.

I'd say that about half of the new amateur astronomers I encounter now
are primarily or exclusively imaging, and I expect that will continue
to go up as the tools become less expensive and easier to use.

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:34:19 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
wrote:

I wonder whether this is due to natural competition between imagers?

I don't think so. I think it's because you can do so much more with so
much less. I'm not talking about people with expensive scopes, mounts,
and cameras. Most of the young people I see getting interested in
astronomy now have fairly inexpensive scopes/mount combos
($1000-$2000), and are either imaging with DSLRs or with astronomical
cameras that are under $1000. So it's a pretty low entry cost, and you
have quick, tangible, good results. You are not limited nearly as much
by poor skies as you are with visual astronomy, there's a low learning
curve and therefore reduced time commitment- with modern equipment you
don't need to learn the sky deeply, know how to star hop, interpret
charts, or train your eye. And, of course, there's the simple reality
that many people (especially younger people) just enjoy the technology
as much as they enjoy the astronomy itself.

I'd say that about half of the new amateur astronomers I encounter now
are primarily or exclusively imaging, and I expect that will continue
to go up as the tools become less expensive and easier to use.

You must not get out much:

http://www.telescope.com/catalog/top...r&categoryId=1

(This is why we really don't want peterson's sort making our decisions for us. They're out of touch with reality.)