A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 9th 17, 02:10 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

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.
Ads
  #2  
Old January 9th 17, 02:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
StarDust
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 732
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

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.
  #3  
Old January 9th 17, 08:44 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

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?
The commercial and amateur designs which do actually work are there to be studied by reasonably competent engineers.

China is supposed to churn out huge numbers of qualified engineers every year.
Is there a complete absence of upward movement of information in the slave wage, Asian economies?
Even the utterly loyal, jobs for life, unquestioning Japanese workforce had a technological miracle after the war.
They held workforce meetings to share information and improve the products and manufacturing processes. The hive mind!
There was no area of consumer manufacture where they didn't soon dominate.
European and American legacy manufacturers went bust trying to compete with their tired old pre-1920s, cast iron designs.
Now Japan is suffering the same fate against Chinese manufacture by becoming too rigid, too smug and aloof from reality.

Are there no small disruptive manufacturers of anything better in China which aren't crippled by communists party member's protection rackets?
Surely not all Chinese factories are run like Soviet rust manufactures by Xi's corrupt henchmen?
  #4  
Old January 9th 17, 01:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:10:16 PM UTC-5, 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.


It's the potential out-of-warranty repair costs that would keep me from getting IS binos. If I did more birding, I might see it differently.

For cameras, there are big advantages for those who have video as a profession, so the cost is more often justifiable there.

For now, I'll just use a steady mount for telescopic astronomy. YMMV.

  #5  
Old January 9th 17, 04:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

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.
  #6  
Old January 9th 17, 04:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:10:12 -0800 (PST), 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.


Image stabilization is routine with imaging setups. For visual, it's
problematic. Inertial stabilization (like that used on camera lenses
and binoculars) isn't sensitive enough to correct for the amount of
movement you get at high magnifications. And there isn't enough light
in most cases to use a reference in the field in order to optically
stabilize (as some cameras do, and all imaging adaptive optics).

Our eyes and brains are themselves excellent image stabilizers. All
you really need for visual use is a reasonable stable mount.
  #7  
Old January 9th 17, 06:41 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Monday, 9 January 2017 16:45:43 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Our eyes and brains are themselves excellent image stabilizers. All
you really need for visual use is a reasonable stable mount.


Hang on! That's exactly what I said!
Plagiarism in these hallowed halls?
Surely not!
Expect a letter from my copyright lawyer.
I couldn't afford a real one so I borrowed snelly's.
Only used once but abused many times.
Cheap as chips too! ;-)
  #8  
Old January 9th 17, 08:31 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

(RichA blathered.)

Chris L Peterson:
Image stabilization is routine with imaging setups. For visual, it's
problematic. Inertial stabilization (like that used on camera lenses
and binoculars) isn't sensitive enough to correct for the amount of
movement you get at high magnifications. And there isn't enough light
in most cases to use a reference in the field in order to optically
stabilize (as some cameras do, and all imaging adaptive optics).

Our eyes and brains are themselves excellent image stabilizers. All
you really need for visual use is a reasonable stable mount.


Ah, but rich has a an eight-ounce plastic 'scope on a four-ounce
plastic mount. That's going to be problematic when a stable view is
necessary.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #9  
Old January 10th 17, 07:44 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Monday, 9 January 2017 20:31:14 UTC+1, Davoud wrote:

Ah, but rich has a an eight-ounce plastic 'scope on a four-ounce
plastic mount. That's going to be problematic when a stable view is
necessary.


More overt plasticism? I blame Trumpizm!
Since he promised to 3D print the Mexican border wall, plastic has been unfairly stigmatized!
They even had a false story about plastic rice in India!
Surely everybody knows rice is made from natural Indiarubber?
As are most Chinese mountings [allegedly.] ;-)

  #10  
Old January 11th 17, 02:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Time for stabilization to be incorporated into telescopes

On Monday, 9 January 2017 10:45:43 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 17:10:12 -0800 (PST), 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.


Image stabilization is routine with imaging setups. For visual, it's
problematic. Inertial stabilization (like that used on camera lenses
and binoculars) isn't sensitive enough to correct for the amount of
movement you get at high magnifications.


This could be tested with a camera attached since most new cameras with in-body stabilization (wake the f--- up, Nikon and Canon) will accommodate lenses up to 2000mm or so. Of course, it would only be for low magnification and won't do anything about atmospheric turbulence.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Image stabilization for the "Lap Telescope" [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 4 January 10th 08 07:03 AM
Pay for time Internet base Telescopes? themeanies Amateur Astronomy 5 February 2nd 05 05:02 AM
Interferograms for Four High Quality Telescopes and Two Commercial Telescopes Edward Amateur Astronomy 3 January 11th 04 02:02 AM
Corning Incorporated to Manufacture Primary Mirror for NASA's Space-Based Kepler Photometer Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 November 5th 03 10:28 PM
Corning Incorporated to Manufacture Primary Mirror for NASA's Space-Based Kepler Photometer Ron Baalke Misc 0 November 5th 03 10:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.