|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Let's Photograph Comet 46P Wirtanen
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:26:42 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote: Don't you see the beauty in performing that division? Nope. It discards useful information. It's like characterizing a aperture telescope by focal ratio, and not providing the focal length and aperture. If all telescopes always had the same focal length it would be practical to do that. Then the aperture could easily be calculated from the focal ratio and the implicit focal length. Now, this is not the case of course, but in the case of visual acuity tests the Snellen chart is always at the same standard distance. A patient with 6/6 vision and one with 3/3 vision may have significantly different visual acuity; if you normalize them to 1.0, you lose that distinction. Did you ever see any visual acuity report giving the result 3/3? (is that in feet or meters btw?) The standard procedure for that would be to still use the standard distance but to insert correction lenses in front of the patient's eye. The strength of that lens must then of course be given in the report. In the rare case that the visual acuity test actually is performed at a distance of 3, this is easily handled by adding a note to the report. E.g. "acuity 1.0 at distance 3". If the "at distance" note is absent, the standard distance will be implied. Btw, how do American eye doctors give the strength of corrective lenses, or of any lenses? In metric diopters like in Europe? Or do they have their own diopter scale based on feet instead of meters? Or do they just give the focal length in feet? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Let's Photograph Comet 46P Wirtanen
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 09:15:14 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:26:42 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote: Don't you see the beauty in performing that division? Nope. It discards useful information. It's like characterizing a aperture telescope by focal ratio, and not providing the focal length and aperture. If all telescopes always had the same focal length it would be practical to do that. Then the aperture could easily be calculated from the focal ratio and the implicit focal length. Now, this is not the case of course, but in the case of visual acuity tests the Snellen chart is always at the same standard distance. That's what you're missing. The test is NOT always performed from the same distance, and as a result, the distance is a meaningful part of the test reporting. A patient with 6/6 vision and one with 3/3 vision may have significantly different visual acuity; if you normalize them to 1.0, you lose that distinction. Did you ever see any visual acuity report giving the result 3/3? (is that in feet or meters btw?) Yes. That's a common result in Europe (and it's meters). Btw, how do American eye doctors give the strength of corrective lenses, or of any lenses? In metric diopters like in Europe? Or do they have their own diopter scale based on feet instead of meters? Or do they just give the focal length in feet? Diopters. Always. (By definition, a diopter has units of reciprocal meters, so could always be considered "metric".) |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Let's Photograph Comet 46P Wirtanen
On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 07:51:15 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote: If all telescopes always had the same focal length it would be practical to do that. Then the aperture could easily be calculated from the focal ratio and the implicit focal length. Now, this is not the case of course, but in the case of visual acuity tests the Snellen chart is always at the same standard distance. That's what you're missing. The test is NOT always performed from the same distance, and as a result, the distance is a meaningful part of the test reporting. OK I can buy that. But the test is usually done with the standard distance. If done at a different distance, a differently sized Snellen chart will be needed. And when the standard distance is used, it can still be implied. If a non-standard distance is used, that can be added as a note. "1.0 at 3m" contains just as much information as "3/3". The no - standard distance might contain fractional meters btw. Would you then want ti write it as, say, 3.56/3.56? Diopters. Always. (By definition, a diopter has units of reciprocal meters, so could always be considered "metric".) Among amateur astronomers there's a curious mixture of units. Telescope aperture is often given in inches, while focal lengths is often given in millimeters. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Let's Photograph Comet 46P Wirtanen
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-8, hleopold wrote:
On Dec 22, 2018, Davoud wrote (in article ): hleopold: ...Always a joy to see your photos, David, I look forward to more in the future. I mostly read here, hardly ever comment. Not to mention I am jealous of your set-up, though not of your location, as bad as our seeing is here you have it worse. Your words are kinder than I deserve! I have complained here about Maryland sky conditions from time to time, but not too bitterly, I hope. I try to take it with equanimity; I get what I get and I try to make the best I can of it. As, for the vast majority of us, we all must. Same for my vision. I am 74 years old and I have macular degeneration. My corrected vision in my left eye is 20/25, i.e., very good. But over the past few months I have noted a deterioration in my right eye to the point where I cannot read with my left eye covered. My ophthalmologist referred me to an optometrist who specializes in low vision. My right eye can't be "fixed," but a new pair of glasses, coming in about two weeks, will help. Age eventually gets us all, I am only 67, in 3 weeks to be 68, and my eyes just ain’t what they used to be. Of course in my case I have to go back to when I was 12 when my eyes went from practically perfect to very near-sighted and very strong astigmatism in both eyes. Correctable but slowly getting harder to focus as I age. Good that I'm not a visual observer; I can still focus on a laptop display, but faint fuzzies don't work for me in an eyepiece. I use a Bahtinov mask on my Tak 106 https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/30364292358. Way back in the late 70s early 80s I did, for a while, try photography with my scopes, but otherwise I have been strictly a visual observer. I can’t believe the great stuff that we have these days. I am not really a fan of digital photography in many ways, I loved shooting film, and that was how I did astro photos back then. Used a home-brew camera and cut my 35mm film to single frame. My camera was much like one that was described in Sky and Telescope back about that time, starting with a short extension tube and built up the body out of flat sheets of black opaque plastic glued together to hold the film in place plus a dark slide to take the shot. If was fun, but fairly frustrating at the same time. At that time I did most of my photography using B&W film, so I was able to do my own processing. Not really an easy thing to do on a Navy ship. About once a week I would take over the head for our dept. berthing area to do processing. Even at night the light leaks were ridiculous, I used a lot of black tape every time. And hoping like everything that no one needed to use it for the few minutes while transferring the exposed film to the tank. Yeah, I did used a changing bag but you probably know how that works. These days, though, I just mostly like to look at things through the scope. -- Harry F. Leopold The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email) You could have used one of the various methods that I used in my youth which allowed me to use a standard 35mm camera - so I didn't have to cut up individual frames of film. 1) Afocal - focus telescope for visual use, mount camera focused at infinity, then do fine focus with telescope eyepiece. 2) Projection - I experimented a bit with positive projection. That involves just mounting the camera without a lens, then focusing the telescope eyepiece further out to move the primary image to the camera focal plane. 3) Direct Objective - what I finally chose, but it took a lot of work as my telescope was a reflector. I think it would have been even more difficult with a refractor. I had to move the primary mirror forward a bit to make the image plane accessible, use a larger secondary to capture the whole light cone and a larger diameter eyepiece holder(2") to keep the lens tube from blocking some of the cone. This produced by far the brightest and sharpest images. The primary disadvantage was that I needed to use a short extension tube for my eyepieces when doing visual work. But since I had installed a 2" lens holder, I needed an adapter anyway so my 1 1/4" eyepieces would fit.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can't see the comet 46P/Wirtanen because it's like winter 1986 here | RichA[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | December 14th 18 12:22 AM |
Would like to photograph the Perseids | Paul Ciszek | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 10th 12 11:26 PM |
Best Lunar Photograph I Have Ever Seen | Davoud[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 27 | December 3rd 08 05:47 PM |
Interesting photograph. | Thomas Lee Elifritz | Policy | 2 | March 15th 04 06:27 AM |
Interesting photograph. | jacob navia | Astronomy Misc | 4 | March 15th 04 06:27 AM |