Video astronomy. What is the point?

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.

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.

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.

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 2:19:46 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
The images are mostly horrible, compared with still camera, even with expensive video cameras.

Agreed on all points, so far.

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.

It helps weed out the young and the poor from the pool of aspiring amateur astronomers. As we have heard elsewhere, amateur astronomy is for the upper classes only.

Magnification is a wonderful exercise and especially a microscope which opens up alien worlds denied our normal vision. Thankfully researchers can put the microscopic world in context of existence at a human level whereas the magnification exercise in the hands of the celestial sphere mob make a mockery of astronomy.

On 20/07/2015 16:22, wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 2:19:46 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

The images are mostly horrible, compared with still camera, even with expensive video cameras.

Agreed on all points, so far.

Lucky imaging with a cheap webcam and registax enables todays amateurs
with an 8" scope to produce planetary images that put old Palomar slides
to shame. Jupiter has benefited enormously form having near continuous
amateur video coverage with several transient impact events captured in
realtime and confirmed by professional IR observations.

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.

It helps weed out the young and the poor from the pool of aspiring amateur astronomers.
As we have heard elsewhere, amateur astronomy is for the upper
classes only.

Only in your weird twisted imagination.

Planetary imaging webcams are *so* expensive today that even a teenager
can afford one. The telescope is by far the most expensive part.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 2:47:39 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/07/2015 16:22, wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 2:19:46 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

The images are mostly horrible, compared with still camera, even with expensive video cameras.

Agreed on all points, so far.

Lucky imaging with a cheap webcam and registax enables todays amateurs
with an 8" scope to produce planetary images that put old Palomar slides
to shame. Jupiter has benefited enormously form having near continuous
amateur video coverage with several transient impact events captured in
realtime and confirmed by professional IR observations.

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.

It helps weed out the young and the poor from the pool of aspiring amateur astronomers.
As we have heard elsewhere, amateur astronomy is for the upper
classes only.

Only in your weird twisted imagination.

Planetary imaging webcams are *so* expensive today that even a teenager
can afford one. The telescope is by far the most expensive part.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 9:25:25 PM UTC-4, 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, [blah, blah...]

Yes, I should have been more clear. I was referring to video of deepsky
objects as opposed to still images.

Most of us understood immediately that you were talking about deep sky. It's amazing that when one criticizes video, the trolls on this group launch a diatribe about "lucky imaging" of planets and thereby completely miss the point.