PanSTARRS not a bad comet after all

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:16:47 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Is your camera immobile ??? And you donät have any mobile camera and
don't intend to ever get one?

My camera equipment is in my lab, which is 500 m from the house. My
best view of the western horizon is about 800 m in the other
direction. The tripod and tracking platform are heavy, and I don't
have a case for the lenses I use for this. I also need a big 12V
battery. There's a fair effort involved in setting up for an image.

It's just as easy to quickly set up a **mobile** camera right outside
your house and take a quick snapshot with it.

Besides not having the camera in the house, that would be a waste of
time. There's simply no good view to the west. I can peek through the
trees with the binoculars, but I still have to dodge around because
the comet position is changing. Setting up a camera would be
pointless.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you care about this. Like I said, if you
want to image the comet, go for it. I'm not interested in standing
around in a cold wind after spending an hour getting set up if I'm not
reasonably sure I'm going to get a good image. Otherwise, I'll simply
see if I can catch a binocular glimpse, which is much, much simpler.

So the goals of the two are different only because you make them
different. Why do you want to make them so different?

I'm guessing you're off your meds...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:16:47 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Is your camera immobile ??? And you donät have any mobile camera and
don't intend to ever get one?

My camera equipment is in my lab, which is 500 m from the house. My
best view of the western horizon is about 800 m in the other
direction. The tripod and tracking platform are heavy, and I don't
have a case for the lenses I use for this. I also need a big 12V
battery. There's a fair effort involved in setting up for an image.

If I were in your shoes, I would also get a camera which is lighter and
much easier and faster to set up. One does not always need such heavy
gear. Remember that the best gear is the gear that's actually used.

It's just as easy to quickly set up a **mobile** camera right outside
your house and take a quick snapshot with it.

Besides not having the camera in the house, that would be a waste of
time. There's simply no good view to the west. I can peek through the
trees with the binoculars, but I still have to dodge around because
the comet position is changing. Setting up a camera would be
pointless.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you care about this.

You were the one pointing out that it's always easier to find e.g. a
comet with a camera than visually. Therefore it amazes me a little that
you refuse to use a method you've pointed out yourself as the best. Not
all camera gear is heavy, hard to handle, requiring a full hour to set
up. The camera I used to first locate PanSTARRS was set up in just a few
minutes. And I had cold weather too...

Like I said, if you
want to image the comet, go for it. I'm not interested in standing
around in a cold wind after spending an hour getting set up if I'm not
reasonably sure I'm going to get a good image. Otherwise, I'll simply
see if I can catch a binocular glimpse, which is much, much simpler.

....unless the comet is a bit hard to find in binoculars by sweeping them
around. In such a situation, a camera snapshot can help you by telling
you where to point your binoculars. It worked that way for me, you
agreed that it should work that way, but you refuse to use that method
yourself.

So the goals of the two are different only because you make them
different. Why do you want to make them so different?

I'm guessing you're off your meds...

I'm always "off my meds" since I don't need any meds....

On Mar 21, 10:32*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:18:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
If you would have bothered to examine the link provided by the OP, you
would have seen several "causal astronomical images" that for all
practical purposes convey as about as much info as more detailed shots
taken with equipment that allowed the use of longer focal lengths.

My goodness, is there any subject you aren't deeply ignorant about?

Have you not looked at the link that was provided and compared the
images? (You need to stop your pathetic attempts at insults.)

If you can take comet pictures through opaque clouds, go for it. I
can't.

You'll have to show us where I had suggested that one attempt to
photograph a comet that is located behind an opaque object.
Otherwise, you need to stop posting on this forum.

On Mar 22, 3:49*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:16:47 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Is your camera immobile ??? *And you don t have any mobile camera and
don't intend to ever get one?

My camera equipment is in my lab, which is 500 m from the house. My
best view of the western horizon is about 800 m in the other
direction. The tripod and tracking platform are heavy, and I don't
have a case for the lenses I use for this. I also need a big 12V
battery. There's a fair effort involved in setting up for an image.

If I were in your shoes, I would also get a camera which is lighter and
much easier and faster to set up. *One does not always need such heavy
gear. *Remember that the best gear is the gear that's actually used.

It's just as easy to quickly set up a **mobile** camera right outside
your house and take a quick snapshot with it.

Besides not having the camera in the house, that would be a waste of
time. There's simply no good view to the west. I can peek through the
trees with the binoculars, but I still have to dodge around because
the comet position is changing. Setting up a camera would be
pointless.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you care about this.

You were the one pointing out that it's always easier to find e.g. a
comet with a camera than visually. *Therefore it amazes me a little that
you refuse to use a method you've pointed out yourself as the best. *Not
all camera gear is heavy, hard to handle, requiring a full hour to set
up. The camera I used to first locate PanSTARRS was set up in just a few
minutes. And I had cold weather too...

Like I said, if you
want to image the comet, go for it. I'm not interested in standing
around in a cold wind after spending an hour getting set up if I'm not
reasonably sure I'm going to get a good image. Otherwise, I'll simply
see if I can catch a binocular glimpse, which is much, much simpler.

...unless the comet is a bit hard to find in binoculars by sweeping them
around. In such a situation, a camera snapshot can help you by telling
you where to point your binoculars. *It worked that way for me, you
agreed that it should work that way, but you refuse to use that method
yourself.

So the goals of the two are different only because you make them
different. Why do you want to make them so different?

I'm guessing you're off your meds...

I'm always "off my meds" since I don't need any meds....

He can't win the argument the normal way with facts and examples, so
he resorted to insults. Did you expect better? I didn't.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 02:44:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You'll have to show us where I had suggested that one attempt to
photograph a comet that is located behind an opaque object.
Otherwise, you need to stop posting on this forum.

I'm talking about MY attempts to image, and not wasting my time when
MY conditions involve clouds, you fool. I don't care about others'
attempts.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:49:42 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If I were in your shoes, I would also get a camera which is lighter and
much easier and faster to set up.

Then I recommend you do just that. Last I checked, the comet is
visible in Sweden, too.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:11:38 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:49:42 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

If I were in your shoes, I would also get a camera which is
lighter and
much easier and faster to set up.

Then I recommend you do just that. Last I checked, the comet is
visible in Sweden, too.

I already dif of course. That's the camera which found the comet
before my binoculars did, remember?

wsnell01:
You'll have to...
Otherwise, you need to...

Chris L Peterson:
I'm talking about MY attempts to image, and not wasting my time when
MY conditions involve clouds, you fool. I don't care about others'
attempts.

How can you not just adore people who have no idea what your
circumstances are with respect to your astronomy activities or any
other aspect of your life, and who volunteer that you "have to" do this
and you "need to" do that?

"You fool?" I think you are being overly kind, but then that's just the
kind of soft-hearted guy you are.

--
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

On 3/22/2013 7:41 PM, Davoud wrote:
wsnell01:
You'll have to...
Otherwise, you need to...

Chris L Peterson:
I'm talking about MY attempts to image, and not wasting my time when
MY conditions involve clouds, you fool. I don't care about others'
attempts.

How can you not just adore people who have no idea what your
circumstances are with respect to your astronomy activities or any
other aspect of your life, and who volunteer that you "have to" do this
and you "need to" do that?

Snell is a jackass. ;-)

-Steve
(just checking in)

On Mar 22, 7:41*pm, Davoud wrote:
wsnell01:

You'll have to...
Otherwise, you need to...

Chris L Peterson:

I'm talking about MY attempts to image, and not wasting my time when
MY conditions involve clouds, you fool. I don't care about others'
attempts.

How can you not just adore people who have no idea what your
circumstances are with respect to your astronomy activities or any
other aspect of your life, and who volunteer that you "have to" do this
and you "need to" do that?

"You fool?" I think you are being overly kind, but then that's just the
kind of soft-hearted guy you are.

You need to read what I wrote before attempting any more insults.
Peterson edits out, takes out of context and misrepresents what I
write.

I had written in response to Peterson:

"If you would have bothered to examine the link provided by the OP,
you
would have seen several "causal astronomical images" that for all
practical purposes convey as about as much info as more detailed
shots
taken with equipment that allowed the use of longer focal lengths."

"A simple Google search will turn up many spectacular images taken
under partly or even mostly cloudy conditions. Other images will
have
light-polluted city skylines as a backdrop. Most will have been
taken
with modest equipment attached to a tripod. Such equipment, as we
all
know, requires quite a bit of set up time! ;-) "

"Maybe you should waste some fossil fuel in order to seek out better
views? That didn't seem to be a concern for you in the past."

Davoid, if you have any problems with any of that you need to state
what those problems are. If not, you need to zip it, rather than
hurl insults. It is not in your nature to apologize, so no one
expects that.

Now we have all seen your ad-nauseam gripes about the abysmal weather
conditions in your neighborhood. Nobody actually cares about your
problems anymore. Cold wind in your and your wife's face? Nobody
cares. Welcome to the World.

This thread is (was) about a spectacular comet that many have
attempted, usually successfully, to observe and photograph, while
possibly going to some amount of trouble and inconvenience to do
so.

Try to stay on topic. If you can't, then don't post.