A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Japanese optics testing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 27th 03, 04:17 PM
Leonard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Japanese optics testing

Hello Roland and everyone ,

The Japanese must a different cultural outlook on
such things . Its most unfortunate but here in the U.S.A. using
reviews with hard data most likly will result in the loss of ad
revenue or as has happened in the past the threat of large amounts of
revenue loss. The two popular atronomy magazines here IMO would not
have the courage to print hard data reviews and and take there lumps.
To change our culture both magazines would have to agree to do it
together and and let the **** hit the fan. But I wont hold my breath.
Leonard

Sorry, that is only your subjective opinion. While it may be enough

to
convince you which eyepiece to buy, it does not provide much useful
information to others. Objective testing requires actual data.
Resolution
as a function of contrast would be a start, but no one reviewing
eyepieces
seems to want to bother with such things.

This lack of objectivity is the usual way things are tested here. Most
reviews
in the two astronomy magazines lack hard data because they simply
publish what
some amateur finds in his visual examination of a product (the recent
eyepiece
review and Solar Filter review in Astronomy are examples). Rarely is a
test
instrument used to determine any parameter. This is in total contrast
to the
Japanese magazines where the staff has access to a complete optics
lab. There,
the products are thoroughly tested using standard accepted methods and
the
results are published.

Roland Christen
  #2  
Old July 27th 03, 05:31 PM
Bill Meyers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Test reports (was: Japanese optics testing)

Hello, Roland,
I have mixed feelings about quantitative testing since some American
camera magazines like Popular Photography do it and I feel that the
reports are biased anyway and obscurantist to boo.
Sky & Telescope appears to have a policy of testing only products
that are available off the shelf with no waiting period. Therefore some
high quality products like Astrophysics, Mag1 Portaball, Teleport,
Starmaster, and Obsession, never get tested. This is the all the more
surprising given that S & T's statements that its "demographics" show
their subscribers and readers to be primarily well-educated middle-aged
managers and professionals.
Bill Meyers




[The] lack of objectivity is the usual way things are tested here. Most

reviews
in the two astronomy magazines lack hard data because they simply
publish what
some amateur finds in his visual examination of a product (the recent
eyepiece
review and Solar Filter review in Astronomy are examples). Rarely is a
test
instrument used to determine any parameter. This is in total contrast
to the
Japanese magazines where the staff has access to a complete optics
lab. There,
the products are thoroughly tested using standard accepted methods and
the
results are published.

Roland Christen


  #3  
Old July 27th 03, 05:59 PM
Bettrel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Test reports (was: Japanese optics testing)

Of course, one potential problem with in-depth, quantitative optical testing
is that you're only testing one single unit, not the entire production run.
While, granted, with the "better" brands quality control is quite good, that's
no gaurantee that it's perfect, and with the "lesser" brands (such as the
oft-maligned Synta or others such as Meade or Celestron) where quality control
might be an issue, the test of a single telescope (or eyepiece, or whatever)
won't tell you too much unless you happen to get that particular unit. It's
still of limited value and won't necessarily tell you what the same model, same
brand scope that you bought will be like.
That said... it still would be nice to see reviews that are a good mix of
qualitative and quantitative testing. It certainly couldn't hurt-- that is,
us, as the consumers-- but even then you shouldn't read too much into a review
of a single unit.
  #4  
Old July 27th 03, 06:05 PM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Test reports (was: Japanese optics testing)

Bill Meyers wrote:
Hello, Roland,
I have mixed feelings about quantitative testing since some American
camera magazines like Popular Photography do it and I feel that the
reports are biased anyway and obscurantist to boo.
Sky & Telescope appears to have a policy of testing only products
that are available off the shelf with no waiting period. Therefore some
high quality products like Astrophysics, Mag1 Portaball, Teleport,
Starmaster, and Obsession, never get tested. This is the all the more
surprising given that S & T's statements that its "demographics" show
their subscribers and readers to be primarily well-educated middle-aged
managers and professionals.


Maybe they assume such folks are into instant gratificaton g

  #5  
Old July 27th 03, 06:23 PM
Bill Meyers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Test reports (was: Japanese optics testing)

I agree with you. Sampling is a huge problem in consumer product testing,
especially since consumers are concerned about receiving a bad example of the
product. A standard deviation measure, or at least a broader sampling procedure, is
needed.
Bill Meyers

Bettrel wrote:

Of course, one potential problem with in-depth, quantitative optical testing
is that you're only testing one single unit, not the entire production run.
While, granted, with the "better" brands quality control is quite good, that's
no gaurantee that it's perfect, and with the "lesser" brands (such as the
oft-maligned Synta or others such as Meade or Celestron) where quality control
might be an issue, the test of a single telescope (or eyepiece, or whatever)
won't tell you too much unless you happen to get that particular unit. It's
still of limited value and won't necessarily tell you what the same model, same
brand scope that you bought will be like.
That said... it still would be nice to see reviews that are a good mix of
qualitative and quantitative testing. It certainly couldn't hurt-- that is,
us, as the consumers-- but even then you shouldn't read too much into a review
of a single unit.


 




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
Goodrich Delivers Telescope Optics to Chilean Mountaintop (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 December 12th 03 04:38 AM
Keck Observatory Reaches Major Milestone On Road To Expand Adaptive Optics Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 October 8th 03 08:18 PM
Keck Observatory Reaches Major Milestone On Road To Expand Adaptive Optics Ron Baalke Technology 0 October 8th 03 08:17 PM
NASA And Japanese Space Agency To Inspire Students Ron Baalke Space Station 0 July 9th 03 08:18 PM
Japanese Test Space Shuttle Crashes in Sweden Rusty B Space Shuttle 0 July 2nd 03 03:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.