Jump to content


Photo

You want cheaper equipment? Another perspective.

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#51 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10445
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:12 AM

They are remaking Cosmos. I wonder why. It's Fox, even, doing the remake. PBS did the original. How's that for contrast?

I doubt that they'd bother unless they felt that there would be an audience for it, and they could make a buck. I also applaud them for finally branching out into non-fiction. A first for Fox, I'm pretty sure. :grin:

- Jim


Billions and Billions of stars.....all under 6,000 years old......Just ask Fred and Dino!

#52 Phil Sherman

Phil Sherman

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1505
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:24 PM

One of the biggest problems I've encountered is the lack of a place to observe from near home. I live in an inner ring suburb that's famous for its tree lined streets. Unfortunately, city regulations prohibit use of any parks or school grounds after dark. Both of these areas have open fields and one park is completely shaded from the nearby street lights and even has restrooms.

I'm currently visiting my daughter and grandchildren. Last week, I did an astronomy program for a preschool class and ended up spending over three hours letting over a hundred kids up through 5th grade view sunspots through my filtered 80mm guidescope, set up on its own tabletop mount. I'm hoping for good weather tomorrow to do the same for a K-1 class for my other grandchild.

Phil

#53 dan_h

dan_h

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2007

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:51 PM

Dan,

Not a lot of 'kids' around your age can afford the hobby.........


Kids have more disposable income than most adults. Have you seen the price of concert tickets lately? (Not to mention the cost of appropriate fashion.)

dan

#54 Lorence

Lorence

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:59 PM

Nobody will ever convince me that the image in an eyepiece is any purer than what I see on a screen. To my way of thinking the camera simply amplifies the the visual signal to help me see better, just as a hearing aid amplifies sound to help some hear better.

Would anyone suggest to a person that is hard of hearing not to use a hearing aid because the sound is not pure, it has been amplified and therefor is not really the original sound?

Of course not, but many eyepiece observers would swear that my kind of observing is not really observing. As a matter of fact some will go out of their way to discourage my kind of observing.


That camera discussion is old long ago .


Yes it is, and it's obvious you didn't mind going out of your way to mention that fact.

Remember this quote of yours from another thread?

"I'll take the color free image through the eyepiece and leave the abominated images behind with a bit of money for the fuel tank if needed ."

Somewhat prejudiced?

I wanted to make a point, thanks for helping.

#55 Lorence

Lorence

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

Video astronomy may indeed be the future, which will ensure that people spend even more of their waking hours staring at glowing rectangles.

Tom


Here's one of my glowing rectangle abominations. I wasted two minutes of my life waiting for it to go from the camera to the screen. To make matters worse I wasted even more time looking at it.

It's a 1.7 meg image. No processing.

http://www.mts.net/~...l Res 2 min.jpg

My apologies for showing this image again but it's the only one I have of an object bright enough for most eyepiece users to see clearly. I save very few images. The rest are of objects too faint.

#56 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:53 PM

Nobody will ever convince me that the image in an eyepiece is any purer than what I see on a screen. To my way of thinking the camera simply amplifies the the visual signal to help me see better, just as a hearing aid amplifies sound to help some hear better.

Would anyone suggest to a person that is hard of hearing not to use a hearing aid because the sound is not pure, it has been amplified and therefor is not really the original sound?

Of course not, but many eyepiece observers would swear that my kind of observing is not really observing. As a matter of fact some will go out of their way to discourage my kind of observing.


That camera discussion is old long ago .


Yes it is, and it's obvious you didn't mind going out of your way to mention that fact.

Remember this quote of yours from another thread?

"I'll take the color free image through the eyepiece and leave the abominated images behind with a bit of money for the fuel tank if needed ."

Somewhat prejudiced?

I wanted to make a point, thanks for helping.


What point ? I dont see it .
What your saying is liken to saying that seeing a Hockey game on a TV screen is the same as being there . Or the Rose parade . Is viewing it on a monitor the same as sitting on the sidewalk as it goes by ?
There is indeed an intimacy in the view through an eyepiece that just can't be had in any other way . If one cannot fathom that this difference is tangible , I would think something might be missing . If viewing in this manner is personal preference , fine and dandy , but attempting to convey that watching a football game on TV is as live as sitting on the fifty yard line is misleadingly false and it seem this is what you are attempting to do . No criticism on the part of your preference , . Just not my preference . And no need to get nasty about it , it makes you seem like an intolerant being . Every one has their own way of enjoying the hobby , so expressing ones point of view doesn't need to be taken head in with strong rebuttle . You see it your way , I see it mine , but Im not gonna dig up old posted quotes of yours in an attemp to make a spectacle of things . I'm just an old fashioned guy that's gonna view the old fashioned way , and sorry if that doesn't suit your fancy .

#57 cn register 5

cn register 5

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2012

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

Be nice.

#58 Lorence

Lorence

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

Yo Lorence,

This is the reason that most of my observing is done with my IIE (Image Intensifier Eyepiece) and various filters. I can see stuff from ny surburban yard that are near to invisible from a dark, pristine site hours away. Not everyone enjoys it. Complaints about "green sprinkles" when using a photographic Ha filter. But, I learned the hard way that IIE viewing is not for kids. Since I do a fair amount of outreach I do use a video camera quite often. Everyone with some vision can see a monitor.

Agreed, electronics will rule the future of our beloved hobby.


I always enjoy seeing your images. They offer another way of looking at the sky. There can't be too many ways to see if every way is in some way unique. That some don't like your images is their loss.

Seems to me that if someone could make a camera that combined the characteristics of Image Intensifiers, Mallincams, Infrared and a few other spectrums we would have something very interesting.

#59 Dan Watt

Dan Watt

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Oceanside, Calfornia.

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Dan,

Not a lot of 'kids' around your age can afford the hobby. Or, they're too busy huntng/hiking/traveling/fishing/doing manly pursuits. At least, that's what I get out of the community I'm apart of.


Maybe, although I live in South Orange County... I see 16 year old kids driving BMWs more often than Hondas.

#60 Tom Polakis

Tom Polakis

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

Video astronomy may indeed be the future, which will ensure that people spend even more of their waking hours staring at glowing rectangles.

Tom


Here's one of my glowing rectangle abominations. I wasted two minutes of my life waiting for it to go from the camera to the screen. To make matters worse I wasted even more time looking at it.

It's a 1.7 meg image. No processing.

http://www.mts.net/~...l Res 2 min.jpg

My apologies for showing this image again but it's the only one I have of an object bright enough for most eyepiece users to see clearly. I save very few images. The rest are of objects too faint.


I really don't want to perpetuate a discussion that appears to be your hobby horse, but I sure am happy to be able to see both the Trapezium and the surrounding nebula visually through my 70mm Pronto.

Note that I have actually been an advocate of our astronomy club getting a Mallincam for outreach. People wait in line under an urban sky to get into the dome, and a small scope/Mallincam would be perfect. Again, just like CCD imaging, this bears no resemblance to visual observing, but it can augment it.

Tom

#61 Lorence

Lorence

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:50 PM

No criticism on the part of your preference , . Just not my preference . And no need to get nasty about it , it makes you seem like an intolerant being . Every one has their own way of enjoying the hobby , so expressing ones point of view doesn't need to be taken head in with strong rebuttle . You see it your way , I see it mine


Can you see that what I am doing is nothing more than a form of outreach. Some stand up on a sidewalk or in a park and say "Look what you can see through my telescope" I chose to stand up here and say "Look what you can see through my telescope and you can also see the same thing through your telescope even if you are in a badly light polluted area."

For that I got "That camera discussion is old long ago." On another group the response from you and a few others was "Go back where you came from. We don't want to hear anything about what you people do."

http://www.cloudynig...5581110/page...

I can imagine what would happen if one of the sidewalk outreach observers was greeted with that sort of welcome.

As for the live experience, you can't taste a photon or feel it. It only creates a signal that your brain sees as an image.

Who are you to tell everyone that my image is not as good as yours? They are only images.

You are not there as you tried to point out. We are both here looking at an object through a device. Somehow along the line that look is translated into an image inside out heads, nothing else. If being there is the only way to do it, explain why billions watch and enjoy sporting events on TV throughout the world.

I am doing my best to generate more interest in astronomy, be it with newcomers or with people who like me have been observing for over fifty years.

What are you trying to do?

#62 rigelsys

rigelsys

    Vendor (Rigel Systems)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 393
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

Having taught astronomy lab class for 35 years at a local Community College, this is the way I see it too. Between 20 and 50 people are busy getting through the middle passage of career, spouse, mortages, kids, mortages, investments, fast cars, fast living, etc...

Still, if you show them the stars when they're under 20, they come back around when they're over 50.

That's what I've seen in my class ... a sea of 20 somethings trying to fulfil a science requirements with a sprinkling of 50 somethings reengaging with the wonder of it all.

"Something else - youngsters need to be exposed to this, it doesnt mean they will rush out and buy a Takahashi the day after - you need to sow the seeds. Implantation for Later Action. They may go years with no interest and then remember hmmmmmm maybe that would be fun."

Fits me. I had a scope as a kid, now facing retirement in a couple of years and was looking to pick back up a hobby. Decided on Astronomy. Am getting the equipment now, because I won't be able to afford it after I retire (but I will have enough for gas money to the dark site!). Coming back to this hobby has probably been the best thing I've done in a long time.......



#63 starrancher

starrancher

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:27 PM

No criticism on the part of your preference , . Just not my preference . And no need to get nasty about it , it makes you seem like an intolerant being . Every one has their own way of enjoying the hobby , so expressing ones point of view doesn't need to be taken head in with strong rebuttle . You see it your way , I see it mine


Can you see that what I am doing is nothing more than a form of outreach. Some stand up on a sidewalk or in a park and say "Look what you can see through my telescope" I chose to stand up here and say "Look what you can see through my telescope and you can also see the same thing through your telescope even if you are in a badly light polluted area."

For that I got "That camera discussion is old long ago." On another group the response from you and a few others was "Go back where you came from. We don't want to hear anything about what you people do."

http://www.cloudynig...5581110/page...

I can imagine what would happen if one of the sidewalk outreach observers was greeted with that sort of welcome.

As for the live experience, you can't taste a photon or feel it. It only creates a signal that your brain sees as an image.

Who are you to tell everyone that my image is not as good as yours? They are only images.

You are not there as you tried to point out. We are both here looking at an object through a device. Somehow along the line that look is translated into an image inside out heads, nothing else. If being there is the only way to do it, explain why billions watch and enjoy sporting events on TV throughout the world.

I am doing my best to generate more interest in astronomy, be it with newcomers or with people who like me have been observing for over fifty years.

What are you trying to do?


First off , I have conveyed in other posts that I have attended outreach events with the Andromeda Society out of the high desert in So. Cal. whom are truly a great bunch of folks that dedicate an entire section of spots to video astronomy . I have no problem with this and have actually set up among that section prior to being informed that I was within the video section . Aside from a little LP due to the monitors , still had a great time and wasn't about to tear down and move to the visual observers area . Next time out , I joined the rest of the clan in the visual section .
Secondly , I don't recall anyone posting a "go back to where you came from" post . Now I may have missed that and this could be considered a little over the top , but I have only stated that it is not my cup of tea and I feel that an intimate aspect of actually viewing through a piece of glass is being lost in the experience . While on the other hand , you seem to be critical of those purists that continue to enjoy the intimacy that comes with the direct approach of using an eyepiece . Again in my opinion , there is an intimacy that cannot be replaced in any other form that is experienced in using an ocular . To each his own . It isn't an attempt to discourage the use of video astronomy at all , only to convey that the eyepiece approach provides that sense of being at one with the sky could be somewhat lost in the interim . Is that a bad thing ? Should we just skip that all together ? I believe in doing so , would be an injustice to an individual in that they may never feel the at one with experience . You should be able to appreciate that as well .
I have only expressed my personal opinion on the subject and nothing more . I'd rather spend some cash on fuel getting to a good dark site vs on a video astronomy set up . Again , to each his own . If you don't want to be put down for the way you want to do it , you shouldn't put others down for not . That's all . By the way , when I was set up in the video section out at Joshua Tree National Park , I had a line of folks a hundred feet long waiting to view through my Plossl . Lots of ooohs and aaahs , which is more than I can say for the video monitors . Maybe there is something to be said for us old fashioned guys that want to do things in the traditional method .
Criticism and stating a point of view are two separate things . It's a two way street . So attempting to convey that your way is superior is bound to receive some scoffing by the traditionalist .

#64 tecmage

tecmage

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2473
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Glenview, IL

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:01 PM

Okay, be nice.

#65 Stew57

Stew57

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2525
  • Joined: 03 May 2009
  • Loc: Silsbee Texas

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:59 PM

My eyesight is not what it once was.Using the video (mallincam in my case) has revitalized my hooby. Just wish I could get the FOV that the newer eyepieces give.

#66 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:49 AM

Very true. Mostly because they're all living at home! :)

Life is cheap when you don't have to pay for it.

#67 Joe Bergeron

Joe Bergeron

    Vendor - Space Art

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1624
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

Video astronomy reminds me of those guys who make space art with spray cans:

Spray Can Space Artist

The result isn't really very good, but it's fast, and people are always impressed to see it made right in front of them.

#68 PaulEK

PaulEK

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 566
  • Joined: 25 May 2008
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

I do outreach and like viewing/imaging alone. I also like tinkering with gear.

Last summer, the summer library theme here in Wisconsin was all about nighttime. I went to about 50 libraries with my portable planetarium, presented to over 100 groups, mostly kids, for a total of over 3000 people. During a typical year it's less, but still always in the hundreds.

I also work with 5 to 10-year-olds every day, and have for decades. I agree that there are fewer young folks involved in astronomy (and other worthy pursuits) than there ought to be. I blame two cultural changes we've gone through:

1. Many parents are convinced that their kids have to have some kind of scheduled activities going on all the time (preferably, it seems, activities that don't involve the parents). Sports are the big one. These kids just don't have time.

2. Much more common, and not really new: parents who don't know or care at all what their kids are doing, so those kids spend a lot of time in front of screens, because it's easy, staves off boredom, and requires no commitment. I'm 52, and I grew up in a home with little parenting. I (and my many siblings) watched TV every day from the time we got up till we went to school, then from the time we got home till bed. I still have pretty much every episode of Gilligan's Island memorized.

But there are plenty of kids who are very interested in astronomy, and science in general. But all kids are sponges for all that's new, if given the chance and encouragement, so they typically don't stick with something for the long term without adult encouragement. And too many parents are either two busy with their own priorities to give that encouragement, or they just don't care. Those that do care have the kids that I see in the libraries.

The last trend I'd look at, which someone upthread mentioned, is that many people have turned against science -- and even reality -- in the US. More and more in my planetarium, I'm having kids challenge me; actively denying the age of the universe, the size and distances to stars. I get questions, asked in a snarky way, like 'How can they possibly know that?' It doesn't happen often, but it happens more than it used to. I also had kids, clearly worried, ask if the world was really going to end last month. It's sad, and it worries me.

These are just my observations, in no particular order or presented for any other reason but to share.

#69 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:05 AM

Paul, thanks for sharing with us. I've always been surprised by the number of kids who don't ask questions like that. Unfortunately, there are parents who believe that stuff. I knew one guy who told his children in high school to actively challenge their teachers on issues like that.

#70 rockethead26

rockethead26

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3192
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Arizona, USA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:20 AM

There really isn't a problem with challenging what's being taught. Think about it from an opposite point of view. What if your children were being taught the "other" point of view. Would you not want your children to challenge the assertions?

The responsibility falls onto the teachers (as it always has) to present the scientific evidence to back up what they are teaching. With proper presentation, progress is made. Unfortunately, in our country, education in not a priority and these old myths resurface.

#71 ahopp

ahopp

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 May 2012

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:40 AM

I have no problem with a student, at any age, challenging their teacher. It just needs to be done in a respectful manner.

Tony

#72 ponz

ponz

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 144
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Kansas City, MO

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:51 AM

When I was a kid we had a TV show called Mr. Wizard on Saturdays. He did all kinds of interesting scientific things and it was must see TV for me every Saturday. Today, Saturdays are all cartoons and sugary cereal commercials. First they rot their minds and then they rot their teeth.


I too enjoyed Mr Wizard!

Ponz

#73 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10445
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:57 AM

"The last trend I'd look at, which someone upthread mentioned, is that many people have turned against science -- and even reality -- in the US. More and more in my planetarium, I'm having kids challenge me; actively denying the age of the universe, the size and distances to stars. I get questions, asked in a snarky way, like 'How can they possibly know that?' It doesn't happen often, but it happens more than it used to. I also had kids, clearly worried, ask if the world was really going to end last month. It's sad, and it worries me."

How far we've come from hiding in caves because we fear the universe......

#74 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5082
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

Just when I thought this thread was dead...


I think that a lot of the criticism against science from kids and adults alike comes from the fact that they don't understand how science works, the scientific method. Why theories can change or be replaced, as new things are discovered, instead of remaining the same.

And we should remind EVERYONE that nearly EVERYTHING they use in modern society, from washing machines, to cars, TV, internet, plastic bags, nylon socks, LED flashlights, loudspeakers, oil, perfume, medicine, etc, etc, is made possible ONLY by the intensive use of scientific methods and research.

I can't help to find it funny that the enemies of science have no trouble using modern media in communications as well as drive cars and go to the hospital and use modern medicine to cure an illness. Most all of us, including the deniers, OWE OUR LIFE to science! Before modern medicine, the childhood mortality rate age zero to five years of age was around 50% to 70% and if you happened to catch pneumonia, even as a strong adult, it was often the end for you. My own life has been saved by science on several occasions. Including from pneumonia, which, given how ill I was, would surely have killed me, if it had been left untreated.

I think a lot of people don't see medicine as a science. It's just someone's job. Save my life, doctor! But the good doctor can't save your life without penicillin, which was discovered by a scientist. Maybe people only see those things that they don't really understand, the pure research into the unknown, as science. Astronomy, quantum mechanics, that sort of thing. But science is like a giant tree, with a lot of different branches. Astronomy, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. They are different branches on the same tree.

And that tree doesn't grow from our society, our society is upheld by its strong trunk, lifted up in the sunshine and let us see more of the surrounding landscape, more and more as the tree grows.


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

#75 cheapersleeper

cheapersleeper

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3162
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Sachse TX

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:51 AM

There really isn't a problem with challenging what's being taught. Think about it from an opposite point of view. What if your children were being taught the "other" point of view. Would you not want your children to challenge the assertions?

The responsibility falls onto the teachers (as it always has) to present the scientific evidence to back up what they are teaching. With proper presentation, progress is made. Unfortunately, in our country, education in not a priority and these old myths resurface.



It is not possible to use evidence to disprove beliefs and it is certainly not possible to educate the willfully ignorant.

B






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics