Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Refractors

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Our refractors: for visual, or imaging?
      #5519724 - 11/14/12 03:43 PM

Seemingly, casual, amateur astrophotography, as opposed to to that of the scientific community, amounts to little more than a brief, static, falsified increase in aperture, in that a camera attached to, say, a 5" f/6 refractor, collects more and more photons the longer the shutter is open, capturing on film what one would see live otherwise, in an instant, viewing through a much larger objective. Certainly many unfamiliar with the pastime upon seeing an astrophotograph believe that what they're seeing on film is precisely what they'd see when looking through the eyepiece. They look, and are disappointed. Of course, the photographer finds himself quite satisfied with the results, as he and he alone understands the difference. It's a very personal thing to the astrophotographer, and one which I fully understand; however...

I, personally, could never present my refractor as less than for what it truly is, which is why I am solely a visual observer, preferring live, dynamic views with my own eyes in the here and now. Besides, one could never duplicate here on Earth the photographs taken by the Hubble, or in future perhaps, those by the James Webb, if successful; the futility being just that.

We've all enjoyed on occasion viewing photographs of family and friends gone by, but they're only reflections and representations of who and what they were. Wouldn't you rather a "time portal" for observing them in their day-to-day lives, hearing their voices and watching them in motion, alive? Of course you would, especially the ones, during your own life, you had come to know and love. Home movies, photographs in motion, approximate the experience, but they wouldn't be the same, if said portal were in existence. Now consider...

Analogously, in your possession is a device, a "time portal" that will allow you to observe others alive still; said portal being, the refractor. When you view, say, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant, through your refractor, you see it as it appeared 640 years ago, and still alive, albeit at the point in its life where collapsing upon its core and then violently exploding outward into the void as a type II supernova is imminent, although in the distant future. However, there are those who believe that it may explode at any time during our own lives, its presence in the sunlit sky to be possibly far greater than those visible in 1054 and 1604 A.D....

...that is, barring an instantaneous, utter enveloping upon the event.

Not to worry, as the expanding Crab, another type II, is but a mere eleven light-years in diameter.

In short, which would be best upon the event: a static, regressive photograph, or a live observation?

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
*skyguy*
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/31/08

Loc: Western New York
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5519729 - 11/14/12 03:49 PM

Concerning astrophotography ... there's an old saying ... "Never say Never!"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
chboss
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/24/08

Loc: Zurich Switzerland
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: *skyguy*]
      #5520201 - 11/14/12 09:35 PM

There will always be a bit of both...

Visual observation has its special magic since no night is like another.
Depending on moon and seeing conditions the objects will make a different impression and that makes it exciting and relaxing at the same time.

best regards
Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
la200o
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 09/09/08

Loc: SE Michigan, USA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: chboss]
      #5520250 - 11/14/12 10:22 PM

I think the appeal of AP is creative. A good image is sort of an artwork. It's not for me, but many obviously enjoy it and get a sense of accomplishment from it.

Bill


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5520629 - 11/15/12 06:39 AM

Quote:


In short, which would be best upon the event: a static, regressive photograph, or a live observation?




Alan:

When people travel to the Grand Canyon, they both look and they take pictures. Myself, I happen to enjoy the visual experience more than the photographic experience, that's just my choice.

There is nothing false about an image and certainly good camera can show things that are not visible naked eye even in the amateur largest telescopes.

Telescopes are tools to be enjoyed in whatever way one pleases.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5521223 - 11/15/12 01:23 PM

Again, "...falsified increase in aperture...", not the image itself.

"Telescopes are tools to be enjoyed in whatever way one pleases."

I agree.

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dscarpa
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 03/15/08

Loc: San Diego Ca.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5521698 - 11/15/12 06:36 PM

Lacking the smarts to do AP it's an easy choice for me. I do enjoy the work of others however and find it adds something to my viewing. David

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: dscarpa]
      #5521823 - 11/15/12 07:56 PM

I enjoy the photographs of the Hubble processed by others myself. Those to be taken by the James Webb space telescope, if it's ever launched into orbit, should prove to be even more spectacular.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Lane
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/19/07

Loc: Frisco, Texas
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5522192 - 11/16/12 01:15 AM

I was talking with the owner of a telescope store today and we got to talking about small refractors in 3" to 5" range, at which point he informed me they were almost totally useless for visual observing except for low power wide field viewing. He added that they only exist for AP.

I thought that was a strange thing for him to say, especially since he sells those kinds of refractors on mounts that are clearly not going to be used for AP and he has been an amateur astronomer at least 30 years or more. I was telling him about some of the things I had seen with my 92mm and from the way he was looking at me I am certain he did not believe a word I was saying.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MAURITS
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/22/09

Loc: Belgium
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Lane]
      #5522238 - 11/16/12 04:02 AM

Only visual

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
t.r.
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 02/14/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: MAURITS]
      #5522414 - 11/16/12 08:19 AM

Me too! I think this quote sums it up for me...

"Considered as a collector of rare and precious things, the amateur astronomer has a great advantage over amateurs in other fields ... the amateur astronomer has access at all times to the original objects of his study; the masterworks of the heavens belong to him as much as to the great observatories of the world. And there is no privilege like that of being allowed to stand in the presence of the original."

--Robert Burnham Jr, Burnham's Celestial Handbook




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JIMZ7
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 10/22/05

Loc: S.E.Michigan near DTW
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: t.r.]
      #5522426 - 11/16/12 08:25 AM

Likewise only visual even though I have a college degree in photography/video. Figure that out. I once took pictures on a vacation & don't remember the vacation. I had to look at my pictures to remind myself what I saw.

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
j3ffr0
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/06/08

Loc: Virginia
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: JIMZ7]
      #5522530 - 11/16/12 09:48 AM

I'm 100% visual at this time. However, I love the idea of astrophotography. I think that is a joy that I will perhaps take up when I retire.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kunama
professor emeritus


Reged: 10/22/12

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: j3ffr0]
      #5523606 - 11/16/12 11:13 PM

Strictly visual for the refractor
Strictly a/p for the reflector .....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott in NCModerator
Mad Hatter
*****

Reged: 03/05/05

Loc: NC
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Lane]
      #5523650 - 11/16/12 11:33 PM

Quote:

I was telling him about some of the things I had seen with my 92mm and from the way he was looking at me I am certain he did not believe a word I was saying.




Hmm...sounds like he may not get out and observe much, if at all. One can be a salesman of astro gear without being an amateur astronomer. Maybe that's the case here.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5524100 - 11/17/12 10:34 AM

Quote:

I enjoy the photographs of the Hubble processed by others myself. ...




Same here. Though at times i have done a lot of photography, i have never done AP/imaging. I leave that, like i leave wildlife photography, to those really keen on it. I do enjoy the images i see on CN, and thanks to their makers for sharing them


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5526270 - 11/18/12 02:45 PM

Did the creator give us eyes for looking at things or for looking at pictures of things?



- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott99
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/10/07

Loc: New England
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5526395 - 11/18/12 04:06 PM

Seeing the Orion nebula snap into focus in my refractor as I sit in the cold winter air has always sent a chill down my spine. A feeling I've never experienced looking at photos.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
sg6
professor emeritus


Reged: 02/14/10

Loc: Norfolk, UK.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Scott99]
      #5526422 - 11/18/12 04:27 PM

Always been visual, although I have 2 scopes and 2 EQ mounts that would be very good for AP.

One day I suspect I will attach a camera and give it a go.

Suspect my greatest worry is that I might get something good out of it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rflinn68
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/09/12

Loc: Arkansas
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Kunama]
      #5526939 - 11/18/12 10:03 PM

Quote:

Strictly visual for the refractor
Strictly a/p for the reflector .....




I have a f/4 newt astrograph and just bought the AT65EDQ for wide field. I LOVE the new apo for photography and for visual everything is so crystal clear. Star test on the apo amazed me. Now I REALLY want a bigger apo!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
coopman
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/23/06

Loc: South Louisiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: rflinn68]
      #5526947 - 11/18/12 10:05 PM

Visual only.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GOLGO13
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/05/05

Loc: St. Louis area
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5527059 - 11/18/12 11:19 PM

visual only for a few reasons...1) money 2) lazy 3) mooch off others who create photos...saves me time and money

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ziggy943
Post Laureate


Reged: 08/11/06

Loc: Utah
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: GOLGO13]
      #5527184 - 11/19/12 12:51 AM

99% visual

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom S.
member


Reged: 02/16/07

Loc: Benicia, Calif.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5536623 - 11/24/12 03:55 AM

I can totally relate to the feeling that visual observing has a certain je ne sais quoi that looking at astrophotos lacks. But let's just leave it at that.

I don't buy the idea that looking through a telescope eyepiece is more "real" than looking at photo. The light entering your pupil is highly processed and enhanced by telescope optics. If you really want some kind of direct experience of the stars, look at them with your naked eye.

Also, astrophotography for most amateurs is about much more than simply the finished product. They enjoy the process of creating the photos. I have done a little bit of AP and understand this thrill.

But frankly, I don't really understand why I'm thrilled to use telescopes, cameras, and software all made by other people to make a picture of something that's already been photographed gazillions of times, and not only that, but basically doesn't even change from one photo to the next.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Messyone
sage


Reged: 05/02/12

Loc: Down Under
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Tom S.]
      #5536652 - 11/24/12 05:13 AM

Mine is for visual as I'm not at all interested in doing the hard yards for the final image....too much like work, not a hobby. Maybe, just maybe one day astro photography will suck me in. Til then I'll look at other peoples hard yards and marvel at the wonders my eyes can't see.
Matt


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pete-LH
sage
*****

Reged: 03/25/09

Loc: Wilmington, DE
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Messyone]
      #5536897 - 11/24/12 09:35 AM

Visual and seldom GOTO ... I prefer the hunt and real time observation ... Like watching a shadow transit on Jupiter.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rocketsteve
sage
*****

Reged: 04/17/11

Loc: Southeast Louisiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Pete-LH]
      #5536917 - 11/24/12 09:43 AM

I know there are a lot of folks who love astrophotography and are very good at it, but I've never really been bitten by that bug. Afocal shots of the moon and planets is about as deep as it gets for me, while the remaining 95% of the time is spent with my eye in the EP.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5536942 - 11/24/12 10:02 AM

I enjoy my large refractor for visual and imaging.

Enjoy the 128 FS for visual.

I use my smaller refractors almost entirely for guiding or imaging.

________
Hope I'm not going off topic here, some general thoughts and experience regarding the original post...

Images are recordings of events in space-time, no different than same with sound. They provide useful talking points and measurement techniques for what can be quantified by them, and in terms of folks in geographically and culturally diverse areas can discuss the 'same thing' and bring ideas and concepts to bear is scientifically useful. Qualitative/quantitative comparison, here I'm just referring to information in general.

Emotional/intellectual response or reaction to the same information can be quite diverse, but it's the freezing of a 'metrics' and attempt at a 'ground form' of data that is useful in the exploration of ideas. IMO these recordings/images can add to our understanding (more than detract or confuse) - but it's up to the person looking to understand what they are looking at. Here I'm just talking about perception of information and not the data itself. If someone thinks that what they will see through a telescope is like some image they saw somewhere, not a problem - more to me an opportunity.

We experience one direct sense, that of sight. In a humor mode I could also add that we feel as in getting cold! and hearing as in the hopeful quiet... but smell and taste?

Going to the idea of emotional response to stimulus somehow being different - I agree. You can take an image and enlarge it up on the wall, play with the data and color, print in a book or magazine - and enjoy at leasure and comfort. To look through the scope is a different activity, and to take the image through the scope is yet a different activity from that. So that's three different activities WRT something hanging in space, and I wouldn't say it's limited to that. Some folks find it all equally uninteresting. Some folks prefer to take in what they choose from an armchair or couch and the screen with folks interpreting that information for them so they don't have to really think about it too much and feel what ideas communicated and how are sufficient. I'm glad they looked at that and not something else.

I wonder if your post is a tautology (as in 'is a logical statement in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise'). I experience the night sky in my ways... getting out of the tent at a dark site to just look naked eye at it, waking up at 3AM to see if it really did clear up...grab my binoc's or go to my scope to look through it, or me sitting at home and reading books, mags, journals, atlas... and am always very stimulated by it. At that same camp site many sleep, waiting for dawn and to jump on their 'quad' or maybe head up the trail to elsewhere - without much care or concern of the night sky other than time to sleep.

Many, and sadly by all the light pollution (and economics), are seeing and experiencing the night sky only indirectly - never having a scope but owning a TV of some type, or books, or magazines and internet media.

So I propose that for that small population of us that come to this hobby from whatever backgrounds and interests and how we go about it, levels of education, objects of interest, self perceived depth of understanding, of what it is we are seeing and doing - support one another as being part of the same community rather than create divisions based on same. As ambassadors to the hobby it is up to us to praise the virtues and dispel misunderstanding about the image and the eyepiece, not to the detriment of either - in a way that can add to the community of those interested in doing either or both. When I do outreach I always start off with "this won't be like those big beautiful images you've seen" and am always surprised at all the ooohs and aaahs anyway. I also enjoy the ooohs and aaahs from the images I take and share even when I begin with "this does NOT look like this through a telescope".

Image or eyepiece I already know why I am here, I see both as an opportunity and source for possible inspiration of others to join in the fun however suits them. You can't force anyone to be interested (or can we?), so it's how you go about it if they are interested.

In summation IMO it's not the scope that is important or even what you do with it - it's how you communicate and inspire others with it if that is what you are after. For me, I don't see any bad or better side to anything when it comes to that - it's all an opportunity. As far as an introduction to spacetime - image or eyepiece, on anything of any distance I cannot see any way either could somehow be more realistic as both are 'light travel spacetime dated' if we use that as a metric, it's possible to take the same flight of fancy with either eyeiece or image if you desire. So I don't understand the introduction of that topic and binding it to
Quote:

Analogously, in your possession is a device, a "time portal" that will allow you to observe others alive still; said portal being, the refractor. When you view, say, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant, through your refractor, you see it as it appeared 640 years ago, and still alive, albeit at the point in its life where collapsing upon its core and then violently exploding outward into the void as a type II supernova is imminent, although in the distant future. However, there are those who believe that it may explode at any time during our own lives, its presence in the sunlit sky to be possibly far greater than those visible in 1054 and 1604 A.D....




... possibilities and probabilities being what they are - it is our mind that makes that or similar journey if desired, and this again a different activity.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FirstSightModerator
Duke of Deneb
*****

Reged: 12/26/05

Loc: Raleigh, NC
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5536961 - 11/24/12 10:13 AM

NP101 for visual only. If I ever did get into AP, I'd still always do it in parallel with a visual-only rig.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BigC
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/29/10

Loc: SE Indiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537051 - 11/24/12 11:09 AM

Visual to enjoy the view NOW;photography to show others and for a tangible momemto just as in many other facets of life where people take pictures.Admittedly I really do very little photography but the reasoning is still valid.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: BigC]
      #5537108 - 11/24/12 11:43 AM

Neither....they're finderscopes for reflectors....

Let the argument begin.....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
teelgul
sage


Reged: 09/02/11

Loc: Australia
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537209 - 11/24/12 12:58 PM

Long live visual ! NO chips ,chargers ,cords,or cards.
Why trouble ourselves with AP ?
hubble and VLBT can do that better.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5537499 - 11/24/12 04:40 PM

Actually, when placed on a reflector, the refractor is not a finder. It's a reference scope. It lets the reflector owner know what he should be able to see with respect to the target, if his scope were well-figured, smooth, clean, collimated and cooled.

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RAKing
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: t.r.]
      #5537540 - 11/24/12 05:05 PM

Quote:

"Considered as a collector of rare and precious things, the amateur astronomer has a great advantage over amateurs in other fields ... the amateur astronomer has access at all times to the original objects of his study; the masterworks of the heavens belong to him as much as to the great observatories of the world. And there is no privilege like that of being allowed to stand in the presence of the original." -- Robert Burnham Jr, Burnham's Celestial Handbook





+1 on this quote.

Years ago, I spent way too much of my college time doing astrophotography with my 35mm Nikons. I would spend the whole observing session exposing a few rolls of film, then spend a few hours every day developing and printing the results. When I finally realized it wasn't any fun it was too late --- I ruined TWO hobbies.

I came back to astronomy about ten years ago and swore I would stick to visual observing only. I dabbled a bit with digital imaging, but I have mainly stayed the course and enjoy it so much more than ever before.

Some of the objects I've seen are better than any photograph - they are indelibly etched in my memory.

Cheers,

Ron


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
City Kid
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/06/09

Loc: Northern Indiana
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5537681 - 11/24/12 06:51 PM

My refractors, like my reflectors, are for visual only. I suppose that could change one day but I doubt it. Back when I still had my G11 to put my NP101 on it used to cross my mind that all I was lacking was a camera but I'm not interested in navigating the learning curve. Still, I'm not going to say never.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jan Owen
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 02/12/06

Loc: Sun City West, Arizona
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5537744 - 11/24/12 07:38 PM

One can do both. I did astrophotography for several years.

I now only do visual astronomy...

I find I FAR prefer the *presence* of looking AT the stars, and not an image thereof.

But that's just me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Tom S.]
      #5537999 - 11/24/12 10:47 PM

"I can totally relate to the feeling that visual observing has a certain je ne sais quoi that looking at astrophotos lacks."

Yes, so can I, and how.

"I don't buy the idea that looking through a telescope eyepiece is more "real" than looking at photo."

"If you really want some kind of direct experience of the stars, look at them with your naked eye."

No doubt, that in and of itself can be rewarding, particularly when observing from a dark location, the more primeval the better.

However, when one sees, a litter of puppies, for instance, do they not crave a closer inspection? Or, when one sees a cluster, an array of telescopes in a shop?

The visual refractor...hug a star tonight!

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Doug D.
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/23/05

Loc: Virginia
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5538100 - 11/25/12 12:24 AM

As I've gotten older and my eyes have deteriorated some I've worried more and more about my ability to resolve things through my scopes as well as I could when I was young (or perhaps would have if only I could have afforded the scopes I own now when I was younger - one of those strange ironies of life). I dislike looking through eyepieces with glasses on and find binoviewing by far the most comfortable in part because I can keep both eyes open and adjust focus for each eye separately. In any event, I bring this up because I feel there may come a time when I'll want to switch to imaging simply because my skills at the eyepiece will be diminished (i.e., decreased sensitivity, increases in floaters, lower acuity, and who knows what else?). I'm thinking maybe imaging will help keep me in the game longer.... I'm just taking the long view here, doesn't hurt to plan ahead.

For now I remain a visual observer and I am quite pleased with that. I have started imaging with an Astrotrac, small refractors (e.g., TV60is, TV76) and digital cameras and I must admit that I've enjoyed it. It is very simple relative to CCD imaging with its steep learning curve, guided multi-hour exposures - not to mention lots of time invested in processing images rather than observing.

It is now almost cliche of course but as a visual observer I like knowing photons originating from long ago are striking my retinas as opposed to a CCD array. Either way, I guess I'll always remain a refractor guy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Andy Taylor
Twisted, but in a Good Way
*****

Reged: 09/24/08

Loc: Epsom - UK
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Doug D.]
      #5538486 - 11/25/12 10:26 AM Attachment (28 downloads)

With the Carton F13 I have to say visual, but as a planetary imager with my other scopes I just had to stick in the webcam and see what's going on...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SAL
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/13/03

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Andy Taylor]
      #5538526 - 11/25/12 10:59 AM

I prefer refractors over my Newt and I am strictly a visual observer. Though I must admit I am becoming more interested in trying astrophotography at some point.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Doug D.]
      #5538566 - 11/25/12 11:28 AM

I think I'd like bino-viewing, and alot, however it not only requires the viewer itself but pairs of matched oculars to boot, the finer, and more expensive, the better the view. I just might pursue that in the near future. Presently, I wear a Flents eye patch over my left eye and observe with the right, enabling me to keep both eyes open, in addition to removing my glasses, having perceived that their removal is more than compensated by the lensed optical train.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarrenS
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/04/08

Loc: Orange County New York
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: SAL]
      #5538571 - 11/25/12 11:36 AM

The ONLY reason I got back into astronomy was to do imaging, and the ONLY reason I bought a refractor was to do imaging.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jared
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/11/05

Loc: Piedmont, California, U.S.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5538657 - 11/25/12 12:29 PM

Quote:

<snip>I am solely a visual observer, preferring live, dynamic views with my own eyes in the here and now. Besides, one could never duplicate here on Earth the photographs taken by the Hubble, or in future perhaps, those by the James Webb, if successful; the futility being just that.

We've all enjoyed on occasion viewing photographs of family and friends gone by, but they're only reflections and representations of who and what they were. Wouldn't you rather a "time portal" for observing them in their day-to-day lives, hearing their voices and watching them in motion, alive? Of course you would, especially the ones, during your own life, you had come to know and love. Home movies, photographs in motion, approximate the experience, but they wouldn't be the same, if said portal were in existence.<snip>




While it is not possible to duplicate the views taken by the Hubble with amateur equipment here on Earth, it definitely is possible to produce technical art using an amateur telescope that is not and can not be created using professional equipment. For example, widefield astrophotography is almost the exclusive realm of the amateur now, and a look through a month's worth of APOD's will show that professional equipment definitely does NOT dominate. Even in terms of image depth on extended objects, the advantage often lies with the amateur since professional telescopes are almost never used on a single object across multiple hours or even several nights. Time on an object can make up for lack of aperture. Of course, the main use of professional equipment is collecting scientific data rather than producing art, so it's not exactly a surprise that professionals don't dominate.

As far as as the argument that there is no reason to take astrophotographs since it has all been done before and the subjects are fundamentally static, I think that's missing the point. The object, at least for me, is to put my own stamp of creativity on what may be a familiar object, or to find aspects and details of an object that I have never seen before. Perhaps it is getting a little more resolution and depth than I have ever achieved on a distant galaxy, or perhaps it is finding a way to show an even wider dynamic range on M42. The thrill is in finding ways to continuously improve on my technical art. Should weekend painters give up because they have no hope of ever surpassing the Mona Lisa? Should tourists stop taking pictures of the Grand Canyon because professional photographers have already done it? You can just buy a postcard, can't you?

Frankly, you could make the same argument about visual observing. Once you've had a good view of the Orion Nebula, do you stop looking at it, or do you go back to it time after time? I suspect you go back to it because each experience is a little different, and because the reality is always stronger than the memory. Likewise, astrophotography allows me to experience the moment over and over again in a way that is stronger than just my memory alone.

As far as your analogy goes, I don't feel it is a good one. You ask whether one would rather have the experience of interacting with friends and family rather than keeping a photograph of them, but I'd suggest that it's the astrophotographer rather than the visual observer who has the benefit of additional senses and depth of experience. Have you ever seen color in M31 as a visual astronomer? Spiral arms on M51? The central white dwarf in the Ring Nebula? All of these are possible through just an 80mm scope if only you add a camera. That feels more alive and real to me than the faint, white cotton balls and smoke rings I can see visually. Color, detail, and depth versus pale ghosts and glimpses with averted vision.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: WarrenS]
      #5539814 - 11/26/12 04:59 AM

I don't doubt it...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=us+at+night&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tb...

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stellarfire
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 07/10/11

Loc: Switzerland
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: MAURITS]
      #5539820 - 11/26/12 05:25 AM

Same here: Visual only, with binoviewer 99,9% of the time (changing from single to binoviewed sight was one of the most intelligent decisions in my entire life).

Stephan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jared]
      #5539841 - 11/26/12 06:07 AM

"Should weekend painters give up because they have no hope of ever surpassing the Mona Lisa?"

Of course not, for such is reminding of sketchings one might undertake while at the eyepiece, and then to take it further by painting the vision in either acrylics or oils, in their respective colours, or gray even, depending on the aperture, rather than pressing a button...<click>...

"Should tourists stop taking pictures of the Grand Canyon because professional photographers have already done it? You can just buy a postcard, can't you?"

The most endearing of said photographs would include family or friends in the foreground. Now, if one might accomplish the same within astrophotography...

"Look, Ma! No gravity!", and with the description, "On vacation near the perimeter of M31, July 2, 8045."

Now, that would be worthwhile.

"...astrophotography allows me to experience the moment over and over again in a way that is stronger than just my memory alone."

Yes, and just as people pour over the photographs of their loved ones gone by, but the hosts are still with us, in the here and now.

"You ask whether one would rather have the experience of interacting with friends and family..."

...observing them, rather.

"Have you ever seen color in M31 as a visual astronomer? Spiral arms on M51? The central white dwarf in the Ring Nebula?"

No, I have not, as I haven't the aperture necessary, and most likely never will...but I can wait...

"...pale ghosts and glimpses with averted vision."

Ahhh, yes! To me, a single observance by said method is worth a thousand pictures, ad infinitum...

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jared
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/11/05

Loc: Piedmont, California, U.S.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5540960 - 11/26/12 08:16 PM

Quote:

"...pale ghosts and glimpses with averted vision."

Ahhh, yes! To me, a single observance by said method is worth a thousand pictures, ad infinitum...

Cheers,

Alan




Just curious... Why? Because it feels more "real?" Because it's in the moment?

Obviously, I have no problem with visual observing and would never suggest one give up visual astronomy if it gives one pleasure, but I prefer the experience I can get with a camera--watching the image build up on the monitor, drawing out subtle details, whether it's in the field or back home the next day. To me, this experience is just as real as putting my eye to the eyepiece.

Whenever this discussion comes up it reminds me of Robert Ballard--the Oceanographer who found the wrecks of the Titanic, the Bismarck, the Yorktown, etc. He started out, of course, going down to the bottom of the ocean in submersibles looking for wrecks through portholes. Somewhere along the way, though, he realized that even if you went down in your submersible, you still couldn't touch the objects you were researching. You still couldn't get out of the submarine and wander around. Then, during one particular dive, he noticed that everyone on the sub was watching the computer screens rather than the porthole. The views were better, so that's what everyone was looking at. Why absorb the effort, time, risk, and cost of sending people down in submersibles if the views were already better on the computer screen? He decided to work with the Navy to develop the capabilities of remote submersibles and broadcast the images back up through fiber optics. That way, not only could a crew of a few people experience the event, but also students and team members on the surface and even people back on shore. He's been working ever since to improve the quality of the images and data--through fiber optics, better remotes, and more sophisticated manipulators and elevators--so that the remote experience can be every bit as real and engrossing as making the dive. Ever since that first time he saw everyone watching the computer screens rather than looking out the window he realized how silly it is to put people in submersibles.

I feel like astrophotography is an even more extreme version of Ballard's experience. For me, it's the one situation where the photographic experience is even better than the physical one. If you ask me whether I'd rather look at Yosemite or a picture of Yosemite, I'll take the real thing. But that's not true for most astronomical objects. Colors, wisps of gas, faint details, fainter stars. They are all available to me through the camera, and to me they are more real on a computer screen than in the imagination I am forced to rely on at the eyepiece.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jared]
      #5541103 - 11/26/12 09:37 PM

"...he realized how silly it is to put people in submersibles."

Now, you good and well that that was for safety's sake. I am not nearly as endangered as a solely visual amateur astronomer as I would be in a submersible more than a mile under the ocean's surface.

Similarly, if I were in a spacesuit near Cassini's Division...

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jared
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/11/05

Loc: Piedmont, California, U.S.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5541447 - 11/27/12 01:40 AM

Still curious... Why do you prefer visual? I have explained why I prefer astrophotography--the fact that I can "see" more and create my own art in the process. Your musings don't tell me what you like better about the visual experience. Is it more visceral for you? More true? Simpler? More challenging? What's the draw for you? I like to hear how others enjoy the hobby.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RAKing
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/28/07

Loc: West of the D.C. Nebula
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jared]
      #5541571 - 11/27/12 06:55 AM

Quote:

Still curious... Why do you prefer visual? I have explained why I prefer astrophotography--the fact that I can "see" more and create my own art in the process. Your musings don't tell me what you like better about the visual experience. Is it more visceral for you? More true? Simpler? More challenging? What's the draw for you? I like to hear how others enjoy the hobby.




I appreciate your love of imaging and I spent a few years trying to capture what I saw at the eyepiece with my camera. It was a challenge back then and I never really succeeded. Now of course, I could spend a few more hours at the computer and create an image that is probably better than the one I saw at the eyepiece.

But that is not why I prefer visual astronomy. For me, it is living in the moment and enjoying the best that the universe can give at that particular instant. I don't need to spend hours taking the image then processing it -- I am actually watching it as it happens. It is like your analogy of Yosimite - I simply prefer to see it now.

Cheers,

Ron


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jared]
      #5541575 - 11/27/12 07:00 AM

Quote:

Still curious... Why do you prefer visual




I prefer visual because it is it allows me the commune with the night sky. It's not just looking through a telescope and seeing those pinpoint stars at their actual color intensities and the faint objects without electronic interference, it is the quiet, the darkness, the togetherness with the universe, it's peeking through the eyepiece at the universe...

On those rare occasions when I break out the camera and spend the evening photographing the night sky, at the end of the evening I am left with an empty dissatisfaction because I have spent the evening with my computer screen and some equipment rather than enjoying the aesthetic mediation of the eyepiece.

One can spend a vacation photographing the Grand Canyon or one can spend that same amount of time experiencing the Grand Canyon... Personally I prefer to experience it with all my senses.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Footbag
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 04/13/09

Loc: Scranton, PA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5541828 - 11/27/12 10:36 AM

I'm 90% imaging. I only have a small refractor (66mm) but it is for imaging only.

My SCT has been tempting me to do more visual. I'm sure a larger refractor would do the same.

BUT... Imaging is just a form of technical photography. Like macro photography, you are not aiming for the most accurate recreation of what you would see through an EP. You are using optical hardware and software to create an appealing image. It's an artform, but one that specifically apprals to astronomers. My hopes are that my photographs help create more astronomers.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Footbag]
      #5542060 - 11/27/12 12:49 PM

Astronomy as a hobby has room for both. It's a hobby, the only one you have to satisfy is yourself.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jared]
      #5542152 - 11/27/12 01:36 PM

"Still curious... Why do you prefer visual?"

"Seemingly, casual, amateur astrophotography, as opposed to to that of the scientific community, amounts to little more than a brief, static, falsified increase in aperture, in that a camera attached to, say, a 5" f/6 refractor, collects more and more photons the longer the shutter is open, capturing on film what one would see live otherwise, in an instant, viewing through a much larger objective. Certainly many unfamiliar with the pastime upon seeing an astrophotograph believe that what they're seeing on film is precisely what they'd see when looking through the eyepiece. They look, and are disappointed. Of course, the photographer finds himself quite satisfied with the results, as he and he alone understands the difference. It's a very personal thing to the astrophotographer, and one which I fully understand; however...

I, personally, could never present my refractor as less than for what it truly is, which is why I am solely a visual observer, preferring live, dynamic views with my own eyes in the here and now. Besides, one could never duplicate here on Earth the photographs taken by the Hubble, or in future perhaps, those by the James Webb, if successful; the futility being just that.

We've all enjoyed on occasion viewing photographs of family and friends gone by, but they're only reflections and representations of who and what they were. Wouldn't you rather a "time portal" for observing them in their day-to-day lives, hearing their voices and watching them in motion, alive? Of course you would, especially the ones, during your own life, you had come to know and love. Home movies, photographs in motion, approximate the experience, but they wouldn't be the same, if said portal were in existence. Now consider...

Analogously, in your possession is a device, a "time portal" that will allow you to observe others alive still; said portal being, the refractor. When you view, say, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant, through your refractor, you see it as it appeared 640 years ago, and still alive, albeit at the point in its life where collapsing upon its core and then violently exploding outward into the void as a type II supernova is imminent, although in the distant future. However, there are those who believe that it may explode at any time during our own lives, its presence in the sunlit sky to be possibly far greater than those visible in 1054 and 1604 A.D....

...that is, barring an instantaneous, utter enveloping upon the event.

Not to worry, as the expanding Crab, another type II, is but a mere eleven light-years in diameter.

In short, which would be best upon the event: a static, regressive photograph, or a live observation?"

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ckwastro
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/23/05

Loc: Tempe, AZ
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5542165 - 11/27/12 01:41 PM

I'm a strictly visual observer, and although I very much enjoy the imaging work and effort of others, I myself have never had any desire to image. I sit in front of a computer all day, and the last thing I want to do for my hobby is go sit in front of another computer, and worry about connections, guiding, tracking, etc., not to mention even more computer time post-processing the images.

For me astronomy is about several things, not the least of which is disconnecting from everyday life for a while, and reconnecting with nature. It's about relaxing and enjoying the night sky in real time with my own eyes; contemplating our place and what's out there, with as little as possible between me and the universe.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
csrlice12
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/22/12

Loc: Denver, CO
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: ckwastro]
      #5542173 - 11/27/12 01:46 PM

To me it's the being alone with the universe that draws me. It gives me a inner peace...it makes life worth living...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mikey cee
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/18/07

Loc: bellevue ne.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: csrlice12]
      #5542445 - 11/27/12 04:37 PM Attachment (9 downloads)

Aside from the fact that I'm too damn cheap to buy Jerry Rodriguss' book I'm also the world's biggest procrastinator. I guess I'm darn lucky just to have something to use visually as in this pic during the Venus transit! Mike

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: mikey cee]
      #5542458 - 11/27/12 04:46 PM

Quote:

Aside from the fact that I'm too damn cheap to buy Jerry Lodriguss' book I'm also the world's biggest procrastinator. I guess I'm darn lucky just to have something to use visually as in this pic during the Venus transit! Mike




Photographing the Venus transit was pretty easy, the darn shadow was huge... I never thought about it much, we were on a 7,000 mile trip around the US and stopped to camp. The clouds parted, I had my 80mm with a solar filter and watched first contact... I later held my Coolpix 4500 up to the eyepiece and took a bunch of shots...

Don't need Jerry's help for that.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mikey cee
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/18/07

Loc: bellevue ne.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5542666 - 11/27/12 07:19 PM

Jon....Oh I forgot to tell you that I'm also nuts because even tho' my wife had the Rebel in her little hands I never even thought of afocal. Actually the intense heat of the afternoon affected my good judgement. I was sweatin' like a stuck hog! Mike

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: mikey cee]
      #5542768 - 11/27/12 08:30 PM

Alan - I'm confused by the assertion that there is one or the other, this imaginary boundry layer... glad it is in your mind and not mine! I do both, image and view - enjoy each a lot. Again, I just feel it's "not the equipment", it's the person. Push to, goto, tracking, nudging, bino's, naked eye or imaging... whatever and however done, that you are somehow more connected by virtue of what you do and how than I or anyone else here, I just can't get on that bandwagon. Nobody is having more fun or more connected than me.

I'm glad you enjoy your time under the night sky, here's to many years ahead for all of us however we choose to enjoy it


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Clemens
Frozen to Eyepiece
*****

Reged: 11/26/05

Loc: Alaska, USA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5542894 - 11/27/12 09:44 PM

I would go back and forth between visual and photo a LOT more if I didn't need to disconnect my robofocus from the pinion and remove the field flattener and put the visual back on.. etc. To summarize... WHINE WHINE WHINE

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5542998 - 11/27/12 10:38 PM

I used to be a "visual only" observer, but recently, I started doing both in the same sessions (whenever possible). Setting up a series of images to be taken automatically is not that much work, and the rest of the night can be dedicated to viewing with another scope.

As simple and peaceful that visual work tends to be, I'd bet if Galileo had the option of doing astrophotography, he'd jump at the chance.

Lastly, I've found that taking and processing an image helps me strive to see more at the EP. For example, just to the side and below the Trapezium in M42, there's an upside-down V-shaped series of dark spots that I hadn't noticed until I took my first astro CCD image. Once I noticed them in the picture, I was able to easily perceive the spots visually in a 155 mm apo.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #5543003 - 11/27/12 10:42 PM

"...the assertion that there is one or the other, this imaginary boundry layer..."

It's neither. Rather, it's merely an overwhelming preference for visual; most overwhelming.

Truth be told...shhhhh, don't tell anyone, but...

The first day I observed the sun with my new solar filter, I held my Minolta DiMAGE F100 to the eyepiece and snapped a few pics...

...but only because my family won't look at the sun otherwise.

"...however we choose to enjoy it"

I agree, as each and every individual is going to do precisely as they please, regardless of debate.

Cheers,

Alan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Sky Muse]
      #5543033 - 11/27/12 10:58 PM

Quote:

"Still curious... Why do you prefer visual?"

"Seemingly, casual, amateur astrophotography, as opposed to to that of the scientific community, amounts to little more than a brief, static, falsified increase in aperture, in that a camera attached to, say, a 5" f/6 refractor, collects more and more photons the longer the shutter is open, capturing on film what one would see live otherwise, in an instant, viewing through a much larger objective. Certainly many unfamiliar with the pastime upon seeing an astrophotograph believe that what they're seeing on film is precisely what they'd see when looking through the eyepiece. They look, and are disappointed. Of course, the photographer finds himself quite satisfied with the results, as he and he alone understands the difference. It's a very personal thing to the astrophotographer, and one which I fully understand; however...

I, personally, could never present my refractor as less than for what it truly is, which is why I am solely a visual observer, preferring live, dynamic views with my own eyes in the here and now. Besides, one could never duplicate here on Earth the photographs taken by the Hubble, or in future perhaps, those by the James Webb, if successful; the futility being just that.

We've all enjoyed on occasion viewing photographs of family and friends gone by, but they're only reflections and representations of who and what they were. Wouldn't you rather a "time portal" for observing them in their day-to-day lives, hearing their voices and watching them in motion, alive? Of course you would, especially the ones, during your own life, you had come to know and love. Home movies, photographs in motion, approximate the experience, but they wouldn't be the same, if said portal were in existence. Now consider...

Analogously, in your possession is a device, a "time portal" that will allow you to observe others alive still; said portal being, the refractor. When you view, say, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant, through your refractor, you see it as it appeared 640 years ago, and still alive, albeit at the point in its life where collapsing upon its core and then violently exploding outward into the void as a type II supernova is imminent, although in the distant future. However, there are those who believe that it may explode at any time during our own lives, its presence in the sunlit sky to be possibly far greater than those visible in 1054 and 1604 A.D....

...that is, barring an instantaneous, utter enveloping upon the event.

Not to worry, as the expanding Crab, another type II, is but a mere eleven light-years in diameter.

In short, which would be best upon the event: a static, regressive photograph, or a live observation?"

Cheers,

Alan




I'm certainly not arguing against visual work, but the visual remnant of an object viewed through a telescope lasts for a tiny fraction of a second. After that, you depend on your memory of what you think you saw to "revisualize" it.

I see nothing wrong with using a CCD camera to increase the number of photons any given telescope can present to its end user. The camera doesn't make a telescope artificially larger in aperture. The telescope is what it is. Instead, it is the limitations of the human eye that limits a telescope's apparent light grasp.

Once an image is taken, it is indeed static and in the past. So are visual observations.

I like visual work of comets, but stringing together a series of images of the comet into a movie adds another dimension to the experience.

Hubble-based images are impressive, but there's something positive to be said for striving to make astrophotography images of one's own.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Mike Clemens]
      #5543041 - 11/27/12 11:01 PM

Quote:

I would go back and forth between visual and photo a LOT more if I didn't need to disconnect my robofocus from the pinion and remove the field flattener and put the visual back on.. etc. To summarize... WHINE WHINE WHINE




Get another telescope!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sky Muse
sage


Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: De Soto County, MS
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: JJK]
      #5543064 - 11/27/12 11:27 PM

"So are visual observations."

Indeed they are, and why I observe visually again, and again and again...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: mikey cee]
      #5543121 - 11/28/12 12:23 AM Attachment (10 downloads)

Quote:

Jon....Oh I forgot to tell you that I'm also nuts because even tho' my wife had the Rebel in her little hands I never even thought of afocal. Actually the intense heat of the afternoon affected my good judgement. I was sweatin' like a stuck hog! Mike




This is what I was able to accomplish by hand holding my point and shoot camera up to the eyepiece...

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: JJK]
      #5543133 - 11/28/12 12:31 AM

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with using a CCD camera to increase the number of photons any given telescope can present to its end user.




There is nothing wrong with using a CCD, it is just a different experience that pure visual observation.

I do believe the most important thing to realize is that there are wide range of experiences possible in this hobby and that it is that particular experience each of us is after which drives us and guides us.

There is nothing wrong with using a CCD to prolong the image, to allow one to capture more photons. But at the same time, I am simply not interested, looking a screen or monitor is not something I want to do. A motor would make my bicycle go up the hills faster but I prefer the experience of doing it without a motor...

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mikey cee
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/18/07

Loc: bellevue ne.
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5543152 - 11/28/12 12:46 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Jon....Oh I forgot to tell you that I'm also nuts because even tho' my wife had the Rebel in her little hands I never even thought of afocal. Actually the intense heat of the afternoon affected my good judgement. I was sweatin' like a stuck hog! Mike




This is what I was able to accomplish by hand holding my point and shoot camera up to the eyepiece...

Jon


Dang that's what I could have done. Oh well at least I got you to post the best looking pick of that event I've seen thus far. Mike

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5543169 - 11/28/12 01:02 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with using a CCD camera to increase the number of photons any given telescope can present to its end user.




There is nothing wrong with using a CCD, it is just a different experience that pure visual observation.

I do believe the most important thing to realize is that there are wide range of experiences possible in this hobby and that it is that particular experience each of us is after which drives us and guides us.

There is nothing wrong with using a CCD to prolong the image, to allow one to capture more photons. But at the same time, I am simply not interested, looking a screen or monitor is not something I want to do. A motor would make my bicycle go up the hills faster but I prefer the experience of doing it without a motor...

Jon




Jon, I'm not suggesting you or anyone else change their preferred observing style. My comments were directed towards several others here who seem to misunderstand imaging. I fully understand the pleasure of observing with just a scope and an eyepiece.

I too was a visual only observer until last year. Until a few years ago, I also rarely bothered using the GoTo feature of my mounts (I used to star hop).

I converted to doing both visual and imaging work for several reasons. First, a friend needed help getting his CCD camera running, so I borrowed it one weekend and was struck by how much pleasure I got from the experience. Second, my eyes are starting to deteriorate, and I hope that viewing objects "live" on screen will prolong this hobby for me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: JJK]
      #5543962 - 11/28/12 02:14 PM

Quote:

Jon, I'm not suggesting you or anyone else change their preferred observing style. My comments were directed towards several others here who seem to misunderstand imaging. I fully understand the pleasure of observing with just a scope and an eyepiece.

I too was a visual only observer until last year. Until a few years ago, I also rarely bothered using the GoTo feature of my mounts (I used to star hop).

I converted to doing both visual and imaging work for several reasons. First, a friend needed help getting his CCD camera running, so I borrowed it one weekend and was struck by how much pleasure I got from the experience. Second, my eyes are starting to deteriorate, and I hope that viewing objects "live" on screen will prolong this hobby for me.






My eyes aren't the best and at 64 I am beginning to see some astigmatism in very large exit pupils... but they are holding up so far.

We do what we can do with what we have...

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5544510 - 11/28/12 08:33 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Jon, I'm not suggesting you or anyone else change their preferred observing style. My comments were directed towards several others here who seem to misunderstand imaging. I fully understand the pleasure of observing with just a scope and an eyepiece.

I too was a visual only observer until last year. Until a few years ago, I also rarely bothered using the GoTo feature of my mounts (I used to star hop).

I converted to doing both visual and imaging work for several reasons. First, a friend needed help getting his CCD camera running, so I borrowed it one weekend and was struck by how much pleasure I got from the experience. Second, my eyes are starting to deteriorate, and I hope that viewing objects "live" on screen will prolong this hobby for me.






My eyes aren't the best and at 64 I am beginning to see some astigmatism in very large exit pupils... but they are holding up so far.

We do what we can do with what we have...

Jon




I've dealt with astigmatism for many years (which is annoying), but another more severe issue seems to be knocking at the door. There's little doubt I'll need another visualization method to extend this hobby.

I think I'm going to request a do-over of my life, and this time demand that my eagle eyes last a lot longer.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
akoroves
super member
*****

Reged: 09/05/11

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: SAL]
      #5544527 - 11/28/12 08:51 PM

Becoming more and more about imaging for me.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #5544582 - 11/28/12 09:25 PM Attachment (7 downloads)

Quote:

Quote:

Jon....Oh I forgot to tell you that I'm also nuts because even tho' my wife had the Rebel in her little hands I never even thought of afocal. Actually the intense heat of the afternoon affected my good judgement. I was sweatin' like a stuck hog! Mike




This is what I was able to accomplish by hand holding my point and shoot camera up to the eyepiece...

Jon




Here's a shot taken during the recent Transit of Venus in H-alpha light (Lunt 100 Pressure Tuner OTA, Point Grey Research 2MP Flea3 CCD camera) from just West of Nashville, TN. The view through the EP was more striking.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Our refractors: for visual, or imaging? new [Re: JJK]
      #5544586 - 11/28/12 09:29 PM Attachment (7 downloads)

And an image of the recent solar eclipse taken near Grants, NM.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)


Extra information
29 registered and 47 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Scott in NC, FirstSight, panhard, star drop 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3921

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics