Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Mike. Video Astronomers are few in number as are Video Astronomy Forums. It seems to me that anything done with a Video camera would be of interest to most of the users of this group. Live viewing or imaging turned inside out by Photoshop.

It's not mandatory to read every message in every thread. Most of us are capable of skipping over a thread if it's not interesting.

Rather than some moderator enforcing the law why not leave it up to the users of the group to decide what is relevant or not.

From what I've seen none of the users have ever complained about thread content. No complaints = no moderation required.

---

and makes my job easier

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.

---

Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.

---

Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.

---

Gee, first off, it sounded like you proposing rules, to me.

Second, this is the friendliest forum on the internet. I've never seen anyone using "Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy" excluded or made to feel unwelcome.

Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?

And now, lastly, there's no "debating team" mentality here. AT least that I have seen. If someone take exception to something said, as I did to your wish to have "rules" about integration times, they'll state their case and let you respond. As I believe I did.

That's not a debate. Its simply expressing an opinion. The fact that it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it a "debate".

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if there's an excessive focus on particular technologies in many of these posts. Perhaps the distinction is really the amount of time required to capture and process the image that is presented to the viewer, not how it is accomplished.

I propose that the forum be devoted to "near real time observing" regardless of how any particular image is captured and that "near real time" be defined as two minutes or less.

Whether you use a little bird with a chisel etching the image onto a stone tablet or a 96 core video processor in an orbiting observatory, whatever you can produce in two minutes - I know that this is an arbitrary number, but it seems reasonable - qualifies.

I also propose that we not be too dogmatic about "near real time" as in, "Sorry your image took 2.0379 minutes. You're outta here."

---

Have you had problems keeping up with the number of posts here?

I find that on most days it doesn't take 5 minutes to read over the new content.

Lets not be making rules that cut down on the amount of information presented, which appears will be manageable well into the forseeable future.

---

Rules?? How do you infer that from my posting? That is actually the exact opposite of what I propose. Are you referring to the two minute rule? Fine. Make it three minutes. Make it three hours.

Reading through many of these postings, I was concerned that a lot of folks were feeling excluded on the basis of the technologies they were using. I suggest that it doesn't matter. The purpose of that posting was to focus on what, I believe, are the essentials of electronically assisted observing.

I believe that electronically assisted observing came about in response to a felt need -the ability to use CCD technologies to augment the telescope as an alternative to runaway aperture fever and to do so without the need to spend large amounts of time (define "large amounts of time" however you see fit) at a computer fiddling with the image. At least that's the reason I went in this direction.

I would hope that this forum exists to further the enjoyment of this type of observing which seems to have all kinds of detractors. I fully realize that this hobby attracts all kinds including, it would seem, those whose goal is to be captain of the debating team. To these I would say, whatever floats your boat.

---

Gee, first off, it sounded like you proposing rules, to me.

Second, this is the friendliest forum on the internet. I've never seen anyone using "Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy" excluded or made to feel unwelcome.

Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?

And now, lastly, there's no "debating team" mentality here. AT least that I have seen. If someone take exception to something said, as I did to your wish to have "rules" about integration times, they'll state their case and let you respond. As I believe I did.

That's not a debate. Its simply expressing an opinion. The fact that it doesn't agree with yours doesn't make it a "debate".

---

OK OK

You win.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

OK OK

You win.

--------------------
- Mike

---

That was a good response. (note - need to take forum lesson from ensign)



(if you read through the whole thread, you'll see why I need the lesson)

Edited by Vondragonnoggin (05/14/12 09:59 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Lastly, or next to lastly, I haven't noticed "all sorts of detractors" objecting to this type of observing. Am I missing something?

---

Mike would be referring to some of the folks in the Eyepiece Forum, who refuse to see V&EAA as a form of 'Observing', and some of the folks in the Imaging Forums who refuse to see it as any form of Imaging.

So we float along happily in our own Limbo

Post Extras: