Almost voted off the island!
Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:19 PM
Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:21 PM
I know it's a very abused quote but I think it applies here ... You can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner!
Ho ho ho
Or, as I believe Oscar Wilde said: "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:07 PM
Posted 23 December 2007 - 10:08 PM
I was also very surprised at the vehemence of some - who haven't owned/used a Mallincam - in claiming it "isn't visual", or other such feedback...
I was very skeptical at first - heck, I first started THINKING about MCHP back last February (just re-found my old bookmarks to some of those hreads!), and kept thinking - yeah, but it won't seem REAL...
I totally concur on NOT separating by make/model, and I also agree (conceptually - since I freely admit I have NO experience) that the Collins I3 belongs in the same realm/dimension - for now anyways!
If we codify the MAIN reasons and benefits that one would buy a StellaCam or MallinCam (or other equivalents), I would suggest they include (in my proposed priority order)
1) ability to penetrate most forms of light pollution - hence opening up a whole new realm of visual opportunities which otherwise would be missed. You can now view under situations simply not feasible prior to this technology... Every clear night, or smallest of suckerholes, are now available for pleasurable viewing!
2) ability to share the viewing experience with multiple people - in real time; parallel instead of serial. This is a huge boon for outreach amongst the "unskied masses!"...
3) ability to see far deeper (magnitude) than otherwise possible with any gear that is remotely: portable, affordable, usable in non SQM 21.9 skies! The easiest of EQ mounted 80's or 100mm's are now functionally equivalent to 20" scopes or bigger! (no not in resolution, per se, but in ability to SEE things!)...
4) "Imaging" - yes, you CAN image with these devices, but they are certainly NOT designed for that to be their primary use case... Way, way down the list is "capturing the images" via any mechanical mechanism. I can't speak for all, but I'm sure I speak for many, when I note that the reason that I took pictures of the screen were to try and capture how captivating the experience was. I already have imaging gear (STV, ST237, DSI Pro, DSLR), that will, someday, and with much more learning curve, yield much better details and clarity... But it still won't go as deep, especially under suburban, and semi-rural LP!
So, for all these reasons, I believe these devices ARE in fact primarily VISUAL in nature. And, as with many things, whilst they CAN be used for other purposes, they are primarily designed to "Assist the Visual experience"...
Again, I sincerely thank all the A's and M's for this opportunity for us to build a growing community of experience and enthusiasm around these devices, and look forward to what I believe will be our inevitable "promotion" above things like Gardening, Pets, etc...
Because of this MCHP, my new sign-off will now be:
Clear enough skies!
Posted 23 December 2007 - 10:48 PM
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:05 PM
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:06 PM
Nicely timed, sir!
Clear enough skies
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:17 PM
I'm tickled to be here with you fine folks as well. Hee-hee-hee!
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:18 PM
Actually, the I3 is an imaging device too (just to complicate your decision further)!
You're not looking at the actual object, but an electronic projection of the object on a small "phosphor screen" that is inside the eyepiece barrel!
I think that, right now, some feelings are a little bit hurt. There are those who feel we're being declared heretics and shunted off out of sight so that we don't offend the righteous true visual observer .
You're certainly right that this debate is similar to the DSC and GOTO debates of past years.
But today I see very few large scopes (none?) that do not have DSC's, if not GOTO as well.
I hang with some pretty hard-core visual observers and well-known traditional imagers and NONE have failed to be awed by the Mallincam Color images.
I think what is most frustrating is that there is such a
hue-and-cry from traditionalists who just don't know what they're talking about. And I don't mean that in a harsh way... just that I doubt that they have actually used one of these devices, yet are declaiming opinions based on ignorance.
Frankly, what business is it of theirs if we are enthusiastic for this new technology?
No one is trying to force it on them.
They don't even have to read the posts (no matter WHERE they are located on the forum) and they certainly don't have to agree!
Thanks for taking the time to hear from us and for making this forum available.
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:25 PM
We have the forum, where it appears is unimportant.
Posted 23 December 2007 - 11:27 PM
Posted 24 December 2007 - 12:02 AM
C'mon folks this thread is SO off topic of the main topic.
I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns, but let's move on to the main topic and let this drop...
Posted 24 December 2007 - 05:27 AM
I find this new technology fascinating. I think stacked video image, heck, anything this technology can do should be under the same heading. Saves us users a ton of time searching the board for viable info. I hope that's what this forum is about...the users.