55 replies to this topic

[Tom T]

link

Please note the video will be available later today.

[JimP]

Very interesting Tom. I had heard something about this being available only to previous Denk customers. I assumer that was a rumor and has no basis in fact.

JimP

[bcuddihee]

Seems like a great product. It also seems like a natural to have a bino type attachment available with it so it can be mounted, for stability, on a tripod or parallelogram mount with a camera lens for the ultimate wide angle bino views.
BC

[Wes James]

Man... I guess I'd better start saving my coins... selling off guitars. Anyone wanna buy a nice Breedlove???? Any word on how long before a production model- available to the public will be?

[David Parmet]

Doug's a neighbor of mine. A week or so ago we tried the BiPH out on my 6" Newtonian. The views were amazing - I can see a lot from our location but I never thought I would see the North American, Swan, Triffid and Lagoon nebula from my backyard.

Note that the full moon was coming up from behind some trees and the some of the lights in my house were still on.

[DavidWasch]

I'm curious how the BIPH would work out with a hydrogen/alpha filter, as described in an article about the I3 by Lindy Williams on this site. It could be a killer combo for those of us who live under light-polluted skies (like almost all of us).

[Jeff Morgan]

Just when I thought my collection of astro-gear was nearing completion.

[Bradley B]

It is obvious that more and more of us will be dealing with light-polluted skies, so anything that could mitigate the effects of LP would be most welcome!

I hope this is not a dumb question, but does the BiPH work in conjunction with eyepieces, instead of (i.e., it provides its own magnification), or with its own (proprietary?) magnification assistance?

[highfnum]

tried it at AOS -- lots of fun

[Tom T]

Jim, AFIAK, that's not the case.

B Cuddihee, handholding was not a problem with the unit and the 105mm camera lens. It's very lightweight.

Wes, Doug said 60 days, that puts it around late September or October.

David, it works very well with the Ha filter. In fact there was talk of bundling it with one.

Brad, it does not work in conjunction with eyepieces - rather think of it as it's own eyepiece.

T

[longfocus]

And what about planetary performance? The Moon would cause blindness for real!! I think I'll keep my Denk binoviewer as the cost of double eyepieces has ruined me financially anyway (just kidding) and the cost of this "green goblin" doesn't tickle me much at all to be perfectly honest (not kidding).

If I want pictures, I can have these from the Hubble website in uber resolution, or on APOD.

[Tom T]

I tend to agree with you on the price - I think they'd sell a million of these if they could get the costs down to $1500 or so, unfortunately, the price of the components are - well, let just say - NOT inexpensive.

The tool itself is interesting tho. There were definitely times I prefer the naturally aspirated views, but that added capability the image intensifier gave was absolutely amazing. The ability to cut through light pollution will be more than worth the ticket for some folks.

[DavidWasch]

I see the price as reasonable, though it is out of my bracket, at present. For me, it compares favorably to the other option for real deep views: ccd photography. Here is a tool that provides much of joy of ccd, but without having to nearly as much time.

One thing I am curious about-- I know the BIPH will work great on nebulae and clusters, less so with galaxies. I have not heard how it works with comets. Would this be a good tool for comet hunters?

Thanks--
David

[Tom T]

Don't really know. I'm guessing yes, but

[Peter Argenziano]

Sounds OK... but it's probably not for everyone. Personally, I don't care for the green view that these devices provide. A while back Gary and I spent a good bit of time using his I3 in my 25. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to use one, and determined that it's not for me.

[kfred]

I would have to try one before I bought one.

Fred

[StarStuff1]

I predict that most people who try it will be hooked. Maybe not buy but will still lust.

[Tom T]

Sounds OK... but it's probably not for everyone. Personally, I don't care for the green view that these devices provide. A while back Gary and I spent a good bit of time using his I3 in my 25. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to use one, and determined that it's not for me.

I too tend to prefer the "naturally aspirated" views, but there's no denying that these: 1) allow you to see more than you would otherwise, 2) present a completely different version, and 3) cut through light pollution.

These is more appealing to me than something like the Mallincam because of the ability to use it in real time. Not only is it a live view, you don't need a tracking mount.

If at all possible, I would suggest a try before you buy approach with this - although honestly - that's not probably going to be all that possible. They ARE trying to get units around to the major star parties tho, so if you do that circuit, you just may get a chance.

T

[Glassthrower]

It's a neat idea, but it's a shame that such a thing is necessary for some observers. Until we can get light pollution laws with teeth here in the US, desperate observers will have to rely on light amplification gadgets.

[Michael Miles]

OK, is this thing better than a 3 minute, ASA 800-1600 exposure via a DSLR? Is it possible to photograph through the thing? Does it provide any advantage over a DSLR used with a color video monitor?

Michael

[JimP]

Since you are looking at the image projected on a screen what is the difference between this and a Collins I3 eyepiece with an adapter to let you use two eyes to look at the same screen?

JimP

[Tom T]

Two eyes. A bunch of accessories in the works. The bandpasses are different. The Collins is basically out of production.

[Larry F]

It's a neat idea, but it's a shame that such a thing is necessary for some observers. Until we can get light pollution laws with teeth here in the US, desperate observers will have to rely on light amplification gadgets.

There would have to be no lights anywhere to darken the skies enough to compare with the BIPH. We'd be back to the pitch-darkness of the 17th century, dark enough so that in downtown Seville Count Almaviva can mistake his wife for the serving-maid Susanna (Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro", Act IV). But if it were that dark, I'd never able to find the bloody focus knob on my scope much less anther eyepiece.

Like everything in our hobby, the BIPH can't do it all. It's better for some objects than others. It's monochromatic, which may or may not bother you. There's scintillation to a greater or lesser degree, which may or may not bother you. There are a few black spots on every tube, which may or may not bother you. It's expensive, which may or may not bother you. On the other hand, it triples your aperture and allows you to see things you've never seen before. The last time I saw the North American Nebula was with 7x50 binos from 9,000 feet in the pitch-black Colorado Rockies; Doug showed it to me from his driveway in suburban Westchester (maybe 150 feet above sea level and 35 miles north of Times Square) on a very hazy, very humid night, with a H-alpha filter in front of the cheapie 105 mm C-mount lens on the BIPH. It's hard not to be a believer. And the thought of it on a 30" scope!

I figure the conversation will probably go like this:

LARRY: I ordered a BIPH.
ELYSE: You're spending 4 grand on ANOTHER telescope thing?
LARRY: No, I'm saving $50,000 by not buying a 20" Meade.
ELYSE: Come on, that's not really saving. You're still spending $4 grand.
LARRY: But when you bought your mink coat you explained that you actually hadn't spent money, you saved thousands because of the discount.
ELYSE: [Glaring]
LARRY: [Reminder to self: buy some jewelry for her, too.]

[Tom T]

In my case, I've found it's distinctly better to spend the money for her first, and instead of all in one lump sum, spread it out over a couple months.

[Mogster]

Hmmm, quite tempted. This has to be the future of backyard astronomy.

If it worked on galaxies I'd be more interested though, it doesn't sound like its the complete package, yet.