Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

What is it about EAA that is so controversial?

  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#51 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 20 February 2016 - 11:34 AM

The reason I focus my efforts here is because I have limited time to spend and felt that it's best used here. That said, things have gotten better for the most part and I think it's time for us to start spreading the word about what's possible. Here's a thread I tried to start. Of course I could have replied myself, but I think it would be helpful if there were others that contributed.

 

http://www.cloudynig...ndividual-level

 

Also the beginner forum and general observing and astronomy forum are good places to have discussions.

 

Lastly I still believe we need our own section called electrotelescopes (or whatever is appropriate) with sub forums for equipment and observing etc. because it's a new concept. CN can be a place to drive this innovation...

 

Realistically right now people only consider two modes Visual with eyepieces and Astrophotography with cameras, those are the only two possibilities talked about almost all the time. Getting people to realize there is a third option is going to take more effort than just some elegant posts in an obscure sub forum.



#52 Herr Ointment

Herr Ointment

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2011
  • Loc: North of 64

Posted 20 February 2016 - 10:19 PM

This forum has lost a few posters that I considered truth tellers or truth seekers and the place suffers their absence.

 

Getting to the bottom of things may be upsetting but it is valuable and that search seems to be a point of contention.

 

That said I'd add that this sub-forum, no matter what you call it, is essential if you want to follow the rapidly evolving landscape of charged particle based backyard amateur astronomy. The folks here do a fine job and are generous with their time and knowledge. They can't seem to do anything about the eternal cloud cover over my house though.


  • Bob S. and Spaced-out like this

#53 39.1N84.5W

39.1N84.5W

    He asked for it

  • *****
  • Posts: 3755
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2006
  • Loc: cincinnati

Posted 21 February 2016 - 08:02 AM

So can we change the forum to Charged Particle Astronomy? This has a nice Star Trek ring to it.
Engage.

Edited by Nick Lloyd, 21 February 2016 - 08:03 AM.

  • Juan Rayo likes this

#54 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 21 February 2016 - 11:31 AM

thread is a year old lol. after all this time I think electrotelescopes is the appropriate tittle assuming it becomes an agreed upon name.



#55 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 21 February 2016 - 01:04 PM

I'm all in favor of CPA!
  • Relativist likes this

#56 mindshare

mindshare

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario Canada

Posted 22 February 2016 - 03:38 PM

Anyone know what EAA stands for? Not everyone. When I was directed to this forum I too was wondering why call it Electronically Assisted Astromomy?  Why not AstroVideo? Make it dumb proof so that people  can be directed to what they want - like Astro-Video posts! EAA sounds like it's for old school people who don't know what AstoVideo is!!!!


  • 39.1N84.5W and Spaced-out like this

#57 Doug Culbertson

Doug Culbertson

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7455
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2005
  • Loc: N. Florida

Posted 22 February 2016 - 03:45 PM

Anyone know what EAA stands for? Not everyone. When I was directed to this forum I too was wondering why call it Electronically Assisted Astromomy?  Why not AstroVideo? Make it dumb proof so that people  can be directed to what they want - like Astro-Video posts! EAA sounds like it's for old school people who don't know what AstoVideo is!!!!

 

Because some of us use night vision rather than using video cameras. EAA was named that to include all forms of EAA.


  • nytecam and bandhunter like this

#58 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 22 February 2016 - 03:59 PM

As a reminder, most people not in astronomy hobby won't know or truly understand many of terms we might take for granted, like 'reflectors', 'refractors', 'cats & casses', 'binoviewers' and even 'eyepieces'. That doesn't disqualify a term we might choose to use. I think simply 'electrotelescopes' is the simplest and most defensible term available (forgoing the likely more technically correct 'optoelectrictelescopes').


  • roelb likes this

#59 t_image

t_image

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2982
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 22 February 2016 - 06:24 PM

What's wrong with controversy?

We even argue about what to call it (EAA)! :slapping:

Who thought the thread would turn into campaigning for a new term because the letters EAA are so controversial:)

 

But I'd rather have excited exchange of ideas than some 'there is only one way of doing things......"

 

Also, I mostly don't use a telescope (camera lenses instead),

so anything with the word astronomy is more proper.

 

I get how we are so focused on equipment-by definition of the restriction of CN,

but Eddgie is right that we can do DSO, General astro, solar, lunar, planetary........

It's weird if we only identify ourselves by our equipment instead of what we do,

even if there are clouds more days than not and we devolve into talking about equipment rather than what we are using the equipment for.


  • Juan Rayo likes this

#60 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 15169
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 22 February 2016 - 06:42 PM

There is nothing wrong with EAA, in fact it's pretty cool to achieve some fine images in short order and maybe beyond what is visible due to our own acuity. It certainly seems easier to observe more difficult objects in greater detail. And EAA may be the way to go in light polluted skies and preferred over filters and long trips to dark skies. I simply prefer the challenge of the hunt, teasing out faint and difficult detail, with my own two eyes in workable skies. 

 

Just dawned on me, though. EAA can achieve brighter images in short order relative to visual observing over longer periods to see less - less bright, less easily. However, I am not sure the monitor can offer the thrill of teasing a faint spiral arm, nor will a monitor allow us to really dig deep into the image allowing us to do so. I mean, can you apply observing techniques to a monitor in the same way we can to the raw image on the focal plane?

 

No controversy, it's just observing preference. Applying those observing techniques and succeeding is where the fun challenge is, for me. But, you bet, I'd probably get a kick out of a bright real time image of celestial splendor. For now, EAA is cool, but it's not for me. Maybe someday it will be. 


  • MartinMeredith likes this

#61 mega256

mega256

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: N of Tampa

Posted 22 February 2016 - 08:22 PM

OK.....gotta say something......he he..

 

I truly think a more simple name than EAA or anything else could be

 

**********LIVE IMAGING*****

 

And yes I "think" it covers the night vision also,,its just a small tiny  monitor...lol....

 

In the next year or so  We all will be putting our one eye optic glass's on..........(lcd type)..That will make it feel live.

 

(BTW  using a term like above may atract many more..)



#62 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 22 February 2016 - 09:05 PM

IMAGING??? Where's my pitchfork?! 


  • OC Telescope and Astrojedi like this

#63 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 22 February 2016 - 09:35 PM

I agree were not imaging, imagers have way more patience and much different goals. This about this, even sketching can benefit from using electrotelescopes.  Also, just because someone is using something with a small objective (like a camera lens) they are still using what can be argued as a small telescope.



#64 39.1N84.5W

39.1N84.5W

    He asked for it

  • *****
  • Posts: 3755
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2006
  • Loc: cincinnati

Posted 22 February 2016 - 10:16 PM

"Live imaging" is different than "imaging".

It's all astronomy to me.
  • Relativist and SonnyE like this

#65 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 22 February 2016 - 10:37 PM

FYI, I put in my feedback here, those interested may want to chime in.



#66 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 18680
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 22 February 2016 - 11:03 PM

IMAGING??? Where's my pitchfork?! 

The torches went out ... I'll re light them.



#67 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 22 February 2016 - 11:19 PM

Here's some suggestions:

  • Bitaging
  • Digionomy

  • OC Telescope likes this

#68 CA Curtis 17

CA Curtis 17

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 802
  • Joined: 13 Feb 2012
  • Loc: California

Posted 22 February 2016 - 11:29 PM

Frankly I don't see why the concern over the term "imaging" as that is exactly what we do with video cameras and night vision.  We create an image on a screen which we view.   I'm not suggesting a new name for this forum, but it gets me when some seem aghast when the word "imaging" creeps into what we do, but that is exactly what we do.

We may not capture the image, but we do create them and view them in short order which I would call "live".

 

Regards,

Curtis 


  • Robrj likes this

#69 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 22 February 2016 - 11:39 PM

For me I simply feel its not descriptive enough, imaging applies to a lot of activities.



#70 Censustaker

Censustaker

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 23 February 2016 - 12:34 AM

It's all cromulent to me
  • 39.1N84.5W likes this

#71 MartinMeredith

MartinMeredith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015

Posted 23 February 2016 - 03:10 AM

There is nothing wrong with EAA, in fact it's pretty cool to achieve some fine images in short order and maybe beyond what is visible due to our own acuity. It certainly seems easier to observe more difficult objects in greater detail. And EAA may be the way to go in light polluted skies and preferred over filters and long trips to dark skies. I simply prefer the challenge of the hunt, teasing out faint and difficult detail, with my own two eyes in workable skies. 

 

Just dawned on me, though. EAA can achieve brighter images in short order relative to visual observing over longer periods to see less - less bright, less easily. However, I am not sure the monitor can offer the thrill of teasing a faint spiral arm, nor will a monitor allow us to really dig deep into the image allowing us to do so. I mean, can you apply observing techniques to a monitor in the same way we can to the raw image on the focal plane?

 

No controversy, it's just observing preference. Applying those observing techniques and succeeding is where the fun challenge is, for me. But, you bet, I'd probably get a kick out of a bright real time image of celestial splendor. For now, EAA is cool, but it's not for me. Maybe someday it will be. 

 

Its great to hear this kind of view expressed. In fact, I try to make my own use of EAA quite similar to what you're describing for visual here. Most of the time I like to hunt very faint objects and sometimes they're not easy to find, but rather than dialing in the coords directly, I prefer to star-hop (on screen) from a nearby object. Some of these jumps can be quite long but are nearly always interesting and I often get distracted on the way by graceful curves of stars, optical double and triples, background galaxies and the like. Then having found the object, which is usually so faint that it can't be seen in a short 'star hop' type exposure (so I rely on the stellar configuration), I like to stack short exposures so that the object (often a galaxy cluster) starts to appear very gradually. This approach is really fascinating for things like the Shakhbazian groups, the majority of whose components have no listed magnitude but are in the range 18-21. There can be anywhere from 5-54 member galaxies popping into view one after another, and comparing them 'live' to a suitable chart is really exciting. 

 

One of my favourite books of recent years is Harrington's Cosmic Challenges and I think it was seeing the Abell groups near the back of the book that first got me interested in digging as deep as possible. I think it is the nature of all observers to challenge their equipment and abilities and patience, and we can also do that in EAA. I'm not saying all EAA is like this, but it can be if we so wish, and it is a case of pushing back the magnitude limits where we find an exponential increase in viewable objects at the limits of our kit.

 

Martin


  • nytecam, Asbytec and AllanDystrup like this

#72 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 15169
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:35 AM

You know what would be totally cool with real time, live imaging. Put on a set of goggles and look into the sky and get a virtual 3d experience projected in front of you. You could have a high res live camera that knows where your looking. GPS is already deployed, just tap into it.

 

You can zoom and - importantly - observe with it. It keeps track of the celestial objects, look toward jupiter (which you'll see in the wrap-around heads up display out of the corner of your eye), and Jupiter is right in front of you. Then click zoom to check it out in real time. Seeing and all...no, wait, no seeing! 


Edited by Asbytec, 23 February 2016 - 04:36 AM.


#73 t_image

t_image

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2982
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 23 February 2016 - 05:59 AM

You know what would be totally cool with real time, live imaging. Put on a set of goggles and look into the sky and get a virtual 3d experience projected in front of you. You could have a high res live camera that knows where your looking. GPS is already deployed, just tap into it.

 

You can zoom and - importantly - observe with it. It keeps track of the celestial objects, look toward jupiter (which you'll see in the wrap-around heads up display out of the corner of your eye), and Jupiter is right in front of you. Then click zoom to check it out in real time. Seeing and all...no, wait, no seeing! 

You mean:
http://www.fddb.org/...he-oculus-rift/

with stellarium mount control,

mated with this:
http://www.cloudynig...c-viewing-r1702

 

as an overlay mated with VR googles that you can view your phone with (like google cardboard)....

Since many DSLRs can stream a live feed to your phone via wifi.......

 

technology is already here.

 

I thought about googles for bino viewing at night (as an easier solution to imager LP when sharing a sit with visual club members)....

but the thought of looking at a bright display that close to my eyeballs in a completely dark environment doesn't seem the best.....

 

Looking into the electronic view finder of my a7s (my electronic monocular), I guess the II (night vision) crowd deals with this....

at a dark site momentarily I can live with (snow-blinded after for a bit)....

but the immersive thought...

 

Maybe if you are sitting in your living room while your observatory outside is doing all the work.....



#74 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 15169
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 23 February 2016 - 08:24 AM

Yea, like that. :lol:



#75 AtmosFearIC

AtmosFearIC

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 936
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Melbourne

Posted 02 March 2016 - 07:12 AM

This may come across as a bit controversial but I personally believe that the intent is 9/10ths of the law. A few weeks ago (over a newish moon) I took some of my friends up to my dark site with my imaging setup (130mm refractor and QHY9) and an Orion 12" Dob. Got there at dusk, I set up my imaging scope while the others started a small camp fire to boil some water and make some tea. Sunset was like near 9pm btw.

 

Come about 11pm my imaging scope is all ready to go, haven't even touched the dob which I only brought two weeks earlier and didn't have any way of really collimating it. So I figured I would start by giving my friends a tour using my imaging scope; processing was pushing the Digital Development button in MaxIM DL, so less than 1s of processing.

 

With there having been a new supernova in NGC 5128 that we would not be able to see visually (due to sub par collimation on the dob) I took a 30s exposure so show them the most recent supernova.

 

After that I went to M42 to show the core with a 1s exposure which bought out the E&F stars.

 

While showing some of the inner parts of M42 on my laptop (and a 10 hour full colour version on my iPhone to compare) I had the camera taking a 60s Ha of the Horsehead Nebula, something else that we wouldn't be able to see very well with the dob.

 

Then it was onto the Rosette for a 60s Ha and explained what it was that we were looking at.

 

From there I moved over to the Antennae Galaxies with a 5s and then 60s exposure to show the vast difference that it makes. Then I started a 1200s exposure so we could make another cup of tea and I put the dob together so we could do some observing.

 

Now to some, what I did would mostly be considered imaging, especially with a 1200s guided sub. The point of that was more than anything to go deep and show the tidal tails of the two interacting galaxies. Let's face it, that is pretty awesome. 1200s was good for me because I knew in 20 minutes I could get my 12" dob together and doing a reasonable GoTo job. Tried collimating with a pinhole and a torch... Not so good! Anyway...

 

As I mentioned in my opening, I really believe that the intent is what is important to bring a distinction between what is and isn't EAA. I picked different exposure times and filters depending on what I was wanting to show my friends. I did eventually spend the rest of the night imaging the Antennae Galaxies but that wasn't until we started spending some time physically viewing the universe through a warm poorly collimated dob hehe

My point being that I personally do not see an issue with using a cooled CCD imager for showing the night sky. My QHY9 may have 12s downloads but that doesn't really matter when I am showing off one image while another is being taken anyway. What difference does it make if I take a single 60s exposure rather than 60x1s exposures with a small very low RN "video camera", I have something along the lines of the Atik Infinity or the ZWO174.


  • HxPI, roelb, MartinMeredith and 2 others like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics