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?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
182 replies to this topic

#126 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,621
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 01 April 2016 - 07:56 AM

It is fairly hard to "dance in front of audiences" when the info (the main show material) is basic a static image updated infrequently.

People have to be creative to find the filler.  <-- This by itself can be an interesting topic to discuss.

 

re: Jupiter hit

 

That event is really a lucky find on lucky imaging (high spatial resolution, high frame rate, raw data, always stored and analyzed later on)

using the proper gear (planetary imager with raw data transfer and storage.

This is good for scientific study.  

I have seen the frame rate captured to be 10 to 100 frames per second to combat the seeing.

In one of the analysis, it indicates the entire event took 1003mS.  Yes, it is just "one second" short.

 

Video gears with in-camera body DSP processing/image smoothing, frame rate no higher than 30 frames (assume NTSC, no 3D-NR),

may not be noticed by the observer staring at the screen.  If captured thru video dongle, analog video encoding/decoding will further degrade.

<-- here I am not saying it's not possible but just sub-optimal.

 

Right gear for the right use is preferred.

I also have suspicion that an EAA style observer (I guess most of them anyway) probably will think it is just a noise from the video camera, PC compression artifact (mosquito noise),

or completely distracted by the NSN or YT channel chatting.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello



#127 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,390
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 01 April 2016 - 01:38 PM

Started another thread in broadcasting matter.

 

As fars as a few comments:

the equipment setup for most is very much different than how it is for DSO's, so much so that switching between the two is only done once if at all during a single broadcast.

True. However the subject of EAA includes more than just DSOs as I imply as a counter to any majority opinion.

Seems to me many have more than one piece of equipment in one's sig.

Maybe a clever set up of multiple rigs. Lunar and planetary EAA can be done on a simple non-tracking tripod.

 

Video gears with in-camera body DSP processing/image smoothing, frame rate no higher than 30 frames (assume NTSC, no 3D-NR),

may not be noticed by the observer staring at the screen.  If captured thru video dongle, analog video encoding/decoding will further degrade.

<-- here I am not saying it's not possible but just sub-optimal.

 

Right gear for the right use is preferred.

I also have suspicion that an EAA style observer (I guess most of them anyway) probably will think it is just a noise from the video camera, PC compression artifact (mosquito noise),

or completely distracted by the NSN or YT channel chatting.

My point is the narrow range of what EAA is/should be in one's mind does not represent all the benefit and range of what EAA is/ could be for many.

 

There are plenty of conspiracy theorists on youtube using EAA equipment to capture "UFOs that travel across the moon", "lunar waves", "alien space craft" in their night vision with recording device" that WOULD be aware enough to notice such scientifically beneficial material like the short lived Jupiter event.

 

"Amateur Astronomy" with regards to EAA in my expectation should have at least a subset out there that might capture these scientifically significant (Jupiter asteroid) finds along with their supernova captures in the live galaxy broadcast......

 

Yes, some broadcasts are dry and slow, but we are talking about Amatuer Astronomers fumbling with gear, not trained TV presenters

If people enjoy what they do, that is find.

 

However I'm not unaware of the standard of excellence that is demanded in some aspects in the EAA community, and it seems strange broadcasting is sometimes equivocated with EAA yet the artform of broadcast is thought as outside the scope of a need to perfect one's craft?

 

People go out of there way here to help "train" others in hardware use, software use, sky survey methods, filters and optics use..

AP'ers feel free to help "train" noobs how to develop their final artwork better....

Why would it not stand to reason that we would help be better "trained TV presenters".....for the sake of the field of Astronomy and EAA?



#128 Lorence

Lorence

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,267
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 01 April 2016 - 01:59 PM

C

 

 

As of the time of this message nobody has yet mentioned the Jupiter flash seen recently. I think that says it all.....

Well actually a few points at this worthwhile observation.

#1 The Jupiter event is posted on at least 4 other threads on CN, I don't see why EAA people have to live only in the EAA section implied by your expectation.


Of course many here don't acknowledge their is a part to astronomy other than DSOs.

That is fine, however I am glad for the planetary imagers  that capture live-video in the raw data without the explicit purpose of doing EAA.

Irony for sure.....

One would rather expect the EAA crowd to have seen this......

Especially with all the live broadcasting images that stay on the screen for minutes at the time with boring conversation like watching public access free cable tv.

 

 

Can you think of a more noteworthy EAA event that has taken place recently? It was reported by someone using EAA equipment not an eyepiece.

 

What I see is a view on a screen. Every topic in this forum is related to that view on a screen.

 

How the image gets to the screen is a fundamental premise of this group but it is the screen image that is what it is all about. What is the value of all the EAA equipment without the image?

 

You have to elaborate on this comment "I am glad for the planetary imagers  that capture live-video in the raw data without the explicit purpose of doing EAA."

 

Why are those planetary imagers capturing live video data? The explicit purpose of doing EAA is to view the data. If they are not viewing the data on some sort of screen what are they doing with it?  :)

 

I agree 100% that EAA people should not live only in the EAA section. The should be out there promoting what I believe to be the the most enjoyable and interesting form of amateur astronomy to come along since Galileo. There have been many EAA related comments on various CN forums and threads over the years. This one has always been one of my favorites.

 

http://www.cloudynig...-4#entry5142121



#129 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,390
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 02 April 2016 - 01:06 AM

Lorence,

Very noteworthy find in what could have been EAA, except by many's definition of EAA here, it wouldn't qualify.

To quote one:

"This is the time-lapse of processed images leading to the impact on Jupiter March 17. The original purpose of the imaging session was to get this time-lapse, with a happy coincidence of the impact in the second last capture of the night."

The other:

"The seeing was not the best, so I hesitated to process the videos," he wrote in his video description. "Nevertheless, 10 days later I looked through the videos and I found this strange light spot that appeared for less than one second on the edge of the planetary disc."

 

#1 workflow: they purposed not to experience the images at the time but intended (and none confirm they noticed at the time) to post-process the images in a way that would be heresy to most in CN EAA.

#2 their very statements would excommunicate them from this forum based on many CN EAA'ers statements throughout many threads here. How many quotes from EAA posters would satisfy you Lorence that many here would light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks against these post-processing blasphemers?

 

EAA'ers don't get to conveniently take credit for it with the same mouth that would condemn their process.

 

So Lorence feel free to start posting your time lapses here in EAA and post your videos recorded that you don't see until having looked at 10 days later here as well.

I could care less.

If you are having fun and want to call it EAA that's great.

Such sure is a more precise use of the term "Video" in Video Astronomy.

I'm a big fan of this.

 

If they are not viewing the data on some sort of screen what are they doing with it?  :)

You aren't really asking how AP'ers, including planetary one's, handle their data are you?

Are you saying every single individual in CCD and DSLR imaging forums count as EAA'ers?


Edited by t_image, 02 April 2016 - 01:15 AM.


#130 ChrisFC

ChrisFC

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2015

Posted 02 April 2016 - 06:57 PM

 

 

......

Especially with all the live broadcasting images that stay on the screen for minutes at the time with boring conversation like watching public access free cable tv.

 

How would you prefer it?

 

Commercial breaks? Dancing girls in the background?

 

Have you watched every broadcaster do a show?

Some are quite entertaining, like Doctor Dave in South Africa. His broadcasts are like watching a David Attenborough Special.

And I try keep people interested when I do my Southern Hemisphere Bus Tours across the Universe   :lol:

 

Yes, some broadcasts are dry and slow, but we are talking about Amatuer Astronomers fumbling with gear, not trained TV presenters  ;)

 

 

I'm told that some people find cricket and its commentators boring ...

Weird, oh well, I suppose it takes all kinds.

 

Chris



#131 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,390
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 02 April 2016 - 07:57 PM

I'm told that some people find cricket and its commentators boring ...

Weird, oh well, I suppose it takes all kinds.

 

Well, actually, I'm rather more fond of the tea break :biggrin:



#132 charotarguy

charotarguy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,301
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2014

Posted 02 April 2016 - 08:54 PM

 

 

 

......

Especially with all the live broadcasting images that stay on the screen for minutes at the time with boring conversation like watching public access free cable tv.

 

How would you prefer it?

 

Commercial breaks? Dancing girls in the background?

 

Have you watched every broadcaster do a show?

Some are quite entertaining, like Doctor Dave in South Africa. His broadcasts are like watching a David Attenborough Special.

And I try keep people interested when I do my Southern Hemisphere Bus Tours across the Universe   :lol:

 

Yes, some broadcasts are dry and slow, but we are talking about Amatuer Astronomers fumbling with gear, not trained TV presenters  ;)

 

 

I'm told that some people find cricket and its commentators boring ...

Weird, oh well, I suppose it takes all kinds.

 

Chris

 

 

Yeah with the advent of T20, the issue now is they don't shut up :blahblah:  :blahblah: !!


Edited by charotarguy, 02 April 2016 - 08:55 PM.


#133 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,042
  • Joined: 24 May 2007

Posted 03 April 2016 - 07:27 AM

And some folks like to watch grown men in silly outfits playing rounders, which was played by the girls in school when I was a lad thrilling. Yup your right. Nice warm day, deck chair, beer with an alcohol content and a one day test. It's what to do when it's daytime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm told that some people find cricket and its commentators boring ...

Weird, oh well, I suppose it takes all kinds.

 

Chris

 



#134 Lorence

Lorence

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,267
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 03 April 2016 - 04:03 PM

Lorence,

Very noteworthy find in what could have been EAA, except by many's definition of EAA here, it wouldn't qualify.

To quote one:

"This is the time-lapse of processed images leading to the impact on Jupiter March 17. The original purpose of the imaging session was to get this time-lapse, with a happy coincidence of the impact in the second last capture of the night."

The other:

"The seeing was not the best, so I hesitated to process the videos," he wrote in his video description. "Nevertheless, 10 days later I looked through the videos and I found this strange light spot that appeared for less than one second on the edge of the planetary disc."

 

#1 workflow: they purposed not to experience the images at the time but intended (and none confirm they noticed at the time) to post-process the images in a way that would be heresy to most in CN EAA.

#2 their very statements would excommunicate them from this forum based on many CN EAA'ers statements throughout many threads here. How many quotes from EAA posters would satisfy you Lorence that many here would light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks against these post-processing blasphemers?

 

EAA'ers don't get to conveniently take credit for it with the same mouth that would condemn their process.

 

So Lorence feel free to start posting your time lapses here in EAA and post your videos recorded that you don't see until having looked at 10 days later here as well.

I could care less.

If you are having fun and want to call it EAA that's great.

Such sure is a more precise use of the term "Video" in Video Astronomy.

I'm a big fan of this.

 

If they are not viewing the data on some sort of screen what are they doing with it?  :)

You aren't really asking how AP'ers, including planetary one's, handle their data are you?

Are you saying every single individual in CCD and DSLR imaging forums count as EAA'ers?

 

What is also noteworthy is there are  many definitions of EAA here. Some like me take an open minded attitude in that everything we do with the EAA style of viewing the sky is interesting. The Jupiter event is a good example of my attitude. It was presented to the world as a video therefor it is video astronomy. Others take a bureaucratic attitude. If it does not exactly fit the rules then, as you pointed out,  " light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks against these post-processing blasphemers."

 

How do you reconcile the those to opposing attitudes?

 

Knowledge is what opens our minds. Ignorance is what keep them closed. A simple test of EAA knowledge could be implemented.  A skill testing question need be answered before a message can be posted.

 

"How do you turn on a camera." That would cut down on the controversy. Unfortunately it would exclude newcomers and the people that make the rules.

 

If it were up to me the EAA description would read "This is EAA. We view the sky with anything but an eyepiece. P.S  You do not have to read every message here."

 

If it isn't obvious I'm a big fan of the "we view the sky with anything but an eyepiece." part.

 

Sadly, to the fans of "we only talk about viewing the sky" people like me are just trolls. 



#135 CA Curtis 17

CA Curtis 17

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 839
  • Joined: 13 Feb 2012

Posted 03 April 2016 - 05:00 PM

Lorence,

 

I often appreciate what you have to say, but whenever you revert to comments which imply that folks on this forum who disagree with you only talk about observing but do not actually observe, you loose me every time. Just adds to the controversy for no reason.

 

Best Wishes,

Curtis



#136 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,390
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 03 April 2016 - 06:02 PM

What is also noteworthy is there are many definitions of EAA here.

Agreed.

I wouldn't mind having more content that could be shared in video form, regardless of acquisition style. I realize video content hosting is another realm.

Less policing and more doing EAA whatever way you do!

 

Yeah with the advent of T20, the issue now is they don't shut up...

 

That gets me thinking.....

What if the cricket commentators would call and comment real-time on someone's EAA broadcast.

"and there he goes now (in a hush voice) ..."he is now finishing his polar alignment......" and wow, we are straight on to M_______"

"Now see here is a galaxy.........................."

 

^Allowing such  could then free up the EAA artist to focus on the object targeting and capture and need not distract oneself from talking during the broadcast.....

That would take EAA competitiveness to the next level!


Edited by t_image, 03 April 2016 - 06:10 PM.


#137 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,400
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006

Posted 05 April 2016 - 10:42 AM

 

What is also noteworthy is there are many definitions of EAA here.

Agreed.

I wouldn't mind having more content that could be shared in video form, regardless of acquisition style. I realize video content hosting is another realm.

Less policing and more doing EAA whatever way you do!

 

Yeah with the advent of T20, the issue now is they don't shut up...

 

That gets me thinking.....

What if the cricket commentators would call and comment real-time on someone's EAA broadcast.

"and there he goes now (in a hush voice) ..."he is now finishing his polar alignment......" and wow, we are straight on to M_______"

"Now see here is a galaxy.........................."

 

^Allowing such  could then free up the EAA artist to focus on the object targeting and capture and need not distract oneself from talking during the broadcast.....

That would take EAA competitiveness to the next level!

 

Wow, that really shows that you haven't had the chance to see many broadcasts. Some broadcasters don't know how to shut up   :lol:

Others do very professional shows. 

But we are in different time zones so we probably catch different broadcasts and watch different broadcasting websites.

 

Here's some I watch:

 

AstronomyLive

NSN,

Prime Focus,

Connectcast,

VAL,

Slooh,  

etc.



#138 jambi99

jambi99

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:20 AM

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...



#139 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,400
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:35 AM

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...

That's why it is in the 'Equipment' section, because it's supposed to be about the Equipment we use.

 

But I agree that the subject is far broader than 'Equipment'.  It is also about technique, objects to observe with our gear, broadcasting, Live outreach, etc.

Look at the popularity of the threads about 'Target of the Month'. They don't belong in an Equipment section. But thats where they put us   :fingertap:

 

This whole section belongs in the 'Observing' section, because that's basically what it is. If it's not Imaging, it's Observing. There's no other name for what we do.

On my Video Astronomy website I refer to it as 'Electronically Assisted Observing'.



#140 jambi99

jambi99

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posted 05 April 2016 - 11:46 AM

 

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...

That's why it is in the 'Equipment' section, because it's supposed to be about the Equipment we use.

 

But I agree that the subject is far broader than 'Equipment'.  It is also about technique, objects to observe with our gear, broadcasting, Live outreach, etc.

Look at the popularity of the threads about 'Target of the Month'. They don't belong in an Equipment section. But thats where they put us   :fingertap:

 

This whole section belongs in the 'Observing' section, because that's basically what it is. If it's not Imaging, it's Observing. There's no other name for what we do.

On my Video Astronomy website I refer to it as 'Electronically Assisted Observing'.

 

 

I agree that this section should belongs in the Observing section. Visual Observing -> Visual Assisted Observing



#141 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,582
  • Joined: 14 May 2009

Posted 05 April 2016 - 12:33 PM

 

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...

That's why it is in the 'Equipment' section, because it's supposed to be about the Equipment we use.

 

But I agree that the subject is far broader than 'Equipment'.  It is also about technique, objects to observe with our gear, broadcasting, Live outreach, etc.

Look at the popularity of the threads about 'Target of the Month'. They don't belong in an Equipment section. But thats where they put us   :fingertap:

 

This whole section belongs in the 'Observing' section, because that's basically what it is. If it's not Imaging, it's Observing. There's no other name for what we do.

On my Video Astronomy website I refer to it as 'Electronically Assisted Observing'.

 

I like that Ken - EAO.  



#142 Lorence

Lorence

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,267
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:14 PM

 

 

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...

That's why it is in the 'Equipment' section, because it's supposed to be about the Equipment we use.

 

But I agree that the subject is far broader than 'Equipment'.  It is also about technique, objects to observe with our gear, broadcasting, Live outreach, etc.

Look at the popularity of the threads about 'Target of the Month'. They don't belong in an Equipment section. But thats where they put us   :fingertap:

 

This whole section belongs in the 'Observing' section, because that's basically what it is. If it's not Imaging, it's Observing. There's no other name for what we do.

On my Video Astronomy website I refer to it as 'Electronically Assisted Observing'.

 

 

I agree that this section should belongs in the Observing section. Visual Observing -> Visual Assisted Observing

 

 

EAA, Live/Near Live, Visually Assisted. You can call it anything you want but it is nothing more than astronomical observing. We have evolved visual astronomy into what everyone who has ever participated in the hobby wanted it to be.

 

We point our telescope at an astronomical object and we can see the object. Think about it. For the first time in the history of visual astronomy we can really see what is up there. Not just the Solar System and a handful of bright Deep Sky Objects.

 

   No squinting and peeking out of the corner of our eyes.

   No fumbling around in the dark with a bag over our heads.

   No dark adaptation rituals along with the associated rage when a light is turned on.

   No diet supplements to improve vision.

   No misleading newcomers into believing long acquired observing skills will make a significant difference in the view.

  

We are observers that can actually see what we want to see. By default that make us the true observers.

 

I suggest the eyepiece observers adopt the title Traditional Observer and gracefully step out of the way of progress.  Between their failing eyesight and ever increasing light pollution they have little to see. Let them spend their time arguing about what to call themselves.

 

We succeeded in doing what the traditionalist could only dream of. We are the observers. We don't need to find a name for what we do. We simply inherited the title of Visual Observer.

 

As usual I expect my opinion to get a few noses out of joint but keep in mind I was a traditional observer for fifty years. In that time I was fortunate to use bigger and better telescopes than many and have had darker skies than most to use that equipment. I also acquired those special skills so often flaunted by some of the traditionalists.

 

I am an accomplished observer in both traditional and modern visual observing and am looking forward to a rebuttal.



#143 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,152
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003

Posted 05 April 2016 - 02:42 PM

I tried to propose a separate forum for EAA observing in the feedback forum, but I think it was taken as changing the equipment forum. I should follow up. Also not many really followed up, so it may not seem there is a need. I wonder if there is.



#144 jambi99

jambi99

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posted 05 April 2016 - 03:07 PM

 

 

 

Personally a better term would be 'visual assisted" which is even broader than EAA. I think the term visual make more sense because it is what we are actually doing and it exclude the medium used to accomplish what we are doing(equipment).  EAA or visual assisted , should be considered to be closer to visual observing than imaging. After all , Its about how we are using the equipment  and not what equipment we are using (the other way around).

 

What will happen if somebody come up with the new invention that use none electronic device ? Let say chemical eyepiece? You'll have to start it all over again...

That's why it is in the 'Equipment' section, because it's supposed to be about the Equipment we use.

 

But I agree that the subject is far broader than 'Equipment'.  It is also about technique, objects to observe with our gear, broadcasting, Live outreach, etc.

Look at the popularity of the threads about 'Target of the Month'. They don't belong in an Equipment section. But thats where they put us   :fingertap:

 

This whole section belongs in the 'Observing' section, because that's basically what it is. If it's not Imaging, it's Observing. There's no other name for what we do.

On my Video Astronomy website I refer to it as 'Electronically Assisted Observing'.

 

 

I agree that this section should belongs in the Observing section. Visual Observing -> Visual Assisted Observing

 

 

EAA, Live/Near Live, Visually Assisted. You can call it anything you want but it is nothing more than astronomical observing. We have evolved visual astronomy into what everyone who has ever participated in the hobby wanted it to be.

 

We point our telescope at an astronomical object and we can see the object. Think about it. For the first time in the history of visual astronomy we can really see what is up there. Not just the Solar System and a handful of bright Deep Sky Objects.

 

   No squinting and peeking out of the corner of our eyes.

   No fumbling around in the dark with a bag over our heads.

   No dark adaptation rituals along with the associated rage when a light is turned on.

   No diet supplements to improve vision.

   No misleading newcomers into believing long acquired observing skills will make a significant difference in the view.

  

We are observers that can actually see what we want to see. By default that make us the true observers.

 

I suggest the eyepiece observers adopt the title Traditional Observer and gracefully step out of the way of progress.  Between their failing eyesight and ever increasing light pollution they have little to see. Let them spend their time arguing about what to call themselves.

 

We succeeded in doing what the traditionalist could only dream of. We are the observers. We don't need to find a name for what we do. We simply inherited the title of Visual Observer.

 

As usual I expect my opinion to get a few noses out of joint but keep in mind I was a traditional observer for fifty years. In that time I was fortunate to use bigger and better telescopes than many and have had darker skies than most to use that equipment. I also acquired those special skills so often flaunted by some of the traditionalists.

 

I am an accomplished observer in both traditional and modern visual observing and am looking forward to a rebuttal.

 

Good for you.



#145 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,621
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 05 April 2016 - 08:27 PM

Regarding the "observing" aspect of this forum, ...

 

A few people in this forum like to say their equipment can go deep within a brief moment (with a fast scope.)

The popular EAA devices tend to be a derivative of security video camera (low resolution, high gain, and processed by the camera's DSP.)

 

Assuming this is a new style of observation and can go a different level, I'd pointing you to the "Deep Sky Observation" subforum

http://www.cloudynig...-sky-observing/

to see what topics have been in the existing discussion threads

and ask you all to visualize what topics can be said in a similar set up (a different forum though.)  

You may be surprised.

 

 

P.S. I hope it is not "my equipment can go mag 17 in 10 seconds!"  and some commented (yours looked blurred and partially saturated.) 

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 05 April 2016 - 08:30 PM.


#146 Lorence

Lorence

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,267
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2008

Posted 06 April 2016 - 01:52 PM

I tried to propose a separate forum for EAA observing in the feedback forum, but I think it was taken as changing the equipment forum. I should follow up. Also not many really followed up, so it may not seem there is a need. I wonder if there is.

Members of the CN Deep Sky Observing forum use a wide variety of equipment. Whether they use six inches of aperture or sixteen + makes no difference to them. All are welcome. 

 

Our equipment effectively doubles the aperture of a telescope. That was confirmed in the Deep Sky Observing group a few years ago when someone posted a few Mallincam images made with either a VSS or an Extreme on a C8. At least one visual observer with a telescope of sixteen inches + said he could see as much with an eyepiece as those posted Mallincam images as well as images he had seen on NSN.

 

The visual groups are not broken down by aperture size. Those with more aperture see more and that is perfectly acceptable to all. In that group an electronic eyepiece would simply put a user with a small aperture telescope on par with an eyepiece user viewing through a much larger telescope.

 

If there is no problem with a large aperture eyepiece observer being a member of the Deep Sky forum then what could possibly be the problem with another member using electronic eyepieces? I do not understand why people keep suggesting that electronic eyepiece users have to be segregated into separate forums? 



#147 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,152
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003

Posted 06 April 2016 - 02:33 PM

EAA is not only deep sky. Clearly we observe differently in a significant way to visual users. I'm not really thinking that a single forum best serves either community, I think it's ok to have a seperate EAA observation forum. Where do we have to discuss observing tactics and practices that are unique to what we do?

It's an interesting response, because in other posts you seem to hint at the irony of having only one forum for EAA users. Oh well, my post wasn't directed at you that you quoted anyways since you did respond in that thread. Maybe I read those other posts with my own bias.

#148 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,390
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 06 April 2016 - 06:06 PM

If I make Gen Obs with my EAA stuff, I post in Gen Obs.

If I get a good solar cap with my EAA stuff, I post in Solar Obs and Imaging.

If I get a good lunar cap/ob with my EAA stuff, I post in Lunar.

Once I do processing on my images, I'll post on DSLR.

If I have a DSLR question, I post on DSLR.

If I want to chat about what I've seen in planetary with my EAA stuff, I post on Solar System Obs and Imaging.

 

Where there are eyepiece users, I've never had an issue.

Even if I post a single frame in the astro imaging, there is no problem, they get I'm not stacking frames and asking for comments and criticisms yet from the AP side.

 

Was thinking EAA was the nearest to 30fps video obs that I do, but the Green side of EAA is more where my style seems to fit than many of the DSO live stackers.

 

But of course the EAA section alone encompasses more diversity that we could probably imagine--I know I can't as I don't own all the types of cams or scopes in use...

And all should be welcome!!!

For example:

I don't see how anyone using short exposures and manually switching filters and processing a little later should be so offensive to anyone here,

as LRGB AP imagers would be doing things different and using some different equipment.



#149 xrayvizhen

xrayvizhen

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 473
  • Joined: 19 May 2007

Posted 06 April 2016 - 09:55 PM

EAA is not controversial. What's controversial is that there are many people who post here who are in reality imaging but using what is theoretically EAA equipment.

 

To me, the entire concept of EAA, as I see how many here are describing it, is a misnomer and is entirely too broad a subject. It encompasses just about any type of “photography” from the camera as a substitute for a visual eyepiece to full blown imaging which, IMO EAA is NOT supposed to be. When I look in an eyepiece at any faint fuzzy and see basically nothing in my light polluted sky, but then if I mount a Revolution Imager (just using that as an example) and with a minimum of fuss and fiddling all of a sudden POW, there it is, THAT’s the kind of experience this particular forum should be supporting. 

 
So I’ll reiterate what I wrote 2 or 3 pages ago; anything with more than 7 seconds of delay between the time those photons end their long, long trek across the cosmos and enter my scope and then have their image appear on my monitor, that’s A.P. in my book and should be discussed in one of the astrophotography forums. THIS forum should be for live or near live viewing, as a substitute for visual observing.



#150 CA Curtis 17

CA Curtis 17

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 839
  • Joined: 13 Feb 2012

Posted 06 April 2016 - 10:12 PM

I am certain visual observers stare into the EP for much longer than 7sec to coax out more detail.  Must be A.P. since it s longer than 7sec.

 

Enough with the time limits!  Enjoy what you enjoy and let others do the same.

 

Best Regards,

Curtis




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