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

NV Compared to Increased Aperture on M13

NV
  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:17 PM

that article was relevant 20 years ago.

Do you mean it was relevant 20 years ago because of the Collins NVD? Those Collins I3's used Gen 3 high spec tubes probably first in thick film, then autogated thin film tubes. They were relevant tubes back then and still are today. Even my 20+ year old thick film non-autogated tube sees the horsehead lump in my AT72ED and sees distinct outline in my 6" refractor. Cleaner view in my latest thin film nvd, but still both see detail.

 

Collins knew which were the important specs for astronomy. High SNR, low halo, low EBI, high resolution. I saw another post in another forum saying comparing a Collins to new filmless was like comparing an old win 3.1 computer to new computers or something like that, but that's just not accurate. Gen 3 Omni 3 enhanced all the way up to filmless can all see great detail in narrowband with low halo and EBI and resolution of 54 lp/mm and better, SN of 20 on up. The differences become more apparent in the fine detail and in configuration combinations of scope and filtering used.

 

I know the latest forum push is for filmless WP in mod 3 housings, but it sure doesn't take that to see the formerly unsee-able in heavy LP and in smaller scopes.

 

When I say configurations of scopes and filtering, I mean that you can have a new high spec WP filmless tube in an 6" F/8 scope running a 12nm filter, but if you pit a 6" F/4 with a thick film tube nvd running a 5nm filter, the old tube is going to get more detail on nebulae views, albeit with more scintillation present. It really depends on speed, filters, targets Ha content, scope size for native resolution, etc.

 

There is no single formula that works best for all views.

 

Oh yeah - if you didn't mean because of the Collins I3, then nevermind!

 

:D


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 26 May 2017 - 05:26 PM.


#27 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,947
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:04 PM

 Film cameras and Coulter Odysseys still work today too. Doesn't make them relevant to today's astronomer. These were still in the magazines 20 years ago. I ordered a Coulter 8" in 1999, still waiting!

 

The Collins was my introduction to NV years ago. Not knocking it. It's just didn't have  the same impact as the PVS7. 

 

The BIPH came and went a few years ago. It was relevant in its time, but now? 

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif


  • Vondragonnoggin likes this

#28 bobhen

bobhen

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,255
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 26 May 2017 - 07:24 PM

 Film cameras and Coulter Odysseys still work today too. Doesn't make them relevant to today's astronomer. These were still in the magazines 20 years ago. I ordered a Coulter 8" in 1999, still waiting!

 

The Collins was my introduction to NV years ago. Not knocking it. It's just didn't have  the same impact as the PVS7. 

 

The BIPH came and went a few years ago. It was relevant in its time, but now? 

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

The relevant point is that if the author of that article can get what he claims is about a fourfold aperture/performance boost out of 20-year-old NV technology, the newer Image Intensifiers should do even better.

 

Bob



#29 outofsight

outofsight

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,711
  • Joined: 31 May 2015

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:39 PM

Yesterday in post 10 I told the topic starter, MattJ, that I would try to look at M13 and give an objective comparison, boy do I regret that. When it's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, boy does that ever apply to some things in trying to compare some viewing equipment.

 

MattJ referred to this comparison of Obsession telescopes, probably a good start on comparing those scopes, but probably not a good comparison for people, in general, because of seeing, alone. Last night was a real PITA in terms of the weather and getting a chance to view, and then the seeing was atrocious. Jupiter, for reference purposes, looked more like a dull star, still one of the brighter ones where I live, but not its usual bright self. Different locations and seeing make comparisons hard.

 

http://www.obsession...scopes.com/m13/

 

So I'll take back everything I said yesterday, well not everything, I'll boost that magnitude difference to 7 or 8, and drop the images look the same reference (I should add, I've seen clusters that look like those images, but M13 sure didn't last night). Please take the magnitude difference with a large grain of salt, but it's not exactly untrue.

 

Here's my dilemma with a valid magnitude quantification, I realized this almost immediately last night, and fortunately GlennLeDrew already spelled it out in post 23; it's the invisible versus the visible. Or, for me, can I get to an acceptable image from where I'd have no image or an image not worth looking at. If you click on the link and look at M13 in the available pictures, and looking at the typical 8" or the 12.5" Classic and looking at the very outer edge of those and picking the faintest star you can see, I couldn't see that. 

 

With a regular EP in a 12", F/4.9 Newt, M13 showed up as nothing. It didn't take me long to realize that if I had a 24" scope I would still see basically nothing. 4 x 0 = 0. It would be basically nothing, an unacceptable image. With a PVS-7 there was an immediate acceptable image, but not as dense as any of the Obsession images. Then I got to thinking that those images are what you see under some nice conditions, if at all, and that they probably had some time exposure aspect to them, I don't know for sure.

 

Also, the NV is an EP, I can't just change magnification by changing my EP, I don't have any other NV of different native focal length. I should have just stuck with Ed(dgie) on "double the aperture" or anybody who said, "such comparisons are complicated." The problem with all such comparisons is that we'd have to be at the same place, at the same time, comparing as best we could. 

 

Now, why did I say magnitude 7 or 8, or 9 for that matter. Because I went from basically no image to a quite acceptable image, I don't know how to rank that accept to say that 1 compared to 0 . . . It wasn't really zero, but if you were a person who lacked knowledge, or if I set the scope up and pointed it to M13 last night and said, "Look at that," the reply would have been "look at what." It was as asymptotic to zero as anything I've ever found (as a matter of fact just finding it was my major achievement of the night, I knew a zenith goto might be a problem).

 

But enough of trying to quantify magnitudinal differences. Here's what I know for sure. If I doubled my aperture and got four times as much light, it wouldn't hurt but it still wouldn't show as well as one $1200 or $1300 PVS-7. Eddgie put out an ad for a PVS-7, he mentioned that it can help with light pollution. I barely knew anything about NV, though I did have a Gen 1 (probably really a Gen -5) device, you couldn't tell if it was on or off. I researched for a few minutes and talked to Eddgie and researched for a few more minutes and then said I'll send you some money and you send me that PVS-7. It's worked out great.

 

I strongly recommend regular telescopes first (so that you have something to plug your NVD into, kidding). However, if you live in bad light pollution, then you have to try NV or imaging. They both have their good points and bad points, if you want to see things right away, then it's NV. Imaging and NV can both be expensive. I'd say you can get into imaging cheaper to start with, but it can easily climb to as much as NV, or more. NV, probably about $1500 for a decent start, and add a few filters. They can both be complex or intimidating to the uninitiated, but NV gets the clear nod for simplicity and directness. They can both have focusing problems, not exactly news with any telescope stuff. Etc.

 

The magnitudinal or other differences, maybe hard to quantify and spell out. The real difference, immediate and awesome.


Edited by outofsight, 26 May 2017 - 08:56 PM.


#30 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 26 May 2017 - 09:24 PM

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

You may be on to something there....

 

moneyeyes.gif



#31 chemisted

chemisted

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2012

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:48 PM

 

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

You may be on to something there....

 

moneyeyes.gif

 

I submitted my article in February of 2016 and it was accepted over a year ago.



#32 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:11 AM

That's a long wait. Did you get any indicators they wanted to publish it sooner?

 

I haven't read it myself. Have you been a happy Collins I3 user for twenty years?

 

I only started about three years ago and it was a search for the BIPH or Collins I3 that led me here and discovering the PVS-7, then - PVS-4, NVD Micro, NVPS-10, Night Aide 1000, NiTek 1000, DN42 Multi, and AB Gen 2+ 25mm devices. Sadly the Collins I3 and BIPH were no longer available but it was very quickly I learned how to adapt these to telescope use and apply the proper filtering to make them sing in heavy LP. Some of my devices have similar tubes to Collins I3 and its a very powerful setup even with older tubes.

 

Quite a few here with mod 3 gain housing and new filmless tubes too.

 

I only saw posts from Carrol with her Collins I3 piece posting prior to a few in this forum about 4 years ago when I started researching.


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 27 May 2017 - 12:22 AM.


#33 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:29 AM

My hope would be the article and the new collaboration from TV and TNVC raises some awareness and acceptance as right now it is such a small percentage posting about experiences with NV gear and a lot of times met with hostility if posting in regular observing or equipment forums.



#34 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,101
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 27 May 2017 - 01:47 AM

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

lol.gif Now that is a funny conspiracy theory.

 

TeleVue is only selling an adapter. It would appear they lack the in-house expertise to acquire intensifier tubes and turn them into Green Label finished product. I may yet be proven wrong on that, but right now they are definitely on the Outside looking In.

 

Assuming they understand the impact of NV, they would have to hate it - it just sucks the oxygen out of the need or desire for large conventional eyepiece sets.

 

NV vs. Conventional is not an either/or choice and both have their place. But when you realize that 80% of your observing time is spent with the NV eyepiece ... time for thinning the conventional herd.

 

How many of us have (or are planning on) re-allocating our time and resource allocations after getting NV? Pretty much everyone here I would guess.



#35 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,947
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:52 AM

Congrats!
My post was in not intended as criticism of your equipment or observing. It just seems to me that despite Collins being an advertiser for many years, the magazine made no effort to report, review , or investigate night vision in that time frame
 

If they did , please correct my assumptions. 

 

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

You may be on to something there....
 
moneyeyes.gif

 

I submitted my article in February of 2016 and it was accepted over a year ago.

 



#36 chemisted

chemisted

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2012

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:09 AM

That's a long wait. Did you get any indicators they wanted to publish it sooner?

 

I haven't read it myself. Have you been a happy Collins I3 user for twenty years?

 

I only started about three years ago and it was a search for the BIPH or Collins I3 that led me here and discovering the PVS-7, then - PVS-4, NVD Micro, NVPS-10, Night Aide 1000, NiTek 1000, DN42 Multi, and AB Gen 2+ 25mm devices. Sadly the Collins I3 and BIPH were no longer available but it was very quickly I learned how to adapt these to telescope use and apply the proper filtering to make them sing in heavy LP. Some of my devices have similar tubes to Collins I3 and its a very powerful setup even with older tubes.

 

Quite a few here with mod 3 gain housing and new filmless tubes too.

 

I only saw posts from Carrol with her Collins I3 piece posting prior to a few in this forum about 4 years ago when I started researching.

I have read and enjoyed quite a few of your posts. S&T really does plan quite a ways in advance and it actually makes perfect sense to run an article on globulars in this issue as they will be up for viewing over the coming months.  I am a retired professional chemist and all the journals that I dealt with took a similar amount of time from submission to publication.  As for the Collins I3, it has been a joy for the last 15 years.  When I talked with Bill Collins he made it very clear that he was exceptionally picky on the tubes he put into his eyepiece.  For the one that I purchased he said he went through a couple of dozen tubes before finding mine which he characterized as one of the best of the time.

 

You really should try to find and read my article.  Yesterday I saw that it was in my local library so you might try there.  I don't know if the issue is on the news stands yet.


  • thoreavian likes this

#37 chemisted

chemisted

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2012

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:22 AM

 

Congrats!
My post was in not intended as criticism of your equipment or observing. It just seems to me that despite Collins being an advertiser for many years, the magazine made no effort to report, review , or investigate night vision in that time frame
 

If they did , please correct my assumptions. 

 

 

Here's the rub: the decide to run an article on NV now??? I believe only because as a  direct result of Televue's involvement this year and demo at NEAF.  I'm a little dubious  fingertap.gif

You may be on to something there....
 
moneyeyes.gif

 

I submitted my article in February of 2016 and it was accepted over a year ago.

 

 

 

Thanks and, no, I didn't mind your comment at all.  It appears that you haven't actually read my article as I clearly mention that S&T reviewed the Collins I3 in 1999.  In talking with Bill Collins when I purchased my eyepiece I got the distinct impression that his biggest difficulty was the expense associated with the technology. That was true then and is probably still true today.



#38 shams42

shams42

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,719
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kingsport, TN

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:36 AM

I've stopped by local bookstores a few times now looking for the July issue. So far it has not been on the shelves. I'm really looking forward to reading it. 



#39 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 26,557
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 27 May 2017 - 09:35 AM

 

 

 

  In talking with Bill Collins when I purchased my eyepiece I got the distinct impression that his biggest difficulty was the expense associated with the technology. That was true then and is probably still true today.

 

I think that the expense is partly an issue, but the growing number of people using NV is testament to the fact that cost is not an overwhelming obstacle.

 

One must remember that peak readership of these magazines was before the day of the internet, and total subscriptions were probably never huge (though perhaps more than there are members on CN) and this kind of thing could have slipped by.

 

Today, the concerns we hear are always the same:

 

  • You are not really looking at the sky, just a picture of it
  • Its so complicated with all of the adapters and modifications 
  • The apparent field of view is only 40 degrees
  • You can't change eyepieces
  • Everything is green
  • There is a lot of noise
  • It isn't very sharp
  • It costs too much
  • It doesn't work as well on galaxies

 

Now of course people using them know that almost everything above is either not true or is way overblown in proportion to the benefits, but these are still the things we hear.

 

And of course many of these items are just do to ignorance.   For example, White Phosphor can make a very natural looking view, and C mount devices require only one part that screws on to make them work with a telescope.

 

We are trying to dispel the incorrect assumptions and assure people that things like the 40 degree apparent field go by almost totally unnoticed, but there will be many that see things like this as making it totally unacceptable.

 

And that is fine by me.  I really don't care what people buy or don't buy, but as with all equipment in astronomy, as a member of the community, I think it is in their best interest to share NV as an important option that often addresses many of the serious concerns people commonly post about on CN:

 

  • I can't see anything from my light polluted yard
  • I want a bigger telescope but I am afraid of the effort of dealing with it
  • I want to be able to see the Horse Head Nebula
  • I want the ultimate grab and go telescope

 

And many more.

 

I offer it only as an alternative in the exact same way that someone trying to turn a C8 into a wide field telescope gets the suggestion to buy a dob. 

 

It is a fantastic way to solve many problems and to offer an insight into the universe that is not easily achieved in real time in just about any other way. 

 

I am not on crusade to get people to buy NV.  As a community member though, I feel as though it is incumbent on me to bring this option to their attention when I know it will solve an issue they are dealing with. 


Edited by Eddgie, 27 May 2017 - 10:39 PM.

  • Rickster and Adger like this

#40 Rickster

Rickster

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,272
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2008
  • Loc: NC Kansas Bortle 3 SQM 21.8+

Posted 27 May 2017 - 12:53 PM

Excellent synopsis Eddgie!




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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: NV



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics