62 replies to this topic

[avdhoeven]

I would like to make a stand for larger images or linked images. For example I will never submit one of my solar images at this moment because when I reduce them to 800x800 they will loose all granulation, so it becomes a big white bal. I think that should not be the goal of this rule.... I understand the idea to make equal competition, but make than a limit of 2000x2000 and 500k or so, so that more is possible...

[Charlie Hein]

Andre: Please have a look at the new site wide image posting policy. With this new technology in place, the end users themselves can now control the dimensions of the images they see on CN, so we no longer need to enforce a dimensional limit. You can go into your display preferences in "My Home" and remove any limitations in image dimensions or set your personal preference as you like.

However, we are still enforcing a 200 KB maximum file size limit (on a trial basis) for the reasons discussed in this earlier post. Because of these real usability issues it is pretty unlikely that we'll see a half megabyte limit on CN any time soon.

It bears noting that since the end user now gets to set the dimensions of the image they see (with a default of 800px on the longest axis), it may not matter what size your image is in actuality. Your entry could well be judged on the way it looks on the user's screen. This is another argument in favor of allowing links to "full size" versions of an entry. If links to "full size" versions are allowed in the contest then instead of the end user needing to go back into their display preferences to remove the scaling factor, they can simply click the link to launch a full sized version of the image that is not governed by the display preferences.

Charlie

[lacomj]

Food for thought...
Why is there a rule that says we must own the equipment we are using? What about those who use or borrow their club's equipment, or borrow a scope or camera from a friend (for example)? It seems that so many of the rules are arbitrary. What is the intent behind them? Are we trying to prevent entries from people who aren't "serious enough" to buy their own equipment (rhetorical)?

The more I think about this, the more I think most of the rules should be scrapped for the site-wide contest, and just let the best images win? The images should be both captured and processed by the entrant, but where the equipment is located, who owns it, or whether they rented time on a scope really seems far less relevant when we are actually looking for the best image site-wide.

Just a few thoughts.

[tjensen]

I don't like the idea of external links. Images to be judged should be the same dimensional size... upping the file size to 200 Kb is great though. 800x800 pixels is plenty big to judge. External links to show off the winner would be fine.

Definitely no pay by the hour online observatories. If the owner has been able to set up a remote observatory, then more power to him/her. I have a friend that has $65000 invested in astrophotography equipment. I don't have that kind of money. But it isn't the equipment... it's the skill you apply to it. I think the idea is to get the most out of what you have... and have fun doing it. If anything... subcatagories could be added... so the 2" Tasco isn't competing with the 16" RC.
Let's not get too caught up in the "competition side" Let's have fun, learn from each other, and enjoy each others work

[PGW Steve]

I'll jump in regarding the Rule #9 change. Due to injuries/disability from Iraq, I am not able to physically set up even my modest system. I have to have friends come over just to switch out OTAs. As the observatory becomes closer to reality, I will be doing none of the work on it. I will however be the one designing every part of it. Once a new (Goto) mount is acquired, someone else will be installing it on the pier, and turning the knobs as I direct for polar alignment. I have chosen not to participate in the contests due to this factor. It would be nice to be able to.

Thank you for your service I don't believe the rule should in any way prevent you from participating. I don't think there is an imager on here that wouldn't be honoured to come in second to you.

[Charlie Hein]

Okay folks, based on this discussion I think that it's time to put three rule changes to a vote...

• Strike Rule number 7 altogether and allow links to "full size" versions of the entry in this contest.
• Change Rule number 9 as follows: "You must be the owner or co-owner and sole operator of the equipment used to create the image/sketch. Doesn't matter what it is. 20" RC, ETX70, 2" Tasco or an 8" TMB. (ADD: Doesn't matter if the equipment is local to your location or remotely operated. No images from club owned equipment will be allowed.) No pay by the hour rent-a-scope images will be allowed."
• Change Rule number 10 as follows:"Entries must represent the work of a single individual. You must (REMOVE: setup and) operate all equipment yourself, capture all exposures (or perform any sketching) yourself and process the resulting entry yourself."

At this point the floor is certainly open to further discussion. I'm particularly interested in tweaking the wording and nailing down the intent of these changes before putting each change to a vote. If you are just coming into the conversation, please take a moment to review the comments that have been made so far.

In order to move this along (for example, the discussion on the rule change on remote operation has been out there for a few months now and I would really like to have the revised rules in place for the December submissions) I'm going to close the window for additional comments on Monday, 11/21 and post the polls based on what we have then. The polls will run for three days (ending on 11/24 at midnight ET) in order to give us some time to hold a run-off poll in the event of a tie in one or more of the polls. If run off(s) are necessary, they will run from 11/25 until 11/28 at midnight ET.

Charlie

[Jared]

I like it, Charlie. Takes care of situations where someone is physically not able to setup a scope. Allows people to present their work at its best (with the links). And allows remote observatories (for those lucky enough to have them).

[Charlie Hein]

I'm on board for most of the changes personally, but I'm not sure that I'm a fan of restricting images from club owned equipment. We allow folks who are "co owners" of equipment to submit images, this is in the rules already. This allows families and folks who are "co-op" owners of a remote observatory (under the rule change) to participate. You could make the case that a member in good standing of a club could be considered a "co owner" of the equipment the club owns. I'd certainly support that viewpoint as I don't see how it gives the club member an advantage over any of the other folks who would be considered "co owners" of the equipment they use.

Charlie

[Charlie Hein]

I just realized that with regard to rule #9, we have two changes to consider:

• "Doesn't matter if the equipment is local to your location or remotely operated."
• "No images from club owned equipment will be allowed."

These will be polled on separately. That makes a total of four "amendments" to the rules that we'll be addressing.

Charlie

[Charlie Hein]

Hi Folks,

The results of the four amendment polls are:

Remove Rule #7 (allow links to full resolution versions of entries)? - YES

Allow Remote Operation? - NO

Disallow Use of Club Owned Equipment? - YES

Remove requirement for contestant setup? - NO

I will modify the rules accordingly. Thank you so much for your consideration and participation.


Charlie

[alpal]

What has happened to the imaging/sketching competitions?

 

They used to be every month but there has been nothing since July.

[alpal]

What has happened to the imaging/sketching competitions?

 

They used to be every month but there has been nothing since July.

No reply after more than 2 years.

Edited by alpal, 15 December 2017 - 11:21 PM.

[WConde]

Do you allow more than one entry per contestant per month?