197 replies to this topic

[elpajare]

This seems like a dialogue of the deaf.

 

What we ask some of us, is simply that some moderator / administrator of this magnificent forum leave us a site to publish this type of astrophotography which is what is known as Video Astronomy / EAA or as you wanted to call it without any other restriction that the duration of the exhibitions/integrations.

 

The option of a tag in the CCD / CMOS astro camera imaging & processing forum will not cost much and we would leave the EAA forum for electronically assisted visual observers.

 

No rule will broken and we would all be happy

 

Except there are reasons that I don't know make it completely impossible

[CharlesC]

I does seem the EAA rules are trying to find a happy medium, but suffering whiplash in the process.

There used to be an unofficial 2 minute rule before stacking existed for video cameras and post processing was limited to brightness/contrast.

Then CMOS cameras came out and rules whiplash to no exposure limit, but zero post processing which got rid of some folks.

Now unlimited exposure has been abused and rules whiplash to 5 minutes which will get rid of some folk.

IMO, a happy inclusive medium would be; 20 minute max, post processing limited to; brightness/contrast/stretching .... but that's just me.

[dr.who]

Mr. Administrator:

 

I welcome you to clarify things this way.

 

1.- Recognize that using the EAA technique and processing images is a form of Astrophotography

2.- It is advisable to buy more expensive equipment and enter the Astrophoto field if we want to improve our results as astrophotography

3.- They will not allow to post processed photographs taken with the EAA technique in the EAA forum

4.- Offer to create an EAA tag in the astrophotography forum

 

Well, do it now, please!

 

 

No.
No. See what I said about modest equipment above.
Yes.
We will discuss such a creation. Until then post your long exposure images there but do not include a observing report.

In summation you are voting for the closure of the EAA forum. So noted. Thank you for your input.

 

 

Mr. Administrator:

 

1.- Points 1 and 2 (are your exactly words translated with Google) have been proclaimed by you in this Thread. Are you retracting?

2.- Do not get me wrong, please, I am not in favor of closing this EAA forum, I am simply looking for an alternative within CN to be able to publish my EAA works without disturbing anyone.

1 - No. Addendum to my original answer since either Google didn't translate it correctly or you are not understanding what I am saying: EAA has never been seen as AP specific or as a form of AP. It has always been about engaging in observation using Electronic Assistance via analog and (now predominantly) digital devices. So again, no EAA is not meant to be EA. 

 

2 - Thank you for the clarification. The alternative, if you want to do long integrations, is to post in an AP forum. Where you are also welcome to use AP techniques to process the image that are not allowed in the EAA forum. 

 

You do not need a EAA tag to do this. The people in the AP forums will simply look at your image and if you ask, provide feedback on the image. What you should not be doing is providing an observing report with the image post beyond the object and technical information about your acquisition of the image. 

[dr.who]

Mr.  Nicknacknock:

 

I find your arguments very reasonable

Let me insist that many users would like to see our work published here, in CN, not in Astrobin.

If those who do Astrophotography can, why not we who do EAA.

If it cannot be in the EAA Forum, let's do it in the Astrophotography forum with an EAA tag.

Maybe it is impossible? It is very difficult?

The effort would be worthwhile to continue keeping many users interested in visiting it regularly

A EAA tag is not difficult to make. However the Moderation and Administration teams do not act unilaterally. We act as a team, discuss modifications, and reach a consensus before taking action. That means adding an EAA tag, which is a fundamental change, will need to be discussed. 

 

In addition, from my personal point of view an EAA tag is not actually needed. You are posting an image you took. You are not making an observation report. As long as it is an image with a technical card if you so choose then you are well within bounds of the rules of the AP forums. If you are looking for help with an EAA problem then you will want to post the question here. 

[Clouzot]

My own personal limit is usually

- In the field, 15s exposures (or 30s if I’m using a narrowband filter), unity gain and 10 minutes integration.

- In the city, 5 to 10s exposures, 5 minutes integration.

Less, and I know I’m missing details I could have seen.

More, and either the LP eats up my signal, or my altaz mount plays havoc, or (more often) I get bored.

 

Anyway I don’t usually post pics here (due to the strict limit in what is allowed or not) but on other media where there’s little delimitation between EAA and “quick imaging” (30 to 120s subs, 15 to 30 minutes integration, where you usually need to guide)

Edited by Clouzot, 21 November 2019 - 04:14 PM.

[dr.who]

I was hoping to have a constructive discussion with the moderator team. Threatening to shut down the forum seems like a very aggressive response. Why do folks who don't do EAA with modern cameras want to impose their antiquated definition of EAA on those who actually do.

 

Anyways as I suggested before even a 10-15min limit would be much more acceptable. If the moderator team is not willing to show any flexibility then I guess there is no point discussing this.

 

"Cloudy Nights - Your astronomical community" - does not feel like it.

This is actually funny. Especially the whole thing about how this doesn't feel like a community.

 

You do not want a dialog. We as the Admin and Mod team explained to you and the others here why the decision was made, you do not like it, you don't want it to be that way, and are actually trying to beat the decision back any way you can. Including by claiming we are making this no longer a community because you as well as a very vocal minority in this thread have been told the collective but minority of you can't post long integration images in this forum. There is no singular you in community though a you (person) is part of a community, they are not a community in themselves. 

 

And yes, we will shut the forum down *IF* the actual majority of the EAA participants and not just this vocal minority decides that the best thing for the forum is no limits on image integration duration and/or processing because at that point this forum is no longer what it was originated as which is observation using electronic assistance and is a full throated imaging forum. We already have several of those and do not need another one. 

 

If you or anyone else doesn't like the rule changes you have politely voiced your dislike for them, which is what is supposed to be done, we as the administration and moderation team have informed you that we hear your complaints but we are not changing the rules back, and your recourse  going forward is to either comply with the new rules or stop using the forum and/or the site. This is clearly spelled out in the site's Terms of Service (ToS). If you or anyone else has not read the site's ToS I encourage doing so. A link to the ToS can be found in the bottom right corner of every page on this site.  

[dr.who]

I does seem the EAA rules are trying to find a happy medium, but suffering whiplash in the process.

There used to be an unofficial 2 minute rule before stacking existed for video cameras and post processing was limited to brightness/contrast.

Then CMOS cameras came out and rules whiplash to no exposure limit, but zero post processing which got rid of some folks.

Now unlimited exposure has been abused and rules whiplash to 5 minutes which will get rid of some folk.

IMO, a happy inclusive medium would be; 20 minute max, post processing limited to; brightness/contrast/stretching .... but that's just me.

Charles

 

The Admin/Mod team fundamentally agrees with you. There has been a lot of whiplashing back and forth. We believe that with the latest rules modification and processing being limited to brightness/contrast/stacking there will not be significant whiplash going forward. However the limit that we have decided upon is 5 minutes not 20.

 

That this or other rule changes may have translated into members deciding no longer to participate is very unfortunate and we do not like to see it happen but that is ultimately their decision. 

[donstim]

This is actually funny. Especially the whole thing about how this doesn't feel like a community.

 

You do not want a dialog. We as the Admin and Mod team explained to you and the others here why the decision was made, you do not like it, you don't want it to be that way, and are actually trying to beat the decision back any way you can. Including by claiming we are making this no longer a community because you as well as a very vocal minority in this thread have been told the collective but minority of you can't post long integration images in this forum. There is no singular you in community though a you (person) is part of a community, they are not a community in themselves. 

 

And yes, we will shut the forum down *IF* the actual majority of the EAA participants and not just this vocal minority decides that the best thing for the forum is no limits on image integration duration and/or processing because at that point this forum is no longer what it was originated as which is observation using electronic assistance and is a full throated imaging forum. We already have several of those and do not need another one. 

 

If you or anyone else doesn't like the rule changes you have politely voiced your dislike for them, which is what is supposed to be done, we as the administration and moderation team have informed you that we hear your complaints but we are not changing the rules back, and your recourse  going forward is to either comply with the new rules or stop using the forum and/or the site. This is clearly spelled out in the site's Terms of Service (ToS). If you or anyone else has not read the site's ToS I encourage doing so. A link to the ToS can be found in the bottom right corner of every page on this site.  

I'm sorry, but just from the tone of your posts, it's you who have gone just a bit over the top.  A.J. basically brought the topic up for discussion (which, by the way, was a non-publicized distinct change in the forum rules (or at least I missed it)), noted that the moderators are not going to open up the max integration time, and threw in the towel ("I guess there is no point in discussing this").  His final line may have been a bit harsh, but you couldn't see to let it pass without jumping down his throat.

 

You all have said it is only a minority who favor allowing integration times longer than 5 minutes (although you actually throw out the strawman of 20+ minutes that no one has actually asked for).  Do you have data to support this?  Then you go on to imply that if the majority are actually okay with longer integration times (say 6 minutes?), the only recourse is to shut the forum down?  You don't see that as a bit harsh?

 

Seeing as the decision is final, can I at least request that you consider further clarification of the rules on posting images?  Specifically, the rules state that no post-processing is allowed, but they are silent on "on-the-fly" processing (or even what is considered to be "processing"), and that these rules also apply to linked images.  On the issue of processing for example, it appears that stacking is permitted (since it is directly referenced in the rules), but how about stretching, color balancing, cropping, zooming, labeling, and even things like denoising and sharpening that can be done in real time in the background by software like SharpCap?

[DSO_Viewer]

I'm sorry, but just from the tone of your posts, it's you who have gone just a bit over the top.  A.J. basically brought the topic up for discussion (which, by the way, was a non-publicized distinct change in the forum rules (or at least I missed it)), noted that the moderators are not going to open up the max integration time, and threw in the towel ("I guess there is no point in discussing this").  His final line may have been a bit harsh, but you couldn't see to let it pass without jumping down his throat.

 

You all have said it is only a minority who favor allowing integration times longer than 5 minutes (although you actually throw out the strawman of 20+ minutes that no one has actually asked for).  Do you have data to support this?  Then you go on to imply that if the majority are actually okay with longer integration times (say 6 minutes?), the only recourse is to shut the forum down?  You don't see that as a bit harsh?

 

Seeing as the decision is final, can I at least request that you consider further clarification of the rules on posting images?  Specifically, the rules state that no post-processing is allowed, but they are silent on "on-the-fly" processing (or even what is considered to be "processing"), and that these rules also apply to linked images.  On the issue of processing for example, it appears that stacking is permitted (since it is directly referenced in the rules), but how about stretching, color balancing, cropping, zooming, labeling, and even things like denoising and sharpening that can be done in real time in the background by software like SharpCap?

I really do not understand why some of you here don't get the rules when it come down to processing allowed? If it is post processing as in saving images for a later time/date to be adjusted then this is not allowed. If the processing is done on the fly meaning no post then it is allowed.

 

Steve

[donstim]

I really do not understand why some of you here don't get the rules when it come down to processing allowed? If it is post processing as in saving images for a later time/date to be adjusted then this is not allowed. If the processing is done on the fly meaning no post then it is allowed.

 

Steve

Because of this specific post earlier in this thread (bolding mine):

 

For everyone who wants to shoot and stack images longer than 5 minutes or engage in processing, either on the fly or after the fact, of an image beyond what is allowed in the rules of this forum you are welcome to take your work over to DLSR, Beginning and Intermediate Imaging, or CCD/CMOS.  The alternative to this is that we will shut down the EAA forum and fold it into the AP forums. 

[DSO_Viewer]

Because of this specific post earlier in this thread (bolding mine):

Ok thx, I did not see that post and hope that the moderators or admin can clear this up since it is now confusing me.

 

Steve

[OleCuss]

Let's give the good dr.who a break here.

 

The administrators and moderators are posting on the fly and may be forgiven for mis-stating every now and again.

 

If one goes back to the new rule:  https://www.cloudyni...-november-2019/ it clearly states that processing on-the-fly is OK.  I don't think you'll have a problem on this forum if you do that.

 

Even if you went back to using analog CCD cameras you would probably be unable to buy one today which you could use without processing on-the-fly.

 

 

 

Oops!  I mis-read the rule.  You can't do anything but stacking.  I'd really recommend not posting any images.  I don't think you can comply with the rules and post any image.

Edited by OleCuss, 21 November 2019 - 05:35 PM.

[dr.who]

I'm sorry, but just from the tone of your posts, it's you who have gone just a bit over the top.  A.J. basically brought the topic up for discussion (which, by the way, was a non-publicized distinct change in the forum rules (or at least I missed it)), noted that the moderators are not going to open up the max integration time, and threw in the towel ("I guess there is no point in discussing this").  His final line may have been a bit harsh, but you couldn't see to let it pass without jumping down his throat.

I understand how you see it that way. And I am sorry you view it as such. However at no time does AJ or others see it from anything other than their individual wants and points of view. And while perhaps giving lip service to a “dialogue” doesn’t seem to be doing much other than demanding it be changed back. The comment made about this no longer being a community is his feelings on the matter and is completely valid but it is not valid to marginalize the responses we are making and simply to continue to demand it be changed back. That isn’t a dialogue.
 

You all have said it is only a minority who favor allowing integration times longer than 5 minutes (although you actually throw out the strawman of 20+ minutes that no one has actually asked for).  Do you have data to support this?  Then you go on to imply that if the majority are actually okay with longer integration times (say 6 minutes?), the only recourse is to shut the forum down?  You don't see that as a bit harsh?

I suggest you take the time to read all of the posts by everyone before jumping in with your condemnations. The 20 minute number has been mentioned. Most recently in post number 53 by CharlesC. And your own straw man of 6 minutes is somewhat ironic in light of your attempt to claim I was engaged in it and implying it was not the right thing to do.

And yes, in our discussions on the subject the closing of the forum was considered as well as advocated for. Especially if people were wanting to post long integration images as well as ones that were processed in ways that were considered AP type image processing that are now moving into real time or near real time availability.

While 5 minutes appears arbitrary it was decided upon as a compromise between long integration imaging and the original guidelines of the forum. Over 5 minutes and it is viewed as not really observing.
 

Seeing as the decision is final, can I at least request that you consider further clarification of the rules on posting images?  Specifically, the rules state that no post-processing is allowed, but they are silent on "on-the-fly" processing (or even what is considered to be "processing"), and that these rules also apply to linked images.  On the issue of processing for example, it appears that stacking is permitted (since it is directly referenced in the rules), but how about stretching, color balancing, cropping, zooming, labeling, and even things like denoising and sharpening that can be done in real time in the background by software like SharpCap?

This is a very important point. And I have to carry it back since it is a major change and not something that can be unilaterally decided upon. And since on the fly processing is called out in the rules but not clear as to what that means we need to clarify it.

[dr.who]

Oops!  I mis-read the rule.  You can't do anything but stacking.  I'd really recommend not posting any images.  I don't think you can comply with the rules and post any image.

I personally think that on the fly processing needs to be clarified and some form or way for allowing more than just stacking needs to be given consideration. Since software is advancing to allow on the fly things that were separate discrete processing steps done in “post” before. Please stand by. This may take a bit of time.

[Astrojedi]

I understand how you see it that way. And I am sorry you view it as such. However at no time does AJ or others see it from anything other than their individual wants and points of view. And while perhaps giving lip service to a “dialogue” doesn’t seem to be doing much other than demanding it be changed back. The comment made about this no longer being a community is his feelings on the matter and is completely valid but it is not valid to marginalize the responses we are making and simply to continue to demand it be changed back. That isn’t a dialogue.
 

I suggest you take the time to read all of the posts by everyone before jumping in with your condemnations. The 20 minute number has been mentioned. Most recently in post number 53 by CharlesC. And your own straw man of 6 minutes is somewhat ironic in light of your attempt to claim I was engaged in it and implying it was not the right thing to do.

And yes, in our discussions on the subject the closing of the forum was considered as well as advocated for. Especially if people were wanting to post long integration images as well as ones that were processed in ways that were considered AP type image processing that are now moving into real time or near real time availability.

While 5 minutes appears arbitrary it was decided upon as a compromise between long integration imaging and the original guidelines of the forum. Over 5 minutes and it is viewed as not really observing.
 

This is a very important point. And I have to carry it back since it is a major change and not something that can be unilaterally decided upon. And since on the fly processing is called out in the rules but not clear as to what that means we need to clarify it.

 

Please don't mis-characterize what I am saying. I am not "demanding" the rules be changed back neither am I paying "lip service" to your perspective. I am asking for a compromise (10 or 15 min maximum exposure time) which allows many of the forum members to continue enjoying the forum while satisfying the moderating team's desire to restrict exposure time.

Edited by Astrojedi, 21 November 2019 - 05:44 PM.

[chilldaddy]

Being new to EAA this year, I found it a great hybrid of observing and imaging.  I described it to people as "live imaging" because I observed objects on screen that couldn't be seen through the eyepiece, all from my light-polluted backyard.  I said it was more fun than most visual observing because I saw far more but it was not AP because I watched the image improve either at my scope or inside the comfortable house as opposed to acquiring hours of data blindly and spending more hours processing before seeing anything.  I thought that was a simple distinction; watching the image appear live vs. acquiring, processing and viewing later.

Since the intent of the EAA forum seems to be tied to the history of real-time viewing, I find that I'm not sure where what I do fits in anymore.  I can still participate but any of my images worth sharing are going to be longer integrations and will need to be linked, which is fine but not as enjoyable as seeing it in the thread.

I visited the AP forums for the first time today and felt pretty out of place.  The majority of posts seemed to deal with hours of integration time, polar alignment on EQ mounts, multiple color filters, guiding and of course, extensive post-processing.  I don't do any of those but my observing usually lasts between 10 and 30 minutes.  I like to see as much as can be seen with my equipment in a red zone and it takes me time to tweak things while reading and learning about them. It's simply more fun, not an attempt at AP.

It is obvious that we are using many of the same techniques and equipment as the imagers so if what many of us have been doing fits better in an AP forum, it would be really nice to have a sub forum that addresses live imaging since I assume they aren't observing their image while capturing.

 

As on-the-fly processing continues to develop (Robin Glover mentioned that he's looking at adding gradient removal and HDR to a future version of Sharpcap) it would be great if we had a place to discuss this evolving hobby as people advance it rather than being limited to what it should be based on what it used to be.

 

Thanks to all the mods who dedicate a lot of time to keeping things organized,

 

Greg

[Rickster]

The natural trend here has consistently been in the direction of longer integration times.  And yet the forum has continued to be a peaceful and friendly place.  I do not recall any friction between members regarding integration times.   Why rattle the cage?  Why not let the forum evolve naturally and peacefully? 

 

I think the vast majority of us aren't the least bit offended if someone posts a 30 minute exposure.  Why should we be?  This isn't some kind of competition, like NASCAR, where restrictions are needed to keep the competition fair.  Personally, I am happy to occasionally see an integration that is longer than what I would normally use.  I like to see the limits of what can be observed with various equipment. 

 

I do let integrations run on tough targets.  An example would be the relativistic jet in M87.  I let that integration run as long as I could stay awake.  I didn't do it because I wanted to post a pretty picture.  In fact, I never did post it.  I did it for me.  I used it as a personal test of my skills and equipment.  Just as visual observers do when they study an object for long periods to tease out small details.  Would there have been any harm if I had posted it?  I suspect the contrary.  I suspect that many people might be curious regarding what can (or can not) be seen in 20 minutes (or so) using a 16 in scope from dark skies. 

 

I see no good that can come from restricting integration times and I ask that the Admins/Mods let the forum evolve more naturally.

[dr.who]

Please don't mis-characterize what I am saying. I am not "demanding" the rules be changed back neither am I paying "lip service" to your perspective. I am asking for a compromise (10 or 15 min maximum exposure time) which allows many of the forum members to continue enjoying the forum while satisfying the moderating team's desire to restrict exposure time.

Thank you for clarifying your position. However it read to me personally as I described it. Please try to see and understand it from my perspective as I am trying to do from yours.

[dr.who]

We are definitely looking for things to grow reasonably while maintaining the hybrid nature of the forum as well as its focus on observing as the cornerstone. Unfortunately long integration doesn’t fit within that framework. The rule of five minutes isn’t that big of a deal except on certain targets.

And if people are wanting to integrate images for durations longer than 5 minutes with minimal post processing then of course you are welcome to. Just not posting it in this forum. It is actually appropriate in an imaging forum even if not taken to the deep end of the pool with hours and hours of data gathered and additional hours and hours of post processing.

People post images in the imaging forums that look very much like EAA images. Granted they are not like the 200 hour data gathering followed by another 100 hours of post processing images but that kind of imaging isn’t done by the majority there either.

The purpose of this forum has been started multiple times in this thread. We are looking at relaxing the rules vis a vis sharpcap but not the integration time. We appreciate and are listening to your feedback on wanting longer integration times but this issue has been decided and isn’t going to change.

[nic35]

I think chilldaddy makes some excellent observations.  His perspective as a newcomer is most interesting.

 

j

[OleCuss]

I personally think that on the fly processing needs to be clarified and some form or way for allowing more than just stacking needs to be given consideration. Since software is advancing to allow on the fly things that were separate discrete processing steps done in “post” before. Please stand by. This may take a bit of time.

Thank you.

 

You probably already know all this, but if it will help in the administrator/moderator conversations I'd like to point out some stuff which is technically related.

 

When I was doing some IOTA stuff we were very careful about which analog CCD video cameras we were using.  The newer ones were starting to cause us problems with their DSPs which were doing enough processing in firmware to cause a technically significant delay in the time from collection of the frame to the time it was transmitted to the video time inserter.  I don't think you can buy a new video camera and try to do things old-school without actually doing processing on the fly.  Some experts probably know how to turn off much of the DSP stuff in the firmware but that doesn't seem to be accessible to most of us.

 

And if you say that processing in-hardware is acceptable?  I used to have things like a Procamp, vidcraft hardware as well so that I could do processing of the signal after it left the camera and before it got to the monitor.  That was still hardware and analog but it was some pretty serious processing.

 

And when I started using a video capture device?  Just getting the signal into a computer meant processing to change what was typically a 10- or 12-bit signal into an 8-bit signal which was digitized.  We really put those drivers to work!

 

I also did OAP with the Mallincam Universe.  Yup, I did a very little of what some might consider to be post-processing with that but I was actually doing OAP every single time but simply saved some subs and sometimes tried to process them.  I found I really don't like conventional AP although there are certain things I think I'll have to do in the future which will require some post-processing.

 

But the thing is, in order to do OAP with the MU you had to optimize a lot of settings and there was still a lot of processing going on even though it was on-the-fly.

 

Now?  Among other things I have the ASI071, the ASI1600, the ASI183.  Each and every one of them has more pixels than is comfortably displayed on the computer display which I have been using most recently.  That means that if I want to get everything onto my screen at once I have to do binning.  Binning is post-processing.  And you might note that when you bin in software you actually do get shot noise reduction which means that it is improving SNR at least somewhat for most of us.  Binning is not insignificant post-processing but it is also necessary for many of us as we observe.

 

To go back to my current cameras?  Being CMOS they all have System-on-Chip firmware.  This means that there is processing going on, on-the-fly before the signal ever leaves the camera.  Now it does make significant sense to say that in regard to that we can use the SoC processing but not in the external computer, but you simply cannot generate an image with these cameras without on-the-fly processing in-hardware/firmware.

 

I'm also going to assume that processing done by any driver with a USB camera is going to be exempt as I don't think they are doing what we'd consider to be photo-processing.

 

But now we get into the acquisition software.

 

Is there any way to use the Atik Infinity software without processing on-the-fly?  I've never used the software so maybe there might be.  Same concerns with Starlight Live - I've had the impression it could be similar.

 

I'm more into SharpCap.  I'm not sure you can generate a useful image with that software without some Processing On The Fly (POTF?).  You end up working the color balances, the histogram, and various other things.  And again, we have the binning issue.

 

I've not tried working with APT but I might have similar issues if I found it worthwhile.

 

Also, no POTF would mean the Stellina is utterly unacceptable as would be the eVscope and the Hiuni (assuming they come to market).  As best I can tell you cannot acquire images without significant post-processing which is baked into the software and database.

 

Sort of parenthetically, the Stellina, eVscope, Hiuni, and potential future examples may be a technical card problem.  The user may not be able to access all the required information and even if they can, the users may not have the level of sophistication in this area to be sure to find, identify, and post the tech details as required.

 

Anyway, when I look at the technical details of no POTF I think that without some really careful (and possibly extensive) defining it may be technically impossible to post any image on this sub-forum.  To enable such posting of some images I think it will be necessary to let us know whether that means only certain software packages are acceptable, whether one must figure out how to disable some of the processing.  Whether or not setting a black point is acceptable and balancing the color, etc.  Whether prior settings for observing without posting must be zeroed out somehow prior to acquiring the subs for the image which might be posted.

 

Personally, I think forbidding POTF will prove to be nightmarish for administrators and moderators because it is pretty heavily embedded into everything which most of us do today.  Even if one tries to comply they may mess up.

 

One other thing?  If POTF or integration beyond 5 minutes is not acceptable might I suggest doing away with the monthly challenge?  Even if there is an attempt to stay with the really easy targets - they/we will eventually (maybe soon?) run out of targets.  The more challenging ones will be just too challenging for folks with small aperture OTAs if they are not able to do much integration.  If I wanted to participate I could make some adjustments to what I'm enjoying at the moment and use a lot more aperture and maybe still succeed but now we're pushing the members to bigger and more expensive equipment and to me that starts looking more like conventional AP.

 

But again, I'm OK with whatever is decided.  No one forces me to be on the forum and no one forces me to post images.  I think I'll enjoy however it turns out.

[GOLGO13]

Please don't shut down the EAA for us NV folks. It's hard to find another forum for those discussions.

[Alien Observatory]

IN a way this is an entertaining topic....I think what few folks see are the actual cumulative exposure times that are common today in AP (40 hours total is very common)... and we are thrashing about and worrying about going from 5 minutes to 10 minutes and I do remember the "Great Debate" about going to 30 seconds to 3 minutes (I was on the 30 sec MC team )...OMG the EAA world ended...NOT...

 

CMOS cams and Live Stacking SW has replaced the old EAA "Almost Real Time" viewing paradigm and the high resolution cams that replaced the low resolution analog cams are a blessing for what we can "see" with EAA today.  Maybe it is not a bad time to rethink what is the goal of EAA and why is a 5 minute exposure limit needed... why not allow 30 minutes of exposure as it is most certainly is NOT related to anything happening in todays Computer / SW Intensive Post Processing AP arena using 10s of hours of exposure data with each filter...My Gosh 30 minutes of total exposure using a HA filter with EAA SW is just awesome to look at...hmmm maybe time to expand the boundaries of EAA... Pat Utah

Edited by Alien Observatory, 21 November 2019 - 10:19 PM.

[DSO_Viewer]

When I joined this forum I thought the main purpose was to discus and show how many here are observing all different objects in the universe using various methods. The forum comes across to me as two completely distinct categories with one being how fast you can observe an object and the other how much detail can be viewed no matter what exposure times are involved. I do not care if I am in real or near-real time but want to observe as much detail as possible within my equipment and location limitations.

 

Steve  

[Rickster]

I think we can all agree that the 5 minute rule will not change how CN members do EAA.  It will only change how/if they decide to participate on this particular forum. 

 

The bigger issue to me is that the 5 minute rule suggests a stance that is more focused on regulation than advancement.  I think that EAA is on the leading edge of amateur astronomy.  I can envision a not too distant future where the EAA techniques that started here will be used for far more than just "star gazing."  Think about how much EAA has advanced in the last few years.  I have no doubt that EAA techniques will continue to grow, evolve and advance far beyond what we have now.  And I think that whichever EAA forum is most supportive of developing trends will benefit the most from this trend.  Up to this point, CN EAA has been the world leader.  I think that position will change if CN is over regulated (as opposed to being moderated in a flexible and supportive manner).