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 immersive?

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 betacygni

betacygni

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2011

Posted 13 October 2021 - 07:59 PM

I’ve been eyeballing getting into NV as my next major astro purchase, but I’ve never looked through such a device on its own, much less through a telescope. I enjoy astronomy primarily for the aesthetics and immersive experience of it, which is in part why EAA or astrophotography has never really interested me. I like that I’m seeing things with my own eyes (though I suppose this could open a whole philosophical perception can of worms). Now as I understand it NV is real time, but obviously a bit different in this regard. Wondering how immersed people feel with this type of observing? Does it feel like you’re really looking at the object, or more a representation or “photo” of it? Guess I’m just trying to figure out if my brain is likely to get out of the way and suspend disbelief and enjoy what I’m observing, or if there is going to be a “fake” quality due to presentation, star halos, color, etc.

#2 bobo99

bobo99

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2015
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 13 October 2021 - 08:56 PM

I’ve been eyeballing getting into NV as my next major astro purchase, but I’ve never looked through such a device on its own, much less through a telescope. I enjoy astronomy primarily for the aesthetics and immersive experience of it, which is in part why EAA or astrophotography has never really interested me. I like that I’m seeing things with my own eyes (though I suppose this could open a whole philosophical perception can of worms). Now as I understand it NV is real time, but obviously a bit different in this regard. Wondering how immersed people feel with this type of observing? Does it feel like you’re really looking at the object, or more a representation or “photo” of it? Guess I’m just trying to figure out if my brain is likely to get out of the way and suspend disbelief and enjoy what I’m observing, or if there is going to be a “fake” quality due to presentation, star halos, color, etc.

I used to share your perspective where I tried other types of EAA but they did not appeal to me ( mainly live viewing through a camera/monitor system ). I spend most of my week sitting infront of a computer, so I didn't want to do that for astronomy as well.

Night vision in my opinion is still as immersive and enjoyable as being at the eyepiece. With an appropriate NV system(aka a good performing tube) means that I feel just as immersed as I do being at the eyepiece directly.

If you have manual gain control you can further change the gain to get the background to be an appropriate level of dark so it feels further like you're at the eyepiece. Highly recommended.

Sent from my SM-G988W using Tapatalk
  • betacygni and pwang99 like this

#3 Mazerski

Mazerski

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2013

Posted 13 October 2021 - 09:06 PM

Attaching 2 images... no tracking, just snapping a photo with iPhone 7 with a 12.5" Dobsonian. What I see thru NV device / scope looks better than these photos. I like it.

I know someone who said NV was like looking at a screen.

There is no color, I have white phosphor intensifier tube.

 

 

Photos are M4 and M17 - M4 is low for my latitude and the sky is not dark in photo due to M4 being in the light pollution band.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Capture.JPG
  • NV1.JPG

  • betacygni likes this

#4 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,783
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 09:40 PM

My opinion is it feels very much like regular visual observing. I don't personally find it is as perfect as glass is, but it's still pretty good. 

 

However,  you can see way more than without it. Especially in light pollution. An object that is just a faint fuzzy in glass (barely visible) all of the sudden is similar to using glass in a very dark sky. My memory of dark sky views with glass was more impressive, but this is still very good. And some objects wouldn't be easy even in a dark sky, but I can see pretty easy in light pollution with NV.

 

So I think it just really depends. If you have access to a very dark sky and a decent sized telescope, I'd try to use glass first. But if you live in light pollution (like most people do), NV is quite helpful for many objects.


  • betacygni likes this

#5 Mort H

Mort H

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 13 October 2021 - 10:06 PM

Hi betacygni, just like you I like looking through the eyepiece. Echoing what others are saying, NV totally maintains that same feeling for me.

A couple differences between NV and my Ethos eyepieces are narrower apparent field of view and less "pristine" optically. I thought both might bother me, but to my surprise, neither bothers me at all, I guess I'm just so geeked by what I can see with NV that I don't even notice or care!

My Ethos eyepieces will very likely never be used again since I went NV. Serious.
  • betacygni and Jim4321 like this

#6 scoale

scoale

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2021

Posted 13 October 2021 - 10:33 PM

Hi betacygni,

 

Everyone's experience will be unique given varying sky conditions and equipment.  Truthfully, my views at the eyepiece are definitely improved, but NOT comparable to the photos I see in this forum.  Again, YMWV depending on skies and equipment.  My specific experience is as follows:

  • Nebula - NV has made the most difference on nebula - when combined with a Ha filter.  Nebula are also impressive viewed at 1x w/ filter.
  • Globulars - Here I use NV unfiltered and with lower gain - it does brighten them but also alters the view a bit.
  • Galaxies - Least impactful.  Tempted to say not impactful
  • Planets - not applicable

 

For reference, I have a C11, a high spec Gen 3 intensifier, the televue 67/55 afocal setup, an AP .75 reducer, an astronomik 6 nm Ha filter, and I'm viewing under B8 skies.  Needless to say, the C11 is better for some targets than others.  

 

I don't share this to discourage you; rather to encourage you to learn as much as you can about what you can reasonably expect, and key additional equipment that impacts performance (the intensifier is just the beginning).  Having now experienced NV first hand, I would do it again.

 

Best of luck!


Edited by scoale, 13 October 2021 - 10:34 PM.

  • betacygni likes this

#7 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,783
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 10:51 PM

My Ethos eyepieces will very likely never be used again since I went NV. Serious.

Don't give up on your glass quite yet, but I know how you feel. I think a lot of people sell their glass when they get NV. That's fine if it's a necessity. But I still use glass quite a bit (depends on the object). 

 

I think I'm probably 50% now between glass and NV. When I first got NV I was 90% NV and 10% glass.

 

I use glass for the same things I would have used glass for before NV...Planets, Moon, brighter clusters (Pleiades, Double Cluster, Beehive), double stars, etc. But for most other objects (especially anything faint), NV is going to show more and most of the time a lot more.

 

Now, maybe Ethos are no longer necessary depending on what you like to observe. I'm personally a fan of the Panoptic line. So maybe you just adjust your glass a bit if needed.



#8 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,783
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 11:06 PM

Hi betacygni,

 

Everyone's experience will be unique given varying sky conditions and equipment.  Truthfully, my views at the eyepiece are definitely improved, but NOT comparable to the photos I see in this forum.  Again, YMWV depending on skies and equipment.  My specific experience is as follows:

  • Nebula - NV has made the most difference on nebula - when combined with a Ha filter.  Nebula are also impressive viewed at 1x w/ filter.
  • Globulars - Here I use NV unfiltered and with lower gain - it does brighten them but also alters the view a bit.
  • Galaxies - Least impactful.  Tempted to say not impactful
  • Planets - not applicable

 

For reference, I have a C11, a high spec Gen 3 intensifier, the televue 67/55 afocal setup, an AP .75 reducer, an astronomik 6 nm Ha filter, and I'm viewing under B8 skies.  Needless to say, the C11 is better for some targets than others.  

 

I don't share this to discourage you; rather to encourage you to learn as much as you can about what you can reasonably expect, and key additional equipment that impacts performance (the intensifier is just the beginning).  Having now experienced NV first hand, I would do it again.

 

Best of luck!

A couple thoughts that may help, but I think we covered these before...but just in case.

 

1) Very true to not judge a night vision session on a few nights. Sky conditions can affect the view. One night maybe magical and another night only OK. For whatever reason the WV sky seems to affect NV night to night.

2) The C11 with a more normal eyepiece (say a 27mm Panoptic)  on globulars would be very good I would guess. With the 67mm with or without the reducer, you are not using the setup optimally for globulars. So consider trying a higher power with those...since the 67mm is reducing things quite a bit.

3) A smaller refractor, say 102mm F5, would give you a much wider field of view, and a faster scope. This would provide very nice views of larger DSOs like the California, North American, all the other stuff in Cygnus. Paired with your C11 this would be very good coverage.

 

Galaxies do benefit, but not as much as others. Edge on galaxies do well. Face on do not other than the cores. You can make out cores of galaxies better. But some of the fainter arms do not really show up like they would in a dark sky.

 

Personally I find the view better than the pictures Maz showed above when looking in the eyepiece of the NV device. It's not easy to take pictures. Some do better than others at this. Sometimes the pictures look better, sometimes I have a better view in the NV device. For nebulas speed makes a pretty big difference. Try a lot of different configurations and scopes if possible. 

 

I find my refractors are the best scopes for visual (my TSA-120, 103s, 76 DCU), but these are what I would consider my worst scopes for NV. For NV my 10 inch F4.7, 8 inch SCT (not reduced), 6 inch F4 imaging newt (not good for afocal), and 6 inch F5 refractor do the best. 

 

If I had to pick one scope for NV, my 10 inch F4.7 dob does the best. But the 8 inch SCT gives a unique view, and the 6 inch F5 refractor gives a wider field.



#9 scoale

scoale

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2021

Posted 13 October 2021 - 11:25 PM

All fair points GOLGO13.

 

I do use a Pan 27 for globs, and it does help.

 

Will definitely purchase complementary scopes in the future; right now I am focusing on learning the ins/outs of my new C11 - although I do have an eVscope2 on order lol.gif.  Leaning towards Dob for combination of aperture, speed, and FOV.


Edited by scoale, 13 October 2021 - 11:26 PM.


#10 Jeff Morgan

Jeff Morgan

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Prescott, AZ

Posted 14 October 2021 - 12:11 AM

Five or six years ago, I tried EAA with a Mallincam color video camera. It really does work, within minutes I had images up on my laptop.

 

But that was the thing. It required a laptop, cables, integration times, trial and error on the settings, and the image lacked resolution. Sold it pretty fast.

 

NV is like using a super eyepiece. Goes right in the focuser and you look thru it. Runs on an internal battery. No cables.

 

You can also do it hand-held, and there is no integration time. As fast as you can whip your head around, you can go from seeing the Lagoon (with more detail than you have ever seen at 1x) to the Heart and Soul (with more detail than you have ever seen at 1x).

 

I don't use it for everything, but I do use it for most things.


  • GeezerGazer likes this

#11 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,783
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 14 October 2021 - 12:13 AM

All fair points GOLGO13.

 

I do use a Pan 27 for globs, and it does help.

 

Will definitely purchase complementary scopes in the future; right now I am focusing on learning the ins/outs of my new C11 - although I do have an eVscope2 on order lol.gif.  Leaning towards Dob for combination of aperture, speed, and FOV.

Good deal. I would be interested in your impressions of the Evscope2 vs NV. I have some interest in those all in one EAA like setups. I'm someone that doesn't want to do EAA otherwise and that's where NV has been helpful. I'm a quick alt/az kind of observer. But the Stellina and Evscope like setups are interesting to me. Maybe sometime in the future as costs come down on them.


  • scoale likes this

#12 bobhen

bobhen

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,468
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 14 October 2021 - 06:03 AM

I live in heavy light pollution but I have also observed (using just glass eyepieces) from some really dark skies, like Bryce Canyon, etc.

 

Here’s the thing, you will not get any of the thrills or any emotional impact or any of the wonder that the Cosmos can offer if the details in objects are so faint or fleeting that you can hardly see them or if you can’t see those wonders at all.

 

The first time I saw the Horsehead Nebula through a telescope was using Night Vision. I let out a wow. It didn’t matter that the view was not quite as pristine as with glass, the emotional impact was every bit as real and just as if not more impactful.

 

If I point my telescope and the view is pristine but there is nothing of interest in that view then there is no emotional impact. If I point my telescope to that same spot but now I can see the Horsehead and Flame Nebulas and actual detail in and around those objects then there is an emotional response, even if the view is not quite as pristine. And the mind quickly adjusts to discard any static in the view and you just concentrate on the object of interest anyway.

 

Because most all objects (except some bight stars that show color) are seen in gray scale through a telescope when used visually, the night vision’s monochromatic view is not an issue.

 

Almost all objects are enhanced including: Nebulas, Galaxies, Open Clusters, Globular Clusters and Dark Nebula.

 

I was never able to see galaxy 891 from my location even using my 15” Dobsonian. Using NV, now I can just glimpse the galaxy with a “small” 120mm refractor.

 

And with NV, one can use optical aids from small camera lenses to large Dobsonians and all size scopes in-between. All sizes deliver impressive views.

 

Using night vision is more like visual observing than it is imaging or EAA. The mechanics and ergonomics are the same as visual.

 

Of course it is easy to pull the intensifier and put in an eyepiece if a planet or the moon beckons.

 

After 35-years of observing, I took the leap over 5-years ago and for the last 5-years I have used Night Vision for 99% of my deep sky observing.

 

Bob


  • betacygni and Jim4321 like this

#13 Jim4321

Jim4321

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4,335
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Asheville

Posted 14 October 2021 - 09:20 AM

I rarely look at stars per se.  My interest is mostly in nebula and galaxies, for which NV is mostly great to flat-out spectacular.  So take this with a grain of salt.... If the gain is set too high, you may notice some 'star bloat' on brighter objects.  Either move the 'scope so they are out of the field of view, or turn the gain down. 

 

Jim H.


  • Joko likes this

#14 betacygni

betacygni

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2011

Posted 14 October 2021 - 10:03 PM

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. Yeah I suppose if something is too faint to even see, you’re not going to be even observing or enjoying it. I still manage to enjoy achromats, defects and all. Sounds like NV is in my future. Realized that lately I’ve almost stopped deep sky observing, and I think it’s because as a lot of you alluded to there just isn’t that much to see necessarily with standard views, especially factoring in light pollution. I realized today too I don’t think I’ve yet to see a NV setup for sale in the classifieds, that’s pretty telling…


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