265 replies to this topic

[WheezyGod]

I agree and identify with what you say. I dont ever see NV taking over my viewing thru glass

As far as other comments on who is going to go extinct first, I say traditional AP/EAA is more at risk than us visual observers (and I include NV in that). Once the new robot scopes get good enough at a good price point, they will boom. Look what cell phone cameras did to photography. Sure there will be a few remaining specialists/professionals (just as there are true photographers) but for the masses just taking photos for fun, a cheap, simple device I see taking a majority of the business once that threshold is reached. That is what I am waiting for (who needs to mess with spacers and backfocus and tilt and etc. just to show a quick pic to Mom or wife on what you saw last night).

Meanwhile visual is about the intimate experience, minimizing what is between your eyes and the heavens (and NV is less intrusive in that aspect than EAA). Robot scopes can’t replace (yes augment) that type of astronomy experience.

Yea that’s a really good point on the robotic scopes. Eventually others will get in on the action and the prices will come down. Although I still think some will find the delay off putting to your point about it being less of an intimate experience.

I actually think phones will play a bigger part once someone can nail down the deep fake effect with additional objects beyond the moon.

On the camera business I think I had read that the compact cameras took a massive hit followed by low end DSLRs. High end DSLRs only took a small hit from what I remember. Probably similar to NV once other options become available. Smartphone capabilities and/or robotic scopes likely won’t impact NV live observing or those that want higher end AP rigs. I could definitely see EAA being impacted by the robotic scopes since there’s similarities.

[mrlovt]

Interesting thread.  I'm looking at these prices and... wow...  I've read reviews and reports here on CN, and clearly it is an amazing experience for some people, and less so for others. I've never looked through a NVD, but I would jump at the opportunity just to see what it's all about.  I love to view through binoviewers, so the bino NV devices intrigue me.

 

I typically image DSOs while doing visual planetary observation, shooting the Veil while looking at Saturn as I type this post.  I would love to be able to take a visual look at the DSOs too from my heavily light polluted backyard.  And it sounds like it would be a blast at 1x to take camping.  But the thing is, even if I fell absolutely in love with it, the price is just, well, astronomical.

 

I'm not one of those guys with 10's of thousands in gear. Most of mine I've picked up second-hand.  I'm sure if I ever go NV it will have to be the same. 

 

If anyone using NV in the Nashville TN area sees this and wants to show me how it looks, feel free to reach out!

[Richard Giuliani]

---

 

Un’idea per ridurre i costi sarebbe quella di passare alla NV digitale.

Con sensori sempre più sensibili e prezzi popolari. Hai fatto delle prove a riguardo?

Con il metodo afocale è facile provarlo.

 

Pardon:  in English > 

One idea to reduce costs would be to switch to digital NV.

With increasingly sensitive sensors and popular prices. Have you done any tests on this?

With the afocal method it is easy to prove this.

 

...

Edited by Richard Giuliani, 07 October 2023 - 07:41 AM.

[a__l]

---

 

Un’idea per ridurre i costi sarebbe quella di passare alla NV digitale.

Con sensori sempre più sensibili e prezzi popolari. Hai fatto delle prove a riguardo?

Con il metodo afocale è facile provarlo.

 

...

That would be interesting.

[25585]

If an Envis cost around $1000 and a PVS-14 was around $1500 do you think we’d see NV recommended more often amongst a larger base of astronomers on CN? The obvious answer is yes but to what extent?

If NV astronomers represent 0.01% of those on CN, do we think the lower cost alone would bring us up to 5%? 10% Or would NV still mostly be a niche piece of equipment in astronomy?

I think it might equal or surpass EAA, but not imaging. 

[Freezout]

I would buy it directly with a cheap achromatic refractor if it was cheaper.

 

I'm always interested to know how it could compensate a small aperture, to create a grab & go setup having still a lot of reach for DSOs but able to fit in a carry-on. I have no interest for big telescopes, with or without NV.

[bobhen]

I would buy it directly with a cheap achromatic refractor if it was cheaper.

 

I'm always interested to know how it could compensate a small aperture, to create a grab & go setup having still a lot of reach for DSOs but able to fit in a carry-on. I have no interest for big telescopes, with or without NV.

Below are 2 of my achromatic refractors with my image intensifier; a 102mm F5 achromatic refractor and a 50mm F3.75 achromatic guide scope refractor.

 

The 50mm can be handheld. I have had the 102mm refractor as carry-on and it is airline portable. 

 

The views with the intensifier used in the 102mm F5 (also used at F3.5) are fantastic and absolutely thrilling! There's no urgency to travel to a dark sky, as the intensifier brings the dark sky experience to locations that are light polluted. 

 

Yes intensifiers are expensive. Many users have sold some of their astronomy equipment to help with the cost of an intensifier. Like with all things, if you can afford an intensifier, even if you have to sell some other equipment, they are worth it. If you can't afford one, try and at least get the opportunity to look through one. 

 

I will say this, I have been using my intensifier for 7-years and it is the best astronomy accessory that I have ever purchased – and by a long shot. 

 

Good old fashion saving or selling equipment or financing or buying used are a few ways to help with the cost.

 

The fact that Tele Vue, one of the leading sellers of glass eyepieces, is now selling intensifiers and adapters is all the endorsement that anyone needs. 

 

There are many things in life that I wish were less expensive that also will probably never be less expensive.

 

Bob 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by bobhen, 13 October 2023 - 04:42 AM.

[Frank2]

I think an important aspect of the NV experience that no other observing device can replicate is the 1X view. When an observer steps out at night and looks up, they see old friends. The Pleadies, Orion Nebula, Big Dipper, Milky Way, Moon, planets, and so on. When you first get NV it is like becoming friends with famous people that you have heard of your whole life, but never met. I hold the NV to my eye with an Ha filter attached, and my famous new friends come out to greet me. With no telescope between me and the sky, and both eyes open, in plain sight are the Rosette, Horsehead, Heart and Soul, and Pac Man nebulas. The Cederblad 214 (yes that was a new one for me too along with other random nebulous patches that send me to Sky Safari for identification) and California nebulas, and Barnard's Loop. I have only met my new Fall and Winter friends and look forward to being introduced to my famous Spring and Summer friends. Without NV I would probably never have seen any of the objects mentioned in my lifetime. Now though, on any clear night, I can step outside in my light poluted suburban sky and say hello. If NV were less expensive would most observers own one? Well, if the purpose of all this astronomy gear we buy is to see facinating objects, then to be biased against using a device that does exactly that can only be described as illogical.

[Speedy1985]

I think an important aspect of the NV experience that no other observing device can replicate is the 1X view. When an observer steps out at night and looks up, they see old friends. The Pleadies, Orion Nebula, Big Dipper, Milky Way, Moon, planets, and so on. When you first get NV it is like becoming friends with famous people that you have heard of your whole life, but never met. I hold the NV to my eye with an Ha filter attached, and my famous new friends come out to greet me. With no telescope between me and the sky, and both eyes open, in plain sight are the Rosette, Horsehead, Heart and Soul, and Pac Man nebulas. The Cederblad 214 (yes that was a new one for me too along with other random nebulous patches that send me to Sky Safari for identification) and California nebulas, and Barnard's Loop. I have only met my new Fall and Winter friends and look forward to being introduced to my famous Spring and Summer friends. Without NV I would probably never have seen any of the objects mentioned in my lifetime. Now though, on any clear night, I can step outside in my light poluted suburban sky and say hello. If NV were less expensive would most observers own one? Well, if the purpose of all this astronomy gear we buy is to see facinating objects, then to be biased against using a device that does exactly that can only be described as illogical.

I did exactly as you describe last night, handheld with a 3x magnifier. N. American, Pelican, Gamma Cygni, Heart & Soul, Cederblad 214, NGC 7822, possibly the Cave, and a faint hint of M56. This on a moments notice when I peeked out to a mostly clear sky above me. 3 minutes to screw on the magnifier and filter, and install the battery and out the door I went. No dark adaptation time, no scope setup, no mirror cool down. Besides the obvious, that is the beauty of NV. 

[MarkMittlesteadt]

If NV were less expensive would most observers own one? Well, if the purpose of all this astronomy gear we buy is to see fascinating objects, then to be biased against using a device that does exactly that can only be described as illogical.

Yes. I think it's more the expense than a bias against it. It's like robotic scopes. As prices come down, more will at least try them out, even though there is a very strong bias against NV/EAA/AP.

 

There is no bias against the assistance offered by a telescope on a mount using eyepieces. Perhaps the bias is against anything requiring batteries? 

[Jeff Morgan]

Perhaps the bias is against anything requiring batteries? 

 

No, it's the Old School people that think averted vision is a "skill".

[sixela]

It is, and you’d better be using it with your NVD as well or you’ll be missing lots of things.

[MarkMittlesteadt]

No, it's the Old School people that think averted vision is a "skill".

It is, if you want to see anything faint in a light polluted sky using "old school" equipment.

[rgk901]

well..now that averted vision is thoroughly debunked as quackery, I can stop the silly practice

[Frank2]

The irony of averted vision is that to see something, you have to not look at it. It is my experience with glass, if you look slightly away from a very faint object it will brighten and in some cases go from invisible to visible, but at what cost? Try looking slightly off the screen of your phone and suddenly you can't read any of the text. You can see that the phone is on and detect it is rectangular, and that is helpful, but most detail is lost. I only use averted vision as a technique to try to see something that is not showing up at all in the eyepiece, such as the Horsehead with every telescope I have ever looked through. For me averted vision is a frustrating and wholly unsatisfying telescope experience. Averted vision with night vision is a curious thing. I rarely use NV at full gain, I adjust it for maximum contrast. Used this way, the green phospher color and other NV artifacts nearly vanish and the view starts to look remarkably similar to an eyepiece view, except nothing in the view is at or near the limit of human eye detectability. Stated another way, with pure glass you know that there are photons entering your scope and eye that are below your ability to detect easily, or at all, and averted vision will capture more of those elusive photons. That is not the case with NV. The device either detects a photon, or it does not. You can look at an NV object with averted vision and it will brighten, but you are not detecting formerly unseen photons, only the ones you could see already, just brighter. Similar to how digital zoom does not bring more detail into view, it only makes the information already there easier to see. However, averted vision destroys detail viewing so the net view you end up with when using NV averted vision is, photons you could already perceive get brighter, but fine detail in the view is destroyed.

[Jeff Morgan]

well..now that averted vision is thoroughly debunked as quackery, I can stop the silly practice

 

It is a physiological phenomenon - no more a skill than a heartbeat or the digestion of food.

 

I would grant that as a physiological phenomenon there is a range of performance or capability within the population. This is true for all human attributes.

 

But the idea that you can practice and train to improve it like a real skill (for example, playing a musical instrument) - laughably silly.

 

You can take a person new to astronomy - instruct them how to do it and what to look for. Once they have then discipline to not look directly at the object of interest, the capability does not get any better in a night, a week, a year, or decades.

Edited by Jeff Morgan, 20 October 2023 - 02:15 PM.

[rgk901]

nonetheless a skill... why? because average person doesn't know how to do it from birth, like beating your heart...knowing which direction to look to avoid your optical nerve as well as finding your own eyes best position takes a bit of practice and patience(also a skill lol) and is thus a skill by definition. Not to mention one needs to understand dark adaptation to gain the most from this as well.

what isn't a skill .... is looking directly into a night vision device...BUT understanding its capabilities and getting it to work at it's best is a skill.

Edited by rgk901, 20 October 2023 - 03:24 PM.

[MarkMittlesteadt]

Averted vision is so counterintuitive it does require some learning. Just like observing itself is a skill, even looking directly at an object through an EP. I can see a lot more detail than many others simply because while looking at something isn't a skill, knowing what to look for and learning patience to catch subtle details more often overlooked is an acquired skill.

 

Averted vision is no different. You can tell someone to not look directly at something in the EP, but at first they feel like they're missing something, not gaining something. It is a learned skill. A skill does not have to be difficult to be defined as such. A toddler learns how to walk. Walking is a skill, one like so many other skills, is taken for granted. 

Edited by MarkMittlesteadt, 20 October 2023 - 03:33 PM.

[sixela]

laughably silly.

Laughably rude. Laugh as much as you want, it doesn’t change a whit.

Of course you’re right that extremely small detail can’t be seen with averted vision (night vision is notoriously blurry, which is why we have to magnify so much more with glass eyepieces than with an NVD for the really small features), but even in an NVD some slightly larger but faint contrast details I still see better with averted vision. Makes sense: if people with green phosphor report that they see some features as rather grey rather than green, it means their vision is in a mesopic regime, in which averted vision can offer advantages.

If you don’t, then either your human vision system is so different from mine we can’t even discuss this, or you’re wrong about it not being a skill.

Edited by sixela, 20 October 2023 - 04:31 PM.

[WheezyGod]

I’m under the impression that averted vision is different from person to person. We know that not everyone has the same averted vision sweet spot. When I’ve gotten it to work everything is much brighter, but also incredibly blurry that it isn’t worth it. When it had worked for me before it felt like I was looking further away from an object/detail than what most described as their sweet spot.

Perhaps those that prefer to still use averted vision with night vision get better results because genetically their eyes are somehow better suited for it.

[Jeff Morgan]

Perhaps those that prefer to still use averted vision with night vision get better results because genetically their eyes are somehow better suited for it.

 

Nevertheless, it is no different than other visual phenomenon such as autokinetic effect. Once discovered, there is no amount of training or practice that "improves" upon it. It just Is.

 

And all of this faux-outrage illustrates the original point exactly. That being, the Old Guard have been hostile to NV precisely because a newcomer can take the device on Night One and see more - and often better - than their lifetime of "hard won skills" ( ) has enabled them to do.

[sixela]

Once discovered, there is no amount of training or practice that "improves" upon it

Not my experience. The rod density over the retina is far from constant, and looking at an object and directing your gaze at the exact distance and direction that (for you) maximises perceived detail is not something intuitive, it’s trained. And browsing through an entire field that way is an acquired skill.

And I even need to retrain it when using my NVD; the fact my photopic vision is at least partly engaged seems to change the amount I need to avert my gaze.

I have an NVD and still use averted vision. Am I Old Guard or New?

Edited by sixela, 21 October 2023 - 04:26 AM.

[Trentend]

 

And all of this faux-outrage illustrates the original point exactly. That being, the Old Guard have been hostile to NV precisely because a newcomer can take the device on Night One and see more - and often better - than their lifetime of "hard won skills" ( ) has enabled them to do.

Nailed the debate in one. Took my NV gear to a local star party last year. Most (including experienced “glass only” officiandos) were impressed seeing objects like the North America nebula clear as day despite viewing from a light polluted city centre car park. One chap though just muttered under his breath “I know what it looks like” and walked off. Each to their own I guess.

[Freezout]

I kind of feel the same than what Jeff means above when I read some comments "against" NV (especially when there was no NV sub-forum) from some guys that obviously spent many years refining their skills. A very clear jealousy/bitterness. 

 

It depends what one comes for when practicing astronomy. I like finding things and learning the sky in this way. So I'm Old Guard with regards to Go-To that I strongly dislike. But I'm not Old Guard with regards to NV (I don't have any for now but would be happy with one). Some others will prefer to go fast to the target (with Go-To) and observe "naturally". So why not.

 

That being said I believe completely in the "skills". I just need to observe a beginner who doesn't even see a nebula in the FOV, while having the same dark adaption that me. 

Edited by Freezout, 21 October 2023 - 07:37 AM.

[Deadlake]

Nailed the debate in one. Took my NV gear to a local star party last year. Most (including experienced “glass only” officiandos) were impressed seeing objects like the North America nebula clear as day despite viewing from a light polluted city centre car park. One chap though just muttered under his breath “I know what it looks like” and walked off. Each to their own I guess.

Did you get the impression that the 'old guard' think NV is cheating or making their 500 mm Dobs' look redundant? 

I get confused at this as for some objects these are being observed in the infra red.

I'm not aware of any humans who have evolved this ability as of yet or can the 'old guard' see in the infra red and they develop this ability with age!

Oh I forget, we just build tools rather than wait for evolution to occur....