113 replies to this topic

[Bob Campbell]

At a technical level I agree with you. But at a practical level, look at this thread. Just equipment causes people to question where the hobby is going and where they fit in. With the time restriction removed, this forum will be taken over by the AP folks. There are several threads that show what happens. As an example there is an extremely long thread about az GTI in eq mode, that was taken over by comments that dismissed the mount compared to "true AP mounts".

A more recent example is the seestar and dwarf ii threads. Soon people ask "can I get individual subs" and then proceed to do post with siril and pixinsight. The $400 affordable setup meant to entice new users turns into a crude, poorly engineered AP rig. The threads are eventually dominated by such users, and the poor guys (like me) who are attracted to the eaa use of these devices feel like they no longer fit into what the thread has become.

Bingo! Great post. You are even mentioning the az-gti mount which has been wrongly maligned by the equip snobs. There is no better mount for EAA at that price point. The guy that I bought it from used set it up (in eq) for long exposure AP and got fairly decent results.

 

This post by you is an interesting contrast to your post a few posts earlier. Yes, there are two sides to every debate.

 

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 08:55 AM.

[Bob Campbell]

Hello!

 

Interesting discussion with many aspects worth considering. It shows me that there are probably many more people who think similarly to me.

 

For me, EAA was and is the observation of space using modern techniques. Electrical, electronic devices are largely used, such as cameras, computers, goto mounts, rotators, focus motors and, and, and ... and everything is supported with and by often freely available software such as Stellarium, Sharpcap, etc.

 

The three most important advantages of EAA for me are:

• I can do it at home in a suburb of a light-trying big city (Munich).
• I can do it together with my wife, who shares my passion for astronomy just as much as I do.
• With the help of computers, I can easily document my observations with images in order to be able to learn and compare based on observed observation sessions and also to search for and find new observation targets from my own astronomy history.

In order to further develop my own skills and knowledge, I like to talk to like-minded people and constantly try to expand my horizons on the complex field of astronomy with questions and discussions. This also includes forums like this one. But I also exchange ideas with other people in person in the local astronomy association of the Munich People's Observatory and not just online.

 

Unfortunately, I find that this forum section for EAA is becoming less and less interesting to me compared to what it was a year or two ago. The EAA area has developed into a pure picture and equipment comparison competition. Astronomy-based thoughts and questions are discussed less and less, or almost no more at all. In my understanding and in comparison to the huge, complex universe we observe, arbitrary and, above all, unnecessary boundaries are drawn for images shown in order to actually achieve what?

 

Why should I not be allowed to observe light that travels to me for thousands, tens of thousands of years and unimaginably much longer for longer than sixty minutes? A really stupid approach, especially if you want to see and find more and smaller details in your photos or if you want to observe faint objects.

 

Why shouldn't you use newer software technologies later if they allow you to use time for more observation? For example, I've been avoiding creating darks and flats for some time now. Creating Darks and Flats used to cost me fifteen to thirty minutes at the beginning of each observation night. Now I work with hot pixel removal, gradient removal in Sharpcap and soft flats. Soft flats are subsequently created using software in a very short space of time using a Photoshop plugin and offset against the final stacked image from Sharpcap.

 

Hot pixel and gradient removal using Sharpcap in real time and subsequent soft flats using Photoshop save me a total of fifteen, twenty or more minutes of time every night. Time that I would rather use either for longer-term observation or, simply put, to get to bed half an hour earlier.

 

Servus - MunichtAtNight - Ewald

Great post Ewald. Thanks for reminding us (me actually) of why we do this in the first place.

 

While it doesn't sound that way from my originating post of this topic, I do really enjoy watching the image form on the screen, that is the observation of the object(s).

 

Adjusting the histogram while capturing allows me to observe more as different stretch settings and colorbal bring out different features.

 

As far as flats and darks, I usually keep the sub exposure and gain fixed so I don't always need to take darks. I also keep my optical train fixed, so flats last me many sessions. My method is such that I waste 0 observing time using them, except for the first time.

 

Annotation with plate solving really opened up the observing aspect of the EAA experience. I am capable of observing quasars and mag 15 galaxies with a 80mm refractor from B8+ skies. They are only a tiny smudge, but they are definitely there. Another great observing advantage to EAA.

 

you wrote:

 

"Why should I not be allowed to observe light that travels to me for thousands, tens of thousands of years and unimaginably much longer for longer than sixty minutes?"

 

the short answer is to distinguish between EAA and AP. From the equipment side, there is no attempt (apparently) to distinguish between AP and EAA as the rules allow for complex expensive AP rigs. I see the point that the 60min stipulation tries to make it an observing activity versus a data acquisition activity.

 

Thanks for participating in this discussion. Much appreciated.

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 09:02 AM.

[Bob Campbell]

Reading all these great posts got me to thinking further. Previously I couldn't get my head around why the recent trends of using full AP rigs for EAA bugged me so much. Now I think I've got it.

 

One of the cornerstones of EAA that it is an observational activity versus a data acquisition activity.

 

That is fundamentally the distinction between EAA and AP that has endured through changes in the rules governing EAA.

 

There have been no restriction on aperture, camera, mount. And that makes sense.

 

That is the reason for the 60min time limit---perhaps a statement of how long can a person sit 'observing' before they walk away and just acquire data.

 

The use of filter wheels clearly violates the spirit of observational activity versus a data acquisition activity.

 

The work flow proves it. There are posts that outline this process, in response to member's inquiries.

 

The idea basically is a *serial* acquisition of 3 color data with Jocular, when the wheel is acquiring individual sets of data. The image real-time is not the fully integrated one, the final image is after all the data is stacked. There is way more acquisition than observation in this case.

 

It is clear that this is not EAA as intended, and is a data collecting exercise.

 

Note that this argument permits the use of guiding, and actually I never thought that was a big deal.

 

I think the use of filter wheels for AP-lite pseudo EAA really crosses the line, and I propose that the rules be amended to prohibit the use of such devices to generate images posted on EAA image forums.

 

Let those users graduate to traditional AP where their rigs are well suited. Unfettered by the other EAA rules, their results will be much better than what they are generating now.

 

If color wheel data is not taken, they are free to post as before in EAA forums. Of course this is an honor system, but everything about post processing and other EAA rules are on this system.

 

Comments welcome, especially from those who moderate here (there are still EAA moderators, I checked)

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 10:25 AM.

[steveincolo]

Reading all these great posts got me to thinking further. Previously I couldn't get me head around why the recent trends of using full AP rigs for EAA bugged me so much. Now I think I've got it.

 

One of the cornerstones of EAA that it is an observational activity versus a data acquisition activity.

 

That is fundamentally the distinction between EAA and AP that has endured through changes in the rules governing EAA.

 

There have been no restriction on aperture, camera, mount. And that makes sense.

 

That is the reason for the 60min time limit---perhaps a statement of how long can a person sit 'observing' before they walk away and just acquire data.

 

The use of filter wheels clearly violates the spirit of observational activity versus a data acquisition activity.

 

The work flow proves it. There are posts that outline this process, in response to member's inquiries.

 

The idea basically is a *serial* acquisition of 3 color data with Jocular, when the wheel is acquiring individual sets of data. The image real-time is not the fully integrated one, the final image is after all the data is stacked. There is way more acquisition than observation in this case.

 

It is clear that this is not EAA as intended, and is a data collecting exercise.

 

Note that this argument permits the use of guiding, and actually I never thought that was a big deal.

 

I think the use of filter wheels for AP-lite pseudo EAA really crosses the line, and I propose that the rules be amended to prohibit the use of such devices to generate images posted on EAA image forums.

 

Let those users graduate to traditional AP where their rigs are well suited. Unfettered by the other EAA rules, their results will be much better than what they are generating now.

 

If color wheel data is not taken, they are free to post as before in EAA forums. Of course this is an honor system, but everything about post processing and other EAA rules are on this system.

 

Comments welcome, especially from those who moderate here (there are still EAA moderators, I checked)

 

Bob

Hmm, let's see if that's true.  Last night, for example, I viewed three faint Abell planetary nebulas.  Each time, I took five Ha subs followed by five OIII subs.  While Jocular was stacking the Ha subs, I viewed the mono Ha stack as it grew more detailed.  Then when the OIII subs started coming in, Jocular started stacking those, and I viewed the mono OIII stack as it grew more detailed.  After all those subs came in, I also viewed a combined HOO stack (which was generally less useful than the mono stacks).   Alternatively, I could have interleaved the Ha and OIII subs and watched the HOO stack grow more detailed.  

 

That's not the only misconception in this thread.  Here are some others.  First, and foremost, Jocular was designed as an EAA observational tool.  That's why it has the "eyepiece" metaphor.  That's why it doesn't have histograms.  That's why it does an excellent job of setting the black point automatically.  Martin, the software designer, felt that these helped focus on the observational aspect.  You may disagree with his decisions, but the idea that it isn't for EAA is just wrong.  

 

Second, that using it requires expensive AP equipment.  I use 1.25" ZWO filters that I got from the Classifieds on this site.  I use a very reasonably-priced-for-its-size refractor that Errol got on sale (as did I).  And by the way, (edit: added link) he's used it with an inexpensive camera to get more detailed shots than I have.  I got my mount used.  

 

Third, that AP is necessarily mono cameras and filters.  There are any number of AP imagers who use OSC cameras.  And there are EAA'ers who use more expensive OSC cameras than my mono camera, more expensive scopes, and more expensive mounts.  

 

Fourth, that using Jocular is about producing pretty pictures.  A picture here is worth a thousand words: Here's an image I recently posted.  It's not pretty at all, because I had to use the maximum stretch possible to get anything.  I was just trying to see if I could view Abell 74 and make out any details. I could be wrong, but I think that's exactly what EAA is about.  

 

 

Fifth, that this is creating a trend.  I've been using Jocular for well over a year now, and there hasn't been any great rush to adopt it.  It is more work and more complexity!  

 

I think this could have been a more useful thread had it been more generally about the appropriateness of using expensive equipment or more complex techniques for EAA.  Instead, it feels to me like what I'm doing with Jocular is being unfairly singled out, regardless of whether that's the intent.  For example, with this latest post trying to find a new justification to get my approach banned.  

Edited by steveincolo, 22 September 2023 - 10:47 AM.

[Bob Campbell]

Hmm, let's see if that's true.  Last night, for example, I viewed three faint Abell planetary nebulas.  Each time, I took five Ha subs followed by five OIII subs.  While Jocular was stacking the Ha subs, I viewed the mono Ha stack as it grew more detailed.  Then when the OIII subs started coming in, Jocular started stacking those, and I viewed the mono OIII stack as it grew more detailed.  After all those subs came in, I also viewed a combined HOO stack (which was generally less useful than the mono stacks).   Alternatively, I could have interleaved the Ha and OIII subs and watched the HOO stack grow more detailed.  

 

That's not the only misconception in this thread.  Here are some others.  First, and foremost, Jocular was designed as an EAA observational tool.  That's why it has the "eyepiece" metaphor.  That's why it doesn't have histograms.  That's why it does an excellent job of setting the black point automatically.  Martin, the software designer, felt that these helped focus on the observational aspect.  You may disagree with his decisions, but the idea that it isn't for EAA is just wrong.  

 

Second, that using it requires expensive AP equipment.  I use 1.25" ZWO filters that I got from the Classifieds on this site.  I use a very reasonably-priced-for-its-size refractor that Errol got on sale (as did I).  And by the way, (edit: added link) he's used it with an inexpensive camera to get more detailed shots than I have.  I got my mount used.  

 

Third, that AP is necessarily mono cameras and filters.  There are any number of AP imagers who use OSC cameras.  And there are EAA'ers who use more expensive OSC cameras than my mono camera, more expensive scopes, and more expensive mounts.  

 

Fourth, that using Jocular is about producing pretty pictures.  A picture here is worth a thousand words: Here's an image I recently posted.  It's not pretty at all, because I had to use the maximum stretch possible to get anything.  I was just trying to see if I could view Abell 74 and make out any details. I could be wrong, but I think that's exactly what EAA is about.  

 

 

 

Fifth, that this is creating a trend.  I've been using Jocular for well over a year now, and there hasn't been any great rush to adopt it.  It is more work and more complexity!  

 

I think this could have been a more useful thread had it been more generally about the appropriateness of using expensive equipment or more complex techniques for EAA.  Instead, it feels to me like what I'm doing with Jocular is being unfairly singled out, regardless of whether that's the intent.  For example, with this latest post trying to find a new justification to get my approach banned.  

You can post to AP forums as much as you wish. Your previous use of jocular was pretty much along the guidelines of EAA without the serial  filter wheel acquisition and raised no issue.

 

The eyepiece view was simply a display output format. The goal for Jocular might have been EAA, but it has morphed into something more with the sequential capturing of narrow band color data.

 

I think I made a pretty clear argument that the introduction of filter wheel makes EAA capture more about the data acquisition and less about the actual observations. Yes, you can observe, but it doesn't have the same feel the way you describe it.

 

My prediction is that my proposal will go nowhere, so you have nothing to fear. Its all part of EAA and AP slowly blending together so there will be no EAA per se, or the very least there will be levels of quality of the images: Those who practice AP-lite, and those who continue the classic EAA methods and philosophy.

 

BTW, loved the AP rendition of M27 you put up on Goofi's challenge. That is a QED in my mind making my point.

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 11:41 AM.

[steveincolo]

You can post to AP forums as much as you wish. Your previous use of jocular was pretty much along the guidelines of EAA without the serial  filter wheel acquisition and raised no issue.

 

The eyepiece view was simply a display output format. The goal for Jocular might have been EAA, but it has morphed into something more with the sequential capturing of narrow band color data.

 

I think I made a pretty clear argument that the introduction of filter wheel makes EAA capture more about the data acquisition and less about the actual observations. Yes, you can observe, but it doesn't have the same feel the way you describe it.

 

My prediction is that my proposal will go nowhere, so you have nothing to fear. Its all part of EAA and AP slowly blending together so there will be no EAA per se, or the very least there will be levels of quality of the images: Those who practice AP-lite, and those who continue the classic EAA methods and philosophy.

 

BTW, loved the AP rendition of M27 you put up on Goofi's challenge. That is a QED in my mind making my point.

 

Bob

You mean the M27 where I didn't use Jocular and took 16 hours of data?  That makes your point?  

 

Your argument was clear but based the erroneous assumptions that the data had to be collected serially and Jocular doesn't produce a useful observational image until after that's done.  

 

However, this unpleasantness will achieve your objective.  I'm much less likely to post here thanks to it.  

[Bob Campbell]

You mean the M27 where I didn't use Jocular and took 16 hours of data?  That makes your point?  

 

Your argument was clear but based the erroneous assumptions that the data had to be collected serially and Jocular doesn't produce a useful observational image until after that's done.  

 

However, this unpleasantness will achieve your objective.  I'm much less likely to post here thanks to it.  

Not claiming you did that with an hour of data or with jocular, just that your rig is a very capable ap rig. 

 

Don't leave on my account, I am  pretty insignificant on these boards. You do know yiu can block users and not see their posts. 

 

Just thought I'd bring this topic up for general discussion in the chance that newbees seeing some of the ap lite images might get discouraged.  

 

Bob

[steveincolo]

Not claiming you did that with an hour of data or with jocular, just that your rig is a very capable ap rig. 

 

Don't leave on my account, I am  pretty insignificant on these boards. You do know yiu can block users and not see their posts. 

 

Just thought I'd bring this topic up for general discussion in the chance that newbees seeing some of the ap lite images might get discouraged.  

 

Bob

So let's take an example from the latest challenge.  I posted a couple of views of NGC 6905 that are decent:  they show the internal structure and the ansae.  But other people posted views that are just as good in that respect if not better:  Bob Stan, gun4hire, Tfer, and Cey.  (And I may have missed others.)  So why aren't you talking about how those might discourage newbies?  

 

I wouldn't be leaving "on your account." It'd be because it is unpleasant to be unfairly singled out by an active poster with the resulting likelihood of being constantly reminded of that unpleasantness.  

[Bob Campbell]

So let's take an example from the latest challenge.  I posted a couple of views of NGC 6905 that are decent:  they show the internal structure and the ansae.  But other people posted views that are just as good in that respect if not better:  Bob Stan, gun4hire, Tfer, and Cey.  (And I may have missed others.)  So why aren't you talking about how those might discourage newbies?  

 

I wouldn't be leaving "on your account." It'd be because it is unpleasant to be unfairly singled out by an active poster with the resulting likelihood of being constantly reminded of that unpleasantness.  

Because they are acquiring simultaneously, not serially like filter wheels. And yours are better. 

 

After this I will not be mentioning it  especially if the current rules stand. Don't be so thin skinned. Yiu pushed the envelope and someone pushed back. Whatever

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 12:46 PM.

[dcweaver]

Bob - I believe newbies will feel excited, not discouraged or inadequate. This thread has turned into a "targeted" campaign against one or two individuals, and it is coming across as very "small". You might consider raising you skill level instead of trying to lower Steve's.

[jml79]

This is an interesting topic. When is a rig an "AP-Lite" rig? I am an Astrophotographer. Until very recently I didn't even own an eyepiece or diagonal and only recently got one with a cheap 70mm scope for my kids. I have never looked through either my 76mm or 102mm scopes. I recently started to play with some EAA, as a way to share my hobby with my kids and extended family. I play with EAA when I'm waiting for a target to rise or when one of my rigs isn't busy but I'm at my workstation using the other rig. I am actually enjoying it quite a bit. 

 

Now, my rig (#2 in my sig). I have an EQM-35 mount. It's a horrible POS and definitely in the lighter category. I have a small 76mm (3") triplet. I have the cheapest autoguiding rig known to man (SV-105 and SV-165). My camera is mono but it's a 294m which is pretty common in the EAA world. I have a filter wheel and an EAF. I tried my Lum and Ha filter for EAA and they work well. I may have to look at this Jocular because I actually envy those with an OSC but my rig is AP first so I'm not removing the camera to play for a few hours and then put it back.

 

Last night I did AP. I opened my roof, booted my computers and had both rigs on target and imaging in about 10 minutes. I checked on them a few times after putting my kids to bed and then one last time before I went to bed. I got up this morning and closed the roof. My scopes had run their routines, warmed, parked, and shutdown. My imaging computers have already uploaded the data to my NAS waiting for me to sort and process at the end of the project. On average a project takes me 6 full nights. 

 

Last weekend my kids were in bed a bit early and I didn't have a target until 1am. I decided to play with EAA. I pointed my rig at the Heart nebula and then problem solved a few issues (sharpcap is not NINA) and experimented with observing the Heart nebula. I had fun. I eventually successfully stacked 30 minutes of Ha data and figured out how to save just the image on screen and not all of the data. I am looking forward to my next EAA session. It was relaxing and fun to use my gear as an observation system vs capture.

 

I can promise you, the gear doesn't matter. The challenges of EAA are different than AP and the activity is much more connected and real time.

 

Now, is my rig an EAA rig, AP lite or an AP rig pretending to be an EAA rig sometimes? Honestly just having some fun.

Edited by jml79, 22 September 2023 - 12:52 PM.

[steveincolo]

This is an interesting topic. When is a rig an "AP-Lite" rig? I am an Astrophotographer. Until very recently I didn't even own an eyepiece or diagonal and only recently got one with a cheap 70mm scope for my kids. I have never looked through either my 76mm or 102mm scopes. I recently started to play with some EAA, as a way to share my hobby with my kids and extended family. I play with EAA when I'm waiting for a target to rise or when one of my rigs isn't busy but I'm at my workstation using the other rig. I am actually enjoying it quite a bit. 

 

Now, my rig (#2 in my sig). I have an EQM-35 mount. It's a horrible POS and definitely in the lighter category. I have a small 76mm (3") triplet. I have the cheapest autoguiding rig known to man (SV-105 and SV-165). My camera is mono but it's a 294m which is pretty common in the EAA world. I have a filter wheel and an EAF. I tried my Lum and Ha filter for EAA and they work well. I may have to look at this Jocular because I actually envy those with an OSC but my rig is AP first so I'm not removing the camera to play for a few hours and then put it back.

 

Last night I did AP. I opened my roof, booted my computers and had both rigs on target and imaging in about 10 minutes. I checked on them a few times after putting my kids to bed and then one last time before I went to bed. I got up this morning and closed the roof. My scopes had run their routines, warmed, parked, and shutdown. My imaging computers have already uploaded the data to my NAS waiting for me to sort and process at the end of the project. On average a project takes me 6 full nights. 

 

Last weekend my kids were in bed a bit early and I didn't have a target until 1am. I decided to play with EAA. I pointed my rig at the Heart nebula and then problem solved a few issues (sharpcap is not NINA) and experimented with observing the Heart nebula. I had fun. I eventually successfully stacked 30 minutes of Ha data and figured out how to save just the image on screen and not all of the data. I am looking forward to my next EAA session. It was relaxing and fun to use my gear as an observation system vs capture.

 

I can promise you, the gear doesn't matter. The challenges of EAA are different than AP and the activity is much more connected and real time.

 

Now, is my rig an EAA rig, AP lite or an AP rig pretending to be an EAA rig sometimes? Honestly just having some fun.

Also try AstroToaster in conjunction with DeepSkyStacker.  And if you use PixInsight for AP, you can try the EZ Suite Live plugin.  

[Bob Campbell]

Bob - I believe newbies will feel excited, not discouraged or inadequate. This thread has turned into a "targeted" campaign against one or two individuals, and it is coming across as very "small". You might consider raising you skill level instead of trying to lower Steve's.

It's not skill, it's bucks. I have plenty of skill doing what I do with what I have.

 

Bob

[steveincolo]

It's not skill, it's bucks. I have plenty of skill doing what I do with what I have.

 

Bob

If it's about the money, then again why did you pick me?  I don't have the most expensive gear here, not even close.  

[MartinMeredith]

Steve explained it well, but just to reinforce the point: in Jocular the stacked image is updated immediately after each new sub is acquired, just like every other EAA stacking software I know of. If I'm collecting 5s subs I get to see the first image after 5s, the updated image after 10s, etc etc.

 

Clearly, it starts off in mono, but Jocular provides the option of combining the filtered sub-stacks in any way possible up to that point in the acquisitional/observational process. Here's an example of what the screen looks like (this is M103, 1m20s total in 5s subs, 4 each of LRGB, captured with a Lodestar X2 Mono CCD guide camera and alt-az mounted 8"f4 Newt). The non-greyed-out options are those that are legally possible at this point, and clicking any of the buttons redisplays the stack in under a second. This is what Steve is doing when he is exploring his LHO, HOO etc captures while observing, and it is perfectly feasible to do while waiting for the next sub to come in.

 

 

 

 

I suppose I could buy 3 identical rigs, each capturing one of R, G or B which deliver their subs in parallel and instantaneously combine them. That would be fine, right? But what a palaver and expense.

 

My own setup is pretty cheap. I've used a guide cam as my main EAA camera for nearly 10 years now (I don't actually guide). I'd estimate that my filter wheel plus 1.25" Baader filters cost less than the main camera many on this forum use. This is the only extra cost of doing LRGB/LHSO.

 

As for the notion that those of us practising (L)RGB/LHSO-based observing are really doing AP surreptitiously, that doesn't really account for the 21 open clusters I observed in LRGB during a 3 hour session a while back. I don't do AP and never will.

 

I personally find LRGB very well suited to EAA not because it is faster to attain a given SNR compared to OSC (although it is) but because the colour manipulations turn out to be really simple (Jocular provides just two colour sliders, and no histograms), allowing a focus on observing, which as Steve mentioned was the main point of writing Jocular.

 

cheers

 

Martin

 

[Bob Campbell]

Steve explained it well, but just to reinforce the point: in Jocular the stacked image is updated immediately after each new sub is acquired, just like every other EAA stacking software I know of. If I'm collecting 5s subs I get to see the first image after 5s, the updated image after 10s, etc etc.

 

Clearly, it starts off in mono, but Jocular provides the option of combining the filtered sub-stacks in any way possible up to that point in the acquisitional/observational process. Here's an example of what the screen looks like (this is M103, 1m20s total in 5s subs, 4 each of LRGB, captured with a Lodestar X2 Mono CCD guide camera and alt-az mounted 8"f4 Newt). The non-greyed-out options are those that are legally possible at this point, and clicking any of the buttons redisplays the stack in under a second. This is what Steve is doing when he is exploring his LHO, HOO etc captures while observing, and it is perfectly feasible to do while waiting for the next sub to come in.

 

 

example.png

 

 

I suppose I could buy 3 identical rigs, each capturing one of R, G or B which deliver their subs in parallel and instantaneously combine them. That would be fine, right? But what a palaver and expense.

 

My own setup is pretty cheap. I've used a guide cam as my main EAA camera for nearly 10 years now (I don't actually guide). I'd estimate that my filter wheel plus 1.25" Baader filters cost less than the main camera many on this forum use. This is the only extra cost of doing LRGB/LHSO.

 

As for the notion that those of us practising (L)RGB/LHSO-based observing are really doing AP surreptitiously, that doesn't really account for the 21 open clusters I observed in LRGB during a 3 hour session a while back. I don't do AP and never will.

 

I personally find LRGB very well suited to EAA not because it is faster to attain a given SNR compared to OSC (although it is) but because the colour manipulations turn out to be really simple (Jocular provides just two colour sliders, and no histograms), allowing a focus on observing, which as Steve mentioned was the main point of writing Jocular.

 

cheers

 

Martin

Thanks Martin. You are a very talented developer. Going through the effort of switching filters to achieve SHO palette in EAA is hardly focusing on observing. But again, I seem to be in the minority here and almost looking 'petty' and 'small'. My point being is jocular allows  if enough is invested monetarily, can produce results with palettes that is an excellent representation of AP.

 

I seem to be the only one bothered by this

 

 Bob

[Clouzot]

There is a pinned topic on the forum called EAA Observing Reports. Nobody posts there. It's not the forum that discourages posting more than just pictures and equipment...

Totally missed that post. I'll do my duty in there next time.

[steveincolo]

Thanks Martin. You are a very talented developer. Going through the effort of switching filters to achieve SHO palette in EAA is hardly focusing on observing. But again, I seem to be in the minority here and almost looking 'petty' and 'small'. My point being is jocular allows  if enough is invested monetarily, can produce results with palettes that is an excellent representation of AP.

 

I seem to be the only one bothered by this

 

 Bob

Martin is actually more interested in the observational aspect than almost everyone here.  (Giving Brent and some others their props, it's hard to change a culture).  You can check out his threads on observations in Stargazers Lounge.   Best of all, he's not trying to use "observation" as a cudgel to get EAA approaches banned!  

 

I actually posted about interesting observational aspects of NGC 7026 that I thought were best brought out by Errol's image.  The response was mostly crickets.  

Edited by steveincolo, 22 September 2023 - 03:44 PM.

[MunichAtNight]

....

Clearly, it starts off in mono, but Jocular provides the option of combining the filtered sub-stacks in any way possible up to that point in the acquisitional/observational process. Here's an example of what the screen looks like (this is M103, 1m20s total in 5s subs, 4 each of LRGB, captured with a Lodestar X2 Mono CCD guide camera and alt-az mounted 8"f4 Newt). The non-greyed-out options are those that are legally possible at this point, and clicking any of the buttons redisplays the stack in under a second. This is what Steve is doing when he is exploring his LHO, HOO etc captures while observing, and it is perfectly feasible to do while waiting for the next sub to come in.

 

.....

That's very interesting! I didn't know about your software! I will go to evaluate!

 

Servus - MunichAtNight

[amitshesh]

I don't see the distinction that way : observation vs data acquisition. It's a very subjective issue.

I do EAA because I can see something quicker, and with less effort. The time I am willing to spend does change depending on what I am after and how much I think I can get by spending more time, but there is a limit (different for each of us). If there comes a time when AP post processing becomes as easy and operating Asiair or sharpcap, and does not require as much money, I would happily do AP at that point. I still do, for the moon and milky way.

I feel AP is a very artistic endeavor. We all may have our idea of what good art looks for us (individually), but there is a vast difference between knowing what is good or not vs producing art that rises to our own level of good. EAA is mostly "look what I can see with the time I am willing to devote".

As an example I can bet that there are a lot more EAAers chasing 12th mag galaxies or fainter than there are AP folks. The beauty is in the sheer seeing. Spending 12 hours to get that data is simply not going to elevate the beauty of it by that amount. So it's less worthy for AP.

Seeing folks use equipment I can likely never afford does cause me some envy. I routinely show my wife how much some of the equipment owned by some here costs, if nothing than to get her sympathy. I cited AM5 before, but I would be downrifht lying if I denied that once I am able to justify that expense, it is my dream mount. I promise to myself I will never buy a mount again if and when I buy the AM5.

But reading about what people can do with their expensive equipment also leads me to someone else trying to do the same with equipment that is more comparable, and get partly there. That keeps me going and motivates me to keep reading and planning. I am in favor of the 60 minute rule because arbitrary as it is, it does the job of keeping AP folks out of this forum (as I want). And AP and EAA are both more means for me to get something I like. All of those are simultaneously true, yes.

Edited by amitshesh, 22 September 2023 - 04:30 PM.

[Bob Campbell]

Martin is actually more interested in the observational aspect than almost everyone here.  (Giving Brent and some others their props, it's hard to change a culture).  You can check out his threads on observations in Stargazers Lounge.   Best of all, he's not trying to use "observation" as a cudgel to get EAA approaches banned!  

 

I actually posted about interesting observational aspects of NGC 7026 that I thought were best brought out by Errol's image.  The response was mostly crickets.  

I read that response BTW. very interesting

[Bob Campbell]

I don't see the distinction that way : observation vs data acquisition. It's a very subjective issue.

I do EAA because I can see something quicker, and with less effort. The time I am willing to spend does change depending on what I am after and how much I think I can get by spending more time, but there is a limit (different for each of us). If there comes a time when AP post processing becomes as easy and operating Asiair or sharpcap, and does not require as much money, I would happily do AP at that point. I still do, for the moon and milky way.

I feel AP is a very artistic endeavor. We all may have our idea of what good art looks for us (individually), but there is a vast difference between knowing what is good or not vs producing art that rises to our own level of good. EAA is mostly "look what I can see with the time I am willing to devote".

As an example I can bet that there are a lot more EAAers chasing 12th mag galaxies or fainter than there are AP folks. The beauty is in the sheer seeing. Spending 12 hours to get that data is simply not going to elevate the beauty of it by that amount. So it's less worthy for AP.

Seeing folks use equipment I can likely never afford does cause me some envy. I routinely show my wife how much some of the equipment owned by some here costs, if nothing than to get her sympathy. I cited AM5 before, but I would be downrifht lying if I denied that once I am able to justify that expense, it is my dream mount. I promise to myself I will never buy a mount again if and when I buy the AM5.

But reading about what people can do with their expensive equipment also leads me to someone else trying to do the same with equipment that is more comparable, and get partly there. That keeps me going and motivates me to keep reading and planning. I am in favor of the 60 minute rule because arbitrary as it is, it does the job of keeping AP folks out of this forum (as I want). And AP and EAA are both more means for me to get something I like. All of those are simultaneously true, yes.

good post. I do not have the time and inclination and equipment and location to do AP. I love AP in the right forum, no doubt.

 

""But reading about what people can do with their expensive equipment also leads me to someone else trying to do the same with equipment that is more comparable, and get partly there"

 

that's exactly what I try to do as well. The latest upping of the ante (filter wheels) has made that harder for me to do.

 

 

 

Like you, I have equipment envy. Bad.

 

Check your DM.

 

Bob

Edited by Bob Campbell, 22 September 2023 - 05:13 PM.

[Bob Campbell]

This is an interesting topic. When is a rig an "AP-Lite" rig? I am an Astrophotographer. Until very recently I didn't even own an eyepiece or diagonal and only recently got one with a cheap 70mm scope for my kids. I have never looked through either my 76mm or 102mm scopes. I recently started to play with some EAA, as a way to share my hobby with my kids and extended family. I play with EAA when I'm waiting for a target to rise or when one of my rigs isn't busy but I'm at my workstation using the other rig. I am actually enjoying it quite a bit. 

 

Now, my rig (#2 in my sig). I have an EQM-35 mount. It's a horrible POS and definitely in the lighter category. I have a small 76mm (3") triplet. I have the cheapest autoguiding rig known to man (SV-105 and SV-165). My camera is mono but it's a 294m which is pretty common in the EAA world. I have a filter wheel and an EAF. I tried my Lum and Ha filter for EAA and they work well. I may have to look at this Jocular because I actually envy those with an OSC but my rig is AP first so I'm not removing the camera to play for a few hours and then put it back.

 

Last night I did AP. I opened my roof, booted my computers and had both rigs on target and imaging in about 10 minutes. I checked on them a few times after putting my kids to bed and then one last time before I went to bed. I got up this morning and closed the roof. My scopes had run their routines, warmed, parked, and shutdown. My imaging computers have already uploaded the data to my NAS waiting for me to sort and process at the end of the project. On average a project takes me 6 full nights. 

 

Last weekend my kids were in bed a bit early and I didn't have a target until 1am. I decided to play with EAA. I pointed my rig at the Heart nebula and then problem solved a few issues (sharpcap is not NINA) and experimented with observing the Heart nebula. I had fun. I eventually successfully stacked 30 minutes of Ha data and figured out how to save just the image on screen and not all of the data. I am looking forward to my next EAA session. It was relaxing and fun to use my gear as an observation system vs capture.

 

I can promise you, the gear doesn't matter. The challenges of EAA are different than AP and the activity is much more connected and real time.

 

Now, is my rig an EAA rig, AP lite or an AP rig pretending to be an EAA rig sometimes? Honestly just having some fun.

unless senility has completely overtaken me, you have stated you have a AP rig doing AP and you occasionally dabble in EAA.

 

Bob

[Bob Campbell]

If it's about the money, then again why did you pick me?  I don't have the most expensive gear here, not even close.  

its about the process for sure, and a certain level of expense is required to take that to fruition. I really don;t care if someone has a bigger scope (that cost more say) It about the process and the $$$ required to pull it off.

 

Honestly, from what I have read so far, no one (except me) has a problem with what you are doing (and you are not the only one now).

 

Certainly you will continue to be held in high esteem, and it is I who now has the rep of being 'small' and 'petty'. That's OK, I felt I needed to bring this to light and kick the idea around. I'll take my medicine if administered.

 

 

Bob

[Sean Cunneen]

This topic comes up every other year or so as new technology comes into market. From my perspective, right now there are not very many companies making cameras so there is little differentiation equipment-wise to say that "this camera is EAA gear or This camera is AP only" in fact, you all are voting with your pocket books and telling manufacturers you enjoy watching the AP process go in real time and they are happy to oblige you. Of course this does not make our jobs any easier, but that's okay. What we don't want to do is spend time hair-splitting as to whether so and so is doing EAA or not. You can be doing  EAA WHILE you are imaging. What you can't do (in this forum anyways) is post process and present that image as EAA taken "in the moment". 

 

If Jocular allows the introduction of filters into your EAA experience, then I think that's pretty cool, so long as you are observing the image in real time while it happens!

 

EAA at it's base form is using electronics to bring out details you can't get at an eyepiece. EAA allows those with visual disabilities to observe. It allows us to do outreach for large groups by piping the scope image out to a big screen. EAA allows those with small scopes to use electronics to make details pop out that they couldn't normally see unless their scopes were much larger. 

 

To try and define EAA too narrowly just takes enjoyment away from what you all want to do, so keep on pushing boundaries, we are literally the ones who can.