182 replies to this topic

[Nautilus]

Now we have shortly forthcoming another advancement in astronomical viewing.

Agena Astro is introducing this to the market place for a mere $1599.  It’s release date is scheduled for this May.

 

I wonder how much this 2 inch eyepiece will weigh.

 

Have any CN members pre-ordered on of these eyepieces?.  We will be interested in your evaluation when you get one.

[skyward_eyes]

We got to use a prototype at Starfest last year in August. It is a pretty cool little thing, it is larger than a 31 Nagler so make sure you are prepared and it must be on a tracking mount so it can stack. But M20 was super detailed and all the colors visible. It is pretty neat, I am looking forward to getting one once they are out. 

[Nautilus]

Viewing will never be the same.

[skyward_eyes]

Here are some pictures I have. I didn't take as many as I thought. It was being demoed on a Tak FSQ-85. It was pretty incredible to see what it can do with such a small aperture. 

 

The coma in the eyepiece I have been told is fixed, that was by one drawback from what I saw. But it sounds like that may have been addressed with the eyepiece being used over the built-in screen. 

 

The picture of M20 was with my cell phone so not ideal but you can see the detail and colors. If they addressed the coma visible in the prototype then the rest should be awesome. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by skyward_eyes, 17 January 2025 - 10:20 AM.

[DVexile]

It is an interesting concept, trying to better integrate visual and EAA into a more unified experience.  I'm sure, as expected, it will be poo-pooed by a few of the more hardcore EAA/astrophoto community with the usual "but I can get better images for less money with this list of ten devices, five pieces of software, and twelve cables".  But based on the success of things like Seestar there is clearly a market for easier EAA and a different experience in doing it.

 

I'm pretty curious and will watch this closely.  It potentially fits my vibe as I've also been considering NV astronomy.

 

I am definitely not a fan, however, of this deeply misleading and factually incorrect FAQ entry on their website:

 

Is the resolution high enough to prevent pixelation?

 

Absolutely. The SmartEye utilizes OLEDoS (OLED on Silicon) technology, meeting a remarkable resolution of 3500 ppi (iPhone 15 Pro screen is 460 ppi for comparison).

 

So no, just no.  First, the linear resolution of the display chip inside the eyepiece is utterly irrelevant.  It is used to present a virtual image to the eye through an optical system, the display pixel pitch in ppi is a meaningless number.  The comparison to the iPhone demonstrates either gross incompetence or malicious intent to mislead.

 

The real question is what is the angle subtended by the display pixels when viewed by the eye?  They state an AFoV of 90° and that they are masking the image to be circular.  So the math is easy:

 

Pixel size = 90° / 2560 = 0.035° = 2.1 arcmin 

Size of line pair = 2 * 2.1 = 4.2 arcmin 

 

Meanwhile, the resolving power of the eye is a 1.2 arcmin line pair.

 

As to the iPhone comparison, its 460ppi display viewed from one foot:

 

Pixel size = 1/(460*12) = 181 urad = 0.010° = 0.62 arcmin

Size of line pair = 2 * 0.62 = 1.2 arcmin

 

Hey, would you look at that?  The iPhone in fact nails the resolving limit of the eye.  Meanwhile the SmartEye misses it by a factor four but makes a ridiculous advertising claim implying it is about eight times better than the iPhone rather than four times worse.

 

This kind of misleading advertising does absolutely nothing to improve the acceptance of this kind of product.  Set proper expectations, don't mislead and borderline lie.  It does no one any good.

 

The reality is that this is actually a quite decent display.  But those with decent visual acuity will easily see pixels in many cases, just like we do with camera electronic viewfinders of similar pixel resolution projected over a smaller AFoV.  Based on my experience with those kinds of EVFs, the pixels will probably appear quite tiny and be fairly easy to ignore most of the time.  Especially for the diffuse objects this would bring the biggest improvement to I suspect the pixelation will be unnoticeable unless you really look for it.

 

But still, don't advertise folks won't be able to see pixels and make nonsense comparisons to an iPhone display or you'll just end up with disappointment.  Set honest expectations and users will probably actually be pretty happy with it.

 

Honestly, hope this ends up being pretty successful!

Edited by DVexile, 17 January 2025 - 10:40 AM.

[Nautilus]

Anyone have an idea how much it weighs?

 

Interestingly about a year ago I believe there was a $200 scope on Amazon that featured something along these lines.

[DVexile]

Interestingly about a year ago I believe there was a $200 scope on Amazon that featured something along these lines.

It was pretty horrible as I recall, assuming I'm thinking of the same thing!

 

The SmartEye has all appearances of having been done "right" and very thoughtfully.

[DVexile]

Also, for reference, an ongoing thread on this product over the past months:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ronic-eyepiece/

 

Includes folks posting some answers they got from the vendor about specs and features.

[csrlice12]

Looks like it was taken by Hans Solo during the Kessel run.

[mitchellcloud]

Looks like it was taken by Hans Solo during the Kessel run.

This is a brilliant post. 5/5 stars.

[Astro-Master]

Looks like it was taken by Hans Solo during the Kessel run.

  

[jrussell]

Upfront I'll say I'm a visual only observer. That said I saw the email for this and thought huh? After seeing and reading what it is, my thoughts are: kind of cool on the one hand, kind of pointless on the other. I'm sure there's a place for it, and I can kind of see a use for it, but overall I feel it's kind of gimmicky. For me as a visual observer the majority of my enjoyment is seeing an object with my naked eye (via the mirrors in my scope). Adding a camera just isn't the same thing. I can see it maybe being useful at a star party but do you really want someone that's not knowledgeable about the equipment messing around with a $1,600 EP?

But hey, it may end up being the next great thing in the hobby. It's not like I haven't been wrong before. Just my 2 cents.

[TOMDEY]

Interesting. I use Gen 3 Night Vision eyepieces now because the presentation is real time.    Tom

[dryfly]

Upfront I'll say I'm a visual only observer. That said I saw the email for this and thought huh? After seeing and reading what it is, my thoughts are: kind of cool on the one hand, kind of pointless on the other. I'm sure there's a place for it, and I can kind of see a use for it, but overall I feel it's kind of gimmicky. For me as a visual observer the majority of my enjoyment is seeing an object with my naked eye (via the mirrors in my scope). Adding a camera just isn't the same thing. I can see it maybe being useful at a star party but do you really want someone that's not knowledgeable about the equipment messing around with a $1,600 EP?

But hey, it may end up being the next great thing in the hobby. It's not like I haven't been wrong before. Just my 2 cents.

I tend to agree. I'm not sure what niche it fills, especially since you can buy a Seestar for $400.  But of course I'm usually wrong about these things and it should therefore sell like hotcakes.

 

Mike

[Nautilus]

It was pretty horrible as I recall, assuming I'm thinking of the same thing!

I could not find that scope on Amazon but came across this

Telescope Electronic Eyepiece XiLiHaLa, 5" LCD Digital Telescope Eyepiece Camera for Telescope

 

https://www.amazon.c...Y0RCL8Y94&psc=1

[SeattleScott]

I could not find that scope on Amazon but came across this

Telescope Electronic Eyepiece XiLiHaLa, 5" LCD Digital Telescope Eyepiece Camera for Telescope

 

https://www.amazon.c...Y0RCL8Y94&psc=1

I love the artist illustration they put on the screen in the ad. Like putting a Hubble photo on the box of a department store telescope.

 

All this is is a basic electronic eyepiece. It doesn't do any time lapse, stacking, processing. It has no autofocus or nebula filter. It is just doing real-time viewing, but transmitting it to an electronic device, so multiple people can view at once. It isn't actually enhancing the image.

[SeattleScott]

I tend to agree. I'm not sure what niche it fills, especially since you can buy a Seestar for $400.  But of course I'm usually wrong about these things and it should therefore sell like hotcakes.

 

Mike

It could be worth watching. The issue with the Seestar is you are limited to a 2" scope, taking 10 second exposures. I could put this electronic eyepiece in my 4" Apo on my equatorial mount. Now for this kind of near real-time viewing, I wouldn't bother with a full precise polar alignment, guidescope, etc. I don't even own that equipment. But even without guiding, I could get longer exposure times than ten seconds. I don't know what this eyepiece can do, how long of exposures it can take. For near real-time viewing, I might limit it to 30-second exposures and stack a few of them. But still, 4" of aperture doing 30-second exposures should be in a different league than 2" aperture doing ten-second exposures. It's impressive that I was able to see the Horsehead Nebula with my Seestar 50 during a full Moon and just a couple minutes exposure time. But it was faint. A beginner quickly glancing at it would likely wonder what it was supposed to be. Something with more horsepower than Seestar that is still relatively convenient to set up and use, and can quickly swap out for visual observing of the Moon and planets (something Seestar isn't optimized for), or viewing large targets that don't really fit in the view like Pleiades, would have some value.

 

On these cold winter nights, the extreme portability and ease of use of Seestar is pretty awesome. Certainly easier than hauling out a 4" Apo (or bigger) on a medium duty EQ mount. But there will be times I don't mind pulling out a smallish scope, and if I could get much better results in similar time, or similar results much closer to real-time, that would have value.

[bengreen]

"Upfront I'll say I'm a visual only observer. That said I saw the email for this and thought huh? After seeing and reading what it is, my thoughts are: kind of cool on the one hand, kind of pointless on the other."

 

One of the reasons I've never been much interested in pursuing astro-photography, aside from the expense and the clutter, is my fascination with the idea that all those photons the telescope is funneling into my eyeball actually made the journey across the cosmos to make physical contact with me. It a time traveling, space voyaging personal connection I don't experience if there's a display involved. If my science is wrong, please don't tell me because I thoroughly enjoy throwing scant money at my fixed delusion.

 

The concept does make sense. Small stacking telescopes are already here. An eyepiece extending the portfolio of a regular telescope, like using a Quark instead of paying three times as much for a dedicated solar scope, was inevitable.

Edited by bengreen, 17 January 2025 - 01:42 PM.

[nathantw]

Truthfully, when I look through my telescope with an eyepiece and the image is dim or non-existent because of my light polluted skies, there were many, many times I had wished that my eyes would accumulate the light as I sat there staring and give me an image. Alas, it still gave me a dim or non-existent image. I thought about the NVG Gen 3 eyepieces but I wanted to stick to my Celestron 8" and it's not recommended because of the f/10 aperture. So this product sounds like it'll be perfect for me. However, that price definitely gives me pause. I already have a full EAA setup and can look at my phone (or look up my target on Astrobin) if I wanted to see it on a screen. One of the things with a traditional eyepiece is that if I can actually see something then I know I'm actually looking at the light from an object. I can move the telescope slightly and see it from the new position. It sounds like this new electronic eyepiece will need time to gather light if I just moved the telescope a little. So, tradeoffs. Maybe I'll spend the $1600 during a weak moment of G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). We'll see.

Edited by nathantw, 17 January 2025 - 02:00 PM.

[Mike G.]

Our club is considering buying one for public outreach and having the EP available for individual viewing plus casting to a screen (tablet or larger). We have a seestar but no club member wants to stand around and run it when they could be running a scope. Be interesting to see how well it works once released.

[dryfly]

I guess I'm a bit of a fuddy duddy who gets his kicks from seeing what I can see with my own eyes.  I get the points about more aperture and longer exposures, but this is really just astrophotography, not just observing.  Not that I'm against AP itself.  I love my Seestar for these brutal winter nights and for outreach. I may even upgrade to something like the Origin.  But if I want to observe, I want to do it with my eye(s) not a camera.  But to each their own, right? 

 

Mike

[SeattleScott]

I guess I'm a bit of a fuddy duddy who gets his kicks from seeing what I can see with my own eyes. I get the points about more aperture and longer exposures, but this is really just astrophotography, not just observing. Not that I'm against AP itself. I love my Seestar for these brutal winter nights and for outreach. I may even upgrade to something like the Origin. But if I want to observe, I want to do it with my eye(s) not a camera. But to each their own, right?

Mike

To me, there are three different things. Real-time viewing, which carries a certain magic because you know you are seeing the actual thing in real-time with your own eyes. There can also be some advantages. You don’t need to worry about pixelization, bright stars bloating, etc. And there is something to panning around that invites a sense of being on a journey of discovery that kind of gets lost when you just tap Tonight’s Highlights in the Seestar app.

Then there is EAA. Near real-time viewing. You still want to see one or two dozen targets tonight, but there are faint targets that simply won’t look like much visually. So this makes a good compliment to visual in order to make faint fuzzies more than just faint fuzzies, or allow you to see things that you can’t even see visually. And if you keep the exposure times to a couple minutes, or even a few minutes, then you can enjoy these more detailed views while still seeing many targets like you would if doing visual.

Then there is AP, which is more about creating a work of art. You might spend the whole night imaging one or two targets, and the whole next day processing the images. So it becomes less about trying to see a variety of objects, just simply in more detail than what you can get visually. Instead, it is spending maximum time and effort to get the most impressive image possible of often one or two targets.

Now the lines can often get blurred. If someone spends 20 minutes imaging something, and half an hour processing the images the next day, is that EAA or AP? Maybe they saw 5-10 different targets. But they spent far more time on each one than one would typically do for visual, and then spent significant time post processing. Ten minutes of web research shows that some people are using Seestar more for what would typically be considered AP, not EAA.

This electronic eyepiece would appear to appeal to people who want a simplified experience. Like Seestar. Granted there are people who take a Seestar and then spend significant time processing photos with software on their computer. But the real “killer app” would appear to be leveraging one’s investment in scopes and mounts to provide a better result than the little Seestar can provide on its Alt Az mount.

Edited by SeattleScott, 17 January 2025 - 02:48 PM.

[Sarkikos]

Viewing will never be the same.

It will be the same for those who can't afford - or don't want - to spend the $1599.   On the other hand, that's not much more than what some non-electronic eyepieces are going for now.

 

Mike

[Nautilus]

Also, for reference, an ongoing thread on this product over the past months:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ronic-eyepiece/

 

Includes folks posting some answers they got from the vendor about specs and features.

I went through over 100 posts but there is nothing about its weight.
 

[Sarkikos]

If I bought a SmartEye, it would be for as close to real-time observing as convenient for me.  I'm not interested in taking pics to look at later.  That would be an afterthought.  "Alright, I've seen the image through the SmartEye.  I might as well save a pic." 

 

Also, I don't like the idea of sitting outside waiting for an image to accumulate.  Maybe a minute?  Two minutes?  OK, five minutes tops.  More than that, and I might as well be sitting inside in my warm, comfortable house watching TV.  

 

What telescope would I use for the SmartEye?   For me, it would be my C9.25.  That's my largest aperture that can fit on my Evolution.  Unless I want to see the largest objects, then I'd put the SmartEye in a small, fast scope.  

 

I don't like the probable weight of the SmartEye.  If it's larger than a 31 Nagler, is it also heavier than one?  I'm thinking about selling my heavier eyepieces.  I suppose, though, that a heavy weight would be necessary for all the features in the SmartEye.

 

Mike

Edited by Sarkikos, 17 January 2025 - 04:07 PM.