13 replies to this topic

[TallTanBarbie]

Many moons ago as a weird nerd girl who stayed up late on weekends to watch old science fiction movies on cable television, I saw a famous science fiction film called "The Invisible Ray" (1936) starring Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi.  The film features a telescope with some kind of imaging device connected to a projector:

 

 

I dreamed that one day I'd be able to do this with a telescope.  Fast forward to the 21st Century where now you can buy the equipment to do this over the Internet

 

Is this the earliest depiction of EAA in film?  When did it start?  Who was the first to actually do it?

 

The only other thing that I can find is an article by famed astrophysicist and astronomer Donald H. Menzel from 1928:

 

https://en.wikipedia...Video_astronomy

 

[NiteGuy]

I still look at EAA today as SciFi.

 

EAA tech has a long, long way to go before I'll get excited about it. That said, EAA is absolutely going to be the future of visual observing. Traditional eyepieces will ultimately be a thing of the past. Filters may become 100% electronic. As for today, we're still in Boris Karloff's and Bela Lugosi's ancient EAA world but, as they say, "the future is right around the corner."

 

Edit: BTW, thanks for digging up that old info. A most interesting post.

Edited by NiteGuy, 06 July 2025 - 02:19 PM.

[152ED]

There is still ancient information on a mysterious wavelength in real star light seen thru actual glass.  I space out 10x more, meditating on ancient enigmas, after an hour at the binoviewer in the 6" refractor.  It's not the same with a .png file.

[mgCatskills]

There is still ancient information on a mysterious wavelength in real star light seen thru actual glass.  I space out 10x more, meditating on ancient enigmas, after an hour at the binoviewer in the 6" refractor.  It's not the same with a .png file.

True.  The .png file is way better.

 

Look, if you find the thought of actual photons hitting your retina romantic, or whatever, I would be the last person to criticize.

 

Still, my club put on a star party at a wedding reception last night.  A friend had a 14" Dob with a really good eyepiece set up near my EAA demo.  I had an Askar V with an 80mm objective and extender with a 2600mc camera.

 

We coordinated a few times to show the same objects... in one case M51.  We were in Bortle 5, and there was a bright moon all evening, so you could just make out the double galactic cores of M51 in the DOB.

 

With my little Askar, I could zoom in on M51 so it was substantially full screen, and after the first 20 second exposure you could see the gross spiral structure -- way more than in the DOB.  Within 5 minutes, you could see a fair amount of the fine structure and some of the colors emerging.

 

The guests loved being able to see the same object two ways.. but hung around watching M51 emerge on my screen way longer than they hung out at the DOB, and asked tons of questions the whole time.

 

Personally I miss the actual photons hitting my retina not at all... I find being able to see a bit of the fine detail way more engaging, and it motivates me to learn more about what I'm seeing on the screen.

 

To each his own.

Edited by mgCatskills, 07 July 2025 - 08:02 PM.

[TallTanBarbie]

There is still ancient information on a mysterious wavelength in real star light seen thru actual glass.  I space out 10x more, meditating on ancient enigmas, after an hour at the binoviewer in the 6" refractor.  It's not the same with a .png file.

I've never thought of electronic cameras as a replacement, but as a tool. 

 

Otherwise, I'd be content from looking at pictures in books from observatories or the Hubble telescope.

 

I always tell people (especially kids) that seeing the real thing with you own eyes is where the mystery lies.

 

I wanted to see the real thing with my own eyes with nothing in between me and the wonders of the heavens.

 

The  Earth's atmosphere and the vastness of interstellar space get in the way, so we have to use film or sensors for light collection.

 

Big difference between what's on a page in a book or an image on a screen.  One of the most unexplained mysteries of the universe is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space.  It just keeps going...and going... and going...

[TallTanBarbie]

UPDATE:

 

I found the original source for Donald H. Menzel's 1928 EAA article.

 

 

 

 

 

This was published in Hugo Gernsback's "Science And Invention" magazine in February, 1928.

 

https://www.worldrad.../SI-1928-02.pdf

 

Science fiction fans will know the name.  Hugo Gernsback not only published the famous "Amazing Stories" magazine, but he also coined the term "science fiction."

[mgCatskills]

I've never thought of electronic cameras as a replacement, but as a tool. 

 

Otherwise, I'd be content from looking at pictures in books from observatories or the Hubble telescope.

 

I always tell people (especially kids) that seeing the real thing with you own eyes is where the mystery lies.

 

I wanted to see the real thing with my own eyes with nothing in between me and the wonders of the heavens.

 

The  Earth's atmosphere and the vastness of interstellar space get in the way, so we have to use film or sensors for light collection.

 

Big difference between what's on a page in a book or an image on a screen.  One of the most unexplained mysteries of the universe is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space.  It just keeps going...and going... and going...

To perhaps state the obvious, you're posting to the EAA forum, and most of us have come to terms with this issue.  

 

Of course, if you want to limit yourself to mid-19th century astronomy techniques on your own time and your own dime, that's your business.  But it's a fact that astronomy's big advancements took place when imaging technologies (initially on film) came into use.  Proving that the Milky Way was only one galaxy among many (ultimately trillions) utterly depended on imaging.

 

Again, I'll rely on my experience demonstrating EAA at star parties.   I do think the immediacy of EAA differentiates it from viewing static photos in a book or available from the Internet.

 

If I have a nice capture going at a star party... as I did the other night with M51 -- and gather a good audience, I make a point of "blowing it up" and starting a new target.  The audience sees me enter the new target, sees the telescope slew -- I'll shine my headlamp on it, to make sure than can see it -- and waits expectantly to see the first light show up.  After that, they watch the image improve with each additional frame.  I usually use 15-20s exposures, and most find the process fascinating.  We'll often get into a discussion around how stacking works, and about the limitations of the human eye as an imaging system.

 

It's a completely different experience than looking at a static photo on the screen.  Watching the image go from blank to something with lots of detail in, say, 5 minutes is immediate and "real".   The other night I switched from M51 to the Eagle Nebula, and within a couple of minutes could clearly see the Pillars of Creation.  That triggered a fab discussion around why they were called that and how stars are birthed.

 

Frankly, have you ever experienced EAA practiced well?  I suggest you experience it before you knock it.

Edited by mgCatskills, 08 July 2025 - 06:49 AM.

[TallTanBarbie]

To perhaps state the obvious, you're posting to the EAA forum, and most of us have come to terms with this issue.  

 

Of course, if you want to limit yourself to mid-19th century astronomy techniques on your own time and your own dime, that's your business.  But it's a fact that astronomy's big advancements took place when imaging technologies (initially on film) came into use.  Proving that the Milky Way was only one galaxy among many (ultimately trillions) utterly depended on imaging.

 

Again, I'll rely on my experience demonstrating EAA at star parties.   I do think the immediacy of EAA differentiates it from viewing static photos in a book or available from the Internet.

 

If I have a nice capture going at a star party... as I did the other night with M51 -- and gather a good audience, I make a point of "blowing it up" and starting a new target.  The audience sees me enter the new target, sees the telescope slew -- I'll shine my headlamp on it, to make sure than can see it -- and waits expectantly to see the first light show up.  After that, they watch the image improve with each additional frame.  I usually use 15-20s exposures, and most find the process fascinating.  We'll often get into a discussion around how stacking works, and about the limitations of the human eye as an imaging system.

 

It's a completely different experience than looking at a static photo on the screen.  Watching the image go from blank to something with lots of detail in, say, 5 minutes is immediate and "real".   The other night I switched from M51 to the Eagle Nebula, and within a couple of minutes could clearly see the Pillars of Creation.  That triggered a fab discussion around why they were called that and how stars are birthed.

 

Frankly, have you ever experienced EAA practiced well?  I suggest you experience it before you knock it.

I think you don't get where I'm coming from.

 

I'm saying that to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been.

 

I'm not saying anything like "electronic imaging isn't 'real' astronomy," far from it.

 

I'm talking about the sense of wonder or discovery that comes from first seeing for example what the Andromeda Galaxy looks like first as a barely visible fuzzy patch of light with the naked eye, then as a less fuzzy patch through a telescope, and then as a detailed image on film or a stack of digital frames.

 

The story of how humans used their hands and their brains to see in detail what they cannot directly see or measure is the real story.

 

Telescopes and cameras are just tools we create to find out what we don't know.

 

That's the journey of discovery

Edited by TallTanBarbie, 08 July 2025 - 11:42 AM.

[Clouzot]

One of the most unexplained mysteries of the universe is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space.  It just keeps going...and going... and going...

Problem solved (in 1873):

 

Joke aside, one can perfectly do both visual and EAA. Well, I still do: the former for the mystical experience, the latter for the better view (and to prolong the experience, in most cases)

[TallTanBarbie]

Problem solved (in 1873):
maxwell.jpg

 

Joke aside, one can perfectly do both visual and EAA. Well, I still do: the former for the mystical experience, the latter for the better view (and to prolong the experience, in most cases)

Maxwell's Equations explain the *how*, but not the *why*

 

That's the mystery...

Edited by TallTanBarbie, 08 July 2025 - 01:22 PM.

[mgCatskills]

I think you don't get where I'm coming from.

 

I'm saying that to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been.

 

I'm not saying anything like "electronic imaging isn't 'real' astronomy," far from it.

 

I'm talking about the sense of wonder or discovery that comes from first seeing for example what the Andromeda Galaxy looks like first as a barely visible fuzzy patch of light with the naked eye, then as a less fuzzy patch through a telescope, and then as a detailed image on film or a stack of digital frames.

 

The story of how humans used their hands and their brains to see in detail what they cannot directly see or measure is the real story.

 

Telescopes and cameras are just tools we create to find out what we don't know.

 

That's the journey of discovery

Hi, TallTan.  

 

I think I do "get" where you're coming from.  But I happen not to share your romanticism about visual astronomy.  Nor do I agree that yours is the only way to appreciate the history of Astronomy.

 

I do have some romantic bones.  There's a tiny stream in Northern NM that I've visited half a dozen times over the years.  In the beginning I went to fish.  Now I go just to look.

 

It holds a tiny aboriginal population of Rio Grande chutthroats... a population that's so tenuous that the NM DOW no longer lists it as a population they're trying to preserve (they did, when first discovered, back in the 1980s).  

 

It happens to be near the top of a mountain that is sacred to the Tewa Indians because of some springs that, by a sacred miracle, never dry up even in the worst drought years.  

 

It's a pain to get up to this stream where the fish live.  You drive to the end of the Forest Road, then walk along a trail that follows the stream bed... on a dry summer the stream will be dry.  But keep walking a couple of miles and 1,000 vertical feet, and you'll find a trickle, then a flow about like your garden hose turned on half way.  And then, you'll find a couple of pools, at best 3' square and maybe holding 8" of water.  And if you hold still, if you're really lucky, you might see a 5" cutthroat ease out and start feeding.

 

That these fish have survived on their own in this location since the end of the last ice age is something I find incredibly moving.

 

But trying to make out a fuzzy galaxy through an eyepiece, not so much.  But if that floats your boat, that's fine.

 

I do think it's more than possible to gain a deep appreciation of the history of astronomy doing EAA.  If you're studying galaxies, of course, the history really only goes back to 1925, and is all in the post imaging era.  To me, the fact that Messier (and mostly for galaxies, actually Mechain) saw the barest hint of fuzziness in an 18th century telescope, and listed it in the Messier catalog, doesn't count, imo.  They had absolutely no idea what they were looking at.

 

I have an obsession with Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, in part because the technology Arp dealt with in the mid-1960s is only slightly better than my EdgeHD with a CMOS camera.  To date I've observed 125 out of 338.  Observing what he saw, not just the galaxies, but also the features he felt were "peculiar" is the real challenge and is perfectly suited to EAA techniques.  If you pay attention, you learn a lot about "where we came from" at least since the 1960s.

 

Anyway, you ducked my earlier question about whether you've experienced EAA practiced well.  I continue to believe that if you actually practiced it for a while, you might change your opinion.
 

Edited by mgCatskills, 08 July 2025 - 04:49 PM.

[152ED]

EAA and photography is great for seeing more details and showing it to other people, but real photons are like throwing real punches and taking real hits in the dojo, vs. looking at a screen with a UFC fight playing.  Sure the televised version shows much more advanced techniques and exciting stuff, but the psychic reality of feeling the other guy's strength leave after landing a good shot, and the funny presence of a superior fighter you feel for several hours after getting defeated several times (in sparring), is far beyond what you get from a picture on a screen.  Astronomy is a gateway to infinite genius, and the picture on the screen is sterile by comparison!

[RodgerDodger008]

I think you don't get where I'm coming from.

I'm saying that to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been.

I'm not saying anything like "electronic imaging isn't 'real' astronomy," far from it.

I'm talking about the sense of wonder or discovery that comes from first seeing for example what the Andromeda Galaxy looks like first as a barely visible fuzzy patch of light with the naked eye, then as a less fuzzy patch through a telescope, and then as a detailed image on film or a stack of digital frames.

The story of how humans used their hands and their brains to see in detail what they cannot directly see or measure is the real story.

Telescopes and cameras are just tools we create to find out what we don't know.

That's the journey of discovery

I get what you mean, in fact all of us first looked at the stars with our own eyes as kids before we even looked at them in any other way.

For me it was eyes, the binoculars then a scope with eyepieces then eaa using a camera and I still do them all.

Keep looking up and clear skies.

[MarMax]

I would have loved to continue using my TEC160FL with the CZAS and Baader Mark V binoviewers, the assortment of TeleVue eyepieces, filters, glass path correctors and compact ADC for many years. Unfortunately my eyes don't work as they used to and visual observations lack the detail I'd prefer.

 

EAA was the solution for me. And now that I've been doing it for several years I've donated the majority of my visual kit to the Los Angeles Astronomical Society. I did keep a few eyepieces to use with the BT70.

 

There is a wonder and amazement to visually observe the night sky but that wonder and amazement is multiplied 10x with EAA.