Visual to imaging

[bish]

Hi all,

Just curious.

Has anybody switched from visual to imaging in a light polluted area and found it any easier to combat the light pollution? Obviously dark skies are better whatever you do but I wondered if the use of clip in filters, software etc gives a slight advantage to image rather than observe under poor skies?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Narrowband works well in LP, and there are many great narrow-band photographic objects up there, so you may have a point

[Daniel-K]

bish i did, i went from having a 16" LB to building a ROR obsy on the edge of liverpool LP was very bad to the south but with a decent filter and a modded camera its very easy to produce some respectable images.

[todd8137]

I must be lucky I have the best of both and dark skies

Pat

[bomberbaz]

Ah but bish the thought of pure protons hitting your retina beats the hell out of the enhanced image. True the results are better but to me its the real feel experience that makes the difference. However each to their own. ( waits for the imagers barrage) ;-)

[Daniel-K]

Ah but bish the thought of pure protons hitting your retina beats the hell out of the enhanced image. True the results are better but to me its the real feel experience that makes the difference. However each to their own. ( waits for the imagers barrage) ;-)

steves right thats why i went back to visual although it seems to be costing me much more as aperture fever sets in 

[Nathan_Pembs]

There is the excitement if finding something new when observing, but it's limited by your setup. With my 150P I can see the brighter DSOs but that's it, I wouldn't have seen half the things I have if it wasn't for my Atik and 450D.

The human eye is too poor, unless you have a 10+ Dob.....I'm tempted

[Daniel-K]

There is the excitement if finding something new when observing, but it's limited by your setup. With my 150P I can see the brighter DSOs but that's it, I wouldn't have seen half the things I have if it wasn't for my Atik and 450D.

The human eye is too poor, unless you have a 10+ Dob.....I'm tempted

see the sig a decent visual set up can cost more than a half decent imaging setup! and i find more addictive especially when traveling to dark sites 

[laser_jock99]

There is a 'halfway house' and that is live video/CCD which gives pretty much the instant thrill of visual but 10x more sensitivity. From a LP location that can make all the difference.

Have a look at some of the work by Maurice Gavin for instance.

I got a Lodestar X2 camera and was amazed at the almost live views of faint galaxies you can get from my Midlands back garden.

M51 5 seconds with LodestarX2 camera

[Ant]

There is no right or wrong...

I started of with visual, tried FILM imaging, which is very very hard . I then moved to an area that was Orange all the way up to the zenith.

If I had stuck with Visual I would no longer into astronomy, but moving to Narrowband imaging means that I can cut through all the rubbish up there and take some nice pictures.

I still look at the moon, planets etc occasionally. But if it were just that that I could see I would have given up years ago. I don't think that you ever lose your interest for visual once you have it, but at the same time your have to work with what you have.

Ant

[MattGoo]

Some decent options for you here. Just be aware of the potential cost implications once you get into serious astro-imaging!

[Kropster]

I can definitely 'see' a lot more when I take long exposure photos.

An LP filter and stacking software cut through the orange fog quite well.

[pete_l]

Has anybody switched from visual to imaging in a light polluted area and found it any easier to combat the light pollution?

Yes, without a doubt. When I was in the UK I had Mag 3.5 skies in the suburban S.E. and could only catch rare glimpses of the part Milky Way that was at the zenith.

Swapping to a OSC CCD (Starlight MX7C) was a real eye opener . I was no longer limited to squinting through the orange murk and having to re-acquire my night vision every time I want back into the house, or looked up and straight into a streetlight.

However, it's not all plain sailing. While you undoubtedly get more information in an image, it takes a great deal more effort to tease those details out. Though that, in itself, adds another aspect to the hobby. But there isn't the immediacy of seeing things directly and you don't get  the connection you feel when you're there eyeballing stuff, in the cold: just you and your telescope.

The best aspect though, is that you will have images that you can show to other people.

[bish]

Interesting, thanks for your replies.

As I suspected you probably can get more from imaging. I am a big fan of seeing things directly, but would love to do both. I like the idea of the live video. My ideal would be to live under dark sky with a 30" scope - but can't see that happening! I think the thing that puts me off imaging, other than the cost of new kit, is time spent processing. I take wedding photographs and think if I were into astro imaging all the wedding photos would end up late!

[DaveS]

It was (Very crude) imaging that re-lit my fire after I thought it had gone out completely, resuling in my aquireing the stuff in my sig. Having said that I can see the apeal in visual, especially in a dark location.

I feel, though, that video astronomy falls between two stools. It lacks the immediacy and connection with the sky that visual has, but without the deep detail that imaging can give.

Just my opinion of course.

[Uplooker]

Best to buy a very large Dob and all the imaging equipment that you can, then when your imaging setup is catching the photons you can sit comfortably and enjoy the visual views through you Dob

Ian

[bish]

Best to buy a very large Dob and all the imaging equipment that you can, then when your imaging setup is catching the photons you can sit comfortably and enjoy the visual views through you Dob

 

Ian

Sounds good to me. Bought a lottery ticket today!

[ollypenrice]

Ah but bish the thought of pure protons hitting your retina beats the hell out of the enhanced image. True the results are better but to me its the real feel experience that makes the difference. However each to their own. ( waits for the imagers barrage) ;-)

Not a barrage! But the buzz when something totally out of the question visually lights up on your screen is incredible. The Horsehead. Yes, it does exist!

I like both and I have a dark site (and have actually seen the Horse), but for me the sight of these impssibly faint things coming down the spout and onto the screen is incredible, still, and doing it for a living hasn't changed that.

Ollyu

[bish]

Not a barrage! But the buzz when something totally out of the question visually lights up on your screen is incredible. The Horsehead. Yes, it does exist!

I like both and I have a dark site (and have actually seen the Horse), but for me the sight of these impssibly faint things coming down the spout and onto the screen is incredible, still, and doing it for a living hasn't changed that.

 

Ollyu

Nice to hear your enthusiasm hasn't waned doing it for a living. I must admit that the Hubble deep field image is awe inspiring (although I wouldn't expect to produce images like that!)

[ollypenrice]

Nice to hear your enthusiasm hasn't waned doing it for a living. I must admit that the Hubble deep field image is awe inspiring (although I wouldn't expect to produce images like that!)

Given that the HDF covers about a pixel on my images I might struggle! Heheh. But we try...

Olly

[PeterW]

There is a 4th way.... Instant photons to eye, no huge dob, no long exposures or box of eyepieces.... Intensifiers! You can filter the light pollution easier (h alpha filter it too), see faint nebulae easily (h alpha ones, if the transparency isn't too bad).

Ok, costs as much a few nice green eyepieces, but cheaper than a monster dob.

Another option is to ditch the "grubbing round in the dark" and become a solar imager.... Different view every time!

Each to their own.

Peter

[avtaram]

There is a 'halfway house' and that is live video/CCD which gives pretty much the instant thrill of visual but 10x more sensitivity. From a LP location that can make all the difference.

Have a look at some of the work by Maurice Gavin for instance.

I got a Lodestar X2 camera and was amazed at the almost live views of faint galaxies you can get from my Midlands back garden.

M51 5 seconds with LodestarX2 camera

This has got me really excited, I now know what I want I want for Christmas.

Avtar

[bish]

There is a 4th way.... Instant photons to eye, no huge dob, no long exposures or box of eyepieces.... Intensifiers! You can filter the light pollution easier (h alpha filter it too), see faint nebulae easily (h alpha ones, if the transparency isn't too bad).

Ok, costs as much a few nice green eyepieces, but cheaper than a monster dob.

Another option is to ditch the "grubbing round in the dark" and become a solar imager.... Different view every time!

Each to their own.

Peter

I'd never heard of those and had to google it. Looks very interesting - although like you say a bit pricey. I do project the Sun but have a solar filter on the way to make the most of the sky.