Moonshed

You have nicely, and technically, summed up the point I was trying make before I came under a sustained double attack for stating the obvious. My point being that if it has a power source and a screen it really cannot be described as being “the same as any other eyepiece.” That’s all.

Life can be such a nuisance getting in the way of very important image processing. Have a great pagan festival!

A very nice image and I only wish I could get the same. One point I would make is that on this image I can see some red on the crater outlines at the bottom of the image and on the top, also some along the edge leading away from these. Is this due to data transmission and does it not appear on the original? I’m curious because whenever I see that sort of effect on my crummy images it’s because I have over worked it in the wavelets or over sharpened it. In this case though I’m more inclined to blame the transmission. I feel bad now for having the nerve to criticise an image that is beyond anything I have yet achieved.

I understand it attaches to the telescope just like an eyepiece, but my point is that it isn’t just an eyepiece, and I have already explained why I say that. However, if clarification is needed, an eyepiece is a lens or number of lenses that are used to magnify the telescope image. (I do not claim this to be the definitive definition of an eyepiece). Eyepieces do not contain power packs and image intensifying tubes. I think that in your original comment you were trying to make the point that you pick it up and plug it into your scope in the same way as you do with any other eyepiece, not that it was an eyepiece? Anyway, I think we have sorted that one out and can move on to other things.

My point about being a step further removed from reality is actually a very basic observation. When we look through the eyepiece we are seeing reality, I think that is clear enough and unarguable. When we look at a screen we are not seeing reality, what we are seeing is an electronic representation of reality, I think that is also obvious and unarguable. As I have already said a number of times each has its uses.

Okay, thanks for the link. “The night vision eyepiece” that you “class as just another eyepiece” is in reality an entire night vision system similar to that used by the military and requiring a power source and image intensifying tube, it’s a lot of gear, not just an eyepiece. This is what I was expecting and was confused by your description of it. I get it now thanks.

Curious as to what you mean by a night vision eyepiece that you class as just another eyepiece.

Yes we are, but I don’t understand what your point is. For instance I could just as equally say it doesn’t matter if you are looking at the sat nav screen when driving or through the windscreen, we are using a common input method - our eyes. The sat nav screen is only a digital representation of the road ahead, but is not the road ahead, that’s only seen through the windscreen Again, I fail to understand what you are saying here, of course it matters how the image is projected onto the eye. I would say there is a massive difference in seeing the Grand Canyon if I am actually standing there and the image that is projected into my eye is light reflected from the Grand Canyon itself, as opposed to having those images projected onto my eye from a tv screen in Norfolk. It’s the same difference between looking at a screen or looking through an eyepiece. The screen is an electrical digital representation of the photons falling onto a camera’s sensor chip whereas looking through the eyepiece is seeing the actual, real photons coming from the object, not an electronic representation of it. All that aside, as I have already said there are numerous ways we can observe the universe and technology is discovering different ways all the time, it is up to the observer which method they prefer to use, they all have their uses. My only point is that looking through the eyepiece is seeing the actual, real object, whereas looking at a screen indoors is far removed from that.

I do share your sentiments on this subject. As I said both visual observing and watching an enhanced screen image have their place, it depends what you want to achieve. In my case I feel that as I have moved deeper into the photography side of astronomy and spent less time at the eyepiece some of the fun has gone out of it. I know it’s good to have a permanent record of beautiful night sky objects but astrophotography can be a very frustrating hobby sprinkled with moments of great satisfaction. I shall be continuing with my astrophotography because I do in the main enjoy it, but not so much as I have these past three years. For me I find my greatest enjoyment at the eyepiece and that is where I intend to spend most of my time. We are all different, we have different likes and dislikes and I fully appreciate how other members meet their astronomical needs in various different ways and combinations of ways. It’s a hobby where we can do that, astronomy is a rapidly changing and developing field that provides an ever expanding way of observing the universe.

It certainly does! Very apt quote I would add.

Hi vlaiv, thank you for supplying that information, it’s a big help. It seems to me though that unless we stick with eyeball to eyepiece observing then as technology continues to improve we are, step by step, moving further and further away from reality. What we see on screen is enhanced, yes, we can see more detail, but what actually is it are we looking at? (This could get a bit deep). The difference in seeing an object sharp and crisp in the eyepiece is far removed from that very magnified and detailed image on the screen. Both have their place obviously, it depends on what you want to achieve, but if it is only to observe I feel that you can’t beat the experience of looking through the eyepiece. We are at the stage where some members do all their observing remotely, the scope is out in the observatory and they are indoors in the warm watching the images on a screen. Yes, it does have a certain appeal, but apart from selecting your own target I feel you may as well be watching a television program about astronomical images, there being no connection between you and your telescope other than electronically. Maybe it’s just me, I don’t know.

We are of course unable to feel the Earth moving but there is a way to perceive the motion of the Earth’s rotation. On a clear night find a spot near a tree where you can observe a bright star from under the tree. Now lie down with your back flat on the ground, feet pointing east and stretch your arms out straight so you are making a T shape. Look at that bright star as it moves slowly upwards though those tiny branches or leaves, it is important that you can see the star actually moving so the gaps need to be very small. Now here comes the all important perception part. Close your eyes and imagine you are lying flat on your back on top of a truly massive, mind bogglingly huge beach ball. Dig your fingers into the grass and get a really good grip and hold on tight because the beach ball is going to start to slowly roll forward. Open your eyes and as you look at that star moving through the tree realise it is not the star moving but your beach ball with you on it as it very slowly rolls forward with you going feet first towards the eastern horizon. Feel the Earth move! The experience for me was so real it actually made me feel dizzy. This was of course a good many years ago when I was able to lay down on the grass and get back up again. If you get the chance do try it, it will be the only time you actually feel the Earth move, I mean for real, not the other thing. 😆

Does this mean that watching an enhanced image, of say Mars, live on screen using APT, FireCapture, Sharpcap or similar, and at the same time recording the data for subsequent processing, comes under this category of EEVA? EDIT: Would it still be EEVA anyway even if not recording the data but just watching the image on screen as it means Electronically Enhanced Visual Astronomy?

This picture is today’s APOD and my goodness isn’t it is just amazing! Don’t we all wish we could take such awesome photos? Some guy who goes by the name Damian Peach took it, anyone here ever heard of him? 😄 For those that have not yet discovered this excellent site https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Excellent work, well done, and to think I thought astrophotography was difficult!

Atmospheric picture, beautiful lighting with the moon amongst the winter favourites, well framed and also gorgeous colours. Well done, it will make an excellent Christmas card for next year!

Joking aside, when I lived in Scotland I would find myself in the winter months observing in -5C or worse till the wee small hours. In order to keep warm I would wear my all body all-in-one thermal Long Johns. On my head went my padded deer stalker, those ear flaps are worth their weight in gold! On my feet a thin pair of pure wool socks over which went thick wool football knee length socks, and finally a pair of stout, thick soled hill walking boots. I wore “Thinsulate” fingerless gloves. That lot, plus of course the necessary outerwear, kept me warm and comfortable all night, no need for any electrical heating because I would have melted!

No need for any fancy heated clothing, this is all you need: Slather on 2lbs goose fat Winter vest and sew you tightly in String vest Full body thermal Long John’s Trousers, two pairs Woolly sweater Cardigan Jacket Boiler suit Great Coat Knitted hat Scarf Three pairs of socks Hill walking boots Sou’wester oilskin hat, coat, trousers Fingerless thermal gloves. That is guaranteed to keep you warm and dry all winter until you take it off end of May, and remember, “Never cast a clout ‘till May is out.” As an added bonus you will find that keeping to the two metre separation rule will not be a problem for you after the first week.

The way things are going I would suggest hanging about at your local tip. 🚮 🔭😄

I was the same, I had my camera and tripod stowed and ready to carry, really not worth taking the scope and all the paraphernalia that entails anywhere in this weather, and was ready to walk across the road and up the farm track to open land 10 minutes away. But like you the precious few gaps in the clouds were all too brief and made it mission impossible, cue music! Dun dun dun da dada Dun dun dun dada dun dun dun da dada... Here’s hoping for Thursday. 🌞 Regards Keith

After total cloud cover last night the weather here is tormenting us with a clear blue sky. However, the forecast is for light cloud from 12:00 until 5:00 when it will become overcast with rain throughout the evening. Typical. We may have a chance on Thursday, possibly. Edit: 13.25 Tuesday 22nd. This is it now, until it starts to rain.

Thought I would add my photo of the great conjunction for posterity. This is as close as I got to taking a photo of it, having my camera standing by ready to go. Thought I may as well make it useful and added it to the tree decorations.

The forecast was poor but we live in hope, nonetheless the heavens were clouded over from horizon to horizon. Oh well, maybe next time 😄

Yes, I see what you mean regarding the video, the way the distances are shown is hard to understand.

That’s odd because I see it as the opposite. The nearest star is only a little over 4 light years away whereas the nearest spiral galaxy is of course Andromeda at 2 million light years. Maybe you are referring to the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, but that is actually a part of the Milky Way.