Jump to content

Narrowband

Olsin

Members
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Olsin

  1. I've observed the moon on hundreds of occasions covering every phase and seeing conditions and have never seen even a hint of colour...tonal shade and texture yes but colour...never. Exaggerated manipulation of saturation will bring out vague nuances but our eyes don't work that way. I believe the popular trend of producing mineral moon shots has in some/many cases coloured (pun intended) perceptions and created a kind of precedence where some expect to see some form of colour which their imagination produces for them. Your reply is a good indicator of how strong opinions change reality (psychologically speaking) You use terms like "full of colour" and even name the colour orange. If the moon was full of colour it would be visible in every shot. Where is it? Orange!! I can abstract from that and trust my own eyes but there is a world of rather easily influenced people out there who can't. Just look at how many millions of people idolize trump and his lies. People believe what they want to believe and that psychology isn't restricted to politics and conspiracy. It permeates every level of society and hobby folk are no exception. It's not far from the truth when historians say, psychology and mental health have been the main engine behind our histories....
  2. No colour, just psychology. The eyes can see much if the brain wants to see it....
  3. I tried that last night but it wouldn't connect. In retrospect that was probably because i was out in the observatory. Tried it just now while i was standing in the same room as our router and bang...connected straight away and here 25 minutes later it hasn't fallen out at all. I'm calling it fixed thank you....
  4. My first night with the asiair plus was disappointing and uninspiring. It worked just fine while i was standing in my observatory but as soon as i went indoors the wifi continually dropped out. I had beforehand read up on all i could find regarding the AA+ and was worried that i'd also experience connection problems. Not because my observatory is very distant but because i live in an old house with thick walls. The actual distance would be around the 10-12 meter mark. The most stabile signal i could obtain was by opening my living room window and standing the tablet on the window ledge although it was basically still unworkable and certainly not what i was hoping. I had of course already ensured my local wifi wouldn't try and connect to the AA app running tablet, likewise i tried both 2,4 and 5ghz networks. Sometimes the wifi would fall out but connect again almost immediately, other times it'd fall out and i'd have to go into the tablet network settings and atempt to reconnect there. I don't like having to throw more money at a bit of kit to get it working the way it's advertised as working but nor do i like having to sell it at a loss. Especially since i would really like to be able to use it. Just the whole point and click, go there, check you're there and center the target routine was a joy to use. Would an extender work for the AA+ or are there any other workable solutions..?
  5. I meant it in a casual and light hearted provocative way without really thinking about it. The actual quote that 7% of present knowledge will be shown to be incorrect in 5 years, comes from Steven Fry during one of his QI programs. I'm reasonably sure he did actually give a couple of examples but i can't remember them now. I don't recall if it was said that the 7% was accumulative. I wrote it out so just as i was following the provocative line. Saying that, i do actually agree with the gist of the quote although i don't believe 100% of present knowledge will be shown to be incorrect in under 100 years. There are numerous examples showing that plenty of knowledge today was also true 100, 200, 300 und so weiter years ago. However there are many examples of mainstream knowledge, defended by tooth and claw by the leading experts of the day, that eventually turned out to be totally incorrect. In none of those examples was the change from one state of knowledge to another state, overnight. In many cases the leading experts of any given scientific discipline had to die or be totally overwhelmed with irrefutable proof, collected over many years before change occurred. Just look to USA and read up on their "Clovis First" dogma that held it's ground for decades despite proof trickling in through many years. Many researchers had their careers shattered simply because they wanted to keep looking instead of simply accepting the Clovis First dogma. My point. #1 We have no way of knowing what parts of our present knowledge are incorrect so we assume it's all correct until the opposite is proven. Even when we know something is not quite right, we carry on believing until absolute proof, preferably from many different sources is delivered. This means that at any given moment in time we find ourselves in a flux position. The correctness of mainstream knowledge in flux with the considered yet unaccepted and unproven. #2 Paradigm shifts have been leading contributors to human social and technological advancement throughout history. We have to consider that the future will come. The sun will rise every morning for many many millions of years yet. Throughout those years, how many new paradigm shifts will occur, how many super Einsteins are waiting to be born, how many technologies are yet to come that we don't even have the imagination yet to conceive. How many new words will need to be invented to allow discussion on future subjects. These things lead me to an accept that nothing is impossible. What seems impossible today maybe just needs a new bit of tech to open it up. Is time travel into the future possible.....maybe The past.....maybe Will humans embrace having their brains removed at birth and placed into a tech host that can live for thousands of years.....maybe Basically if you can imagine it and you think the technology will one day be available, then the only answer to any question relating to the future is.....maybe....everything else is monologue designed to show others our depth of thought..
  6. I was going to tell you all a good joke about time travel but it turned out nobody liked it.. Apparently 7% of everything we think we know will be proven to be incorrect or in need of some adjustment within a 5 year period. So with a start point at 2022, by 2027, 7% of what we think we know today will incorrect. By 2032, 14% of 2022 knowledge will be incorrect, 2037 = 21% incorrect. Carrying that out suggests that sometime between 2092 and 2097, 100% of all we think we know today will be shown to incorrect. Is time travel into the future possible .. maybe. Is time travel into the past possible .. maybe. Why don't we see time travelers? If they have the technology to travel through a medium that we don't even know what is, then what other kinds of tech do they have? could that tech help them remain undetectable? Does time travel only permit travel in non corporeal form or a phase shifted form or some other form we can't see/interact with or don't recognize? Will we discover we have to change our physiology or create via genetic engineering creatures especially designed to be able to time travel and use them to collect data in the same way we send probes and rovers to the planets and moons of our own solar system or crush resistant vessels to the depths of the oceans? Would we recognize these devices if they were designed by future minds using future tech to not be discovered? Maybe, maybe, maybe..... One thing is certain, the future a thousand years from now won't resemble today much and the future 2 thousand years from now won't resemble the future a thousand years from now much. Truth is transient and i bet there's many more paradigm shifts waiting out in the future as have ever unfolded in the past. How many of them will end up completely changing our social and technological direction? What is almost unimaginable/incomprehensible today may be abc for a 1st year secondary school pupil in a dozen generations from now..
  7. Hi all.. I'm trying to settle on a dedicated astro cam but keep going around in circles. Just when i think I've made the right choice, i'll discover a new bit of info that detracts from the camera or be swayed by negative online feedback. My choices have been down to asi533, asi183, asi294...all OSC cams. Despite rave reviews from many sources I've now dumped the 533. To little real estate and to few pixels. I'd like to have the possibility of printing shots out . The 533 at 300dpi would only give a 10 inch square print. The 183 has very small pixels which astronomy tools ccd suitability calculator suggests would be over sampled with my ed80. And now I've been frightened off the 294 by all the negative posts i can find regarding calibration frames and blotchy colour noise. I just want a camera to work without having to jump through a field full of hoops or being worried about "am i going to be one of those who experience a world of frustration!?" I've become so frustrated that I'm actually considering going for an asi 1600 mono together with filter wheel although it's annoying to feel i have to double my budget just to get something that will work with my scope and not give me to many headaches. The whole refocusing with every filter change and additional time consumption plus the fact that i have absolutely no idea how you would process this kind of data to a colour picture...has me hesitating. I should probably say that I've stuck with zwo simply because of the boxed accessories that as far as i can read would allow me to meet the 55mm backfocus i need for connecting to my .85 reducer/flattener. There has been a couple of Altair Astro cameras that looked kinda ok but their availability is limited. #1 was the HC269CProTec and HC294CProTec. Astronomy tools suggests the 269 would be very compatible while the 294 with its larger pixels would lean slightly more towards under sampling. As far i i can see, none of these cams offer extra's that would give me 55mm backfocus ending in a 2" mount to reducer/flattener. Up to now I've been using a Nikon D5200 unmodified. It gives me terrible colour gradients, blotchy noise and weak washy colours as well as needing hours integration time for some of the more H-alpha rich emission nebs.......hmm, perhaps that actually negates my assumed worry that i will need much more time on a mono setup. Doesn't help with actually knowing what I'm doing with such a camera though. Can it be true that there isn't an easyish colour camera to use around the 1000 pound limit that would marry well with a skywatcher ed80?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.