Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

stargazers live.... thoughts?

garethmob

By garethmob
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Astrosurf

Astrosurf

Posted
Posted

I feel I've done my bit by managing to get a passable image of Jupiter tonight before the fog rolled in. I'm feeling fulfilled!

It was a really good programme tonight, the bits I saw. I've recorded it so will watch it through. I think all the presenters are excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ixalon

ixalon

Posted
Posted

P.S. I hypothesize that a significant correlation exists between the quality of presenting and the length of time they've had available to drink :grin:

1st episode: previous 24 hours before filled with other commitments, travel to JB, prep -> ok

2nd episode: previous 24 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> better

3rd episode: previous 48 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> hic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alkaid

Alkaid

Posted
Posted

This is where we differ I feel.....

I think broadcasters such as the beeb would rather chase the extra 100'000 viewers than stick to the titled premise of the show. I think you're doing the general public a disservice in suggesting they'd turn off if things were too technical. A few people would no doubt turn over, but not to the level I think you're implying. We see no end of comments/complaints from people saying science shows are too dumbed down, we rarely (if ever) see complaints shows are too intellectual. It'd be nice if the BBC took a risk and went for programmes pitched above the mental age of 8 year olds for a change and left people seeking that bit more information out.

I'm doing a degree in astrophysics and it riles me that my friends are forever trying to get me to explain things in 'laymans' terms, somethings require level of understanding and you can't be an 'instant expert' which is what I feel these shows are trying to package and sell to people. No wonder people come into the hobby and disappear just as quickly when they realise it takes a bit of effort. I see it even more in the academic world where people are scared off all too quickly when they realise there's a lot more to it than flashy graphics and pretty pictures.

By all means have a populist programme on space, but to called it 'Stargazing-Live' with little emphasis on stargazing I feel is wrong.

I respect your opinions ES and I don't mean to slate the general public's interest in academia. But from my own personal experiences with friends and family who are not technically minded, I do feel that a general space show is more appropriate to the general public. People ask me about our hobby, so I explain a few things here and there, but I can see when I have gone too far in depth, that is my Friend's / Brother's/ Mum's eyes just glaze over. Normally at the point of explaining Polar allignment to enable telescope tracking.

I did see in your previous post after the one I've quoted, you mentioned about those programs Dancing On Ice and X-Factor. Can you see a person who enjoys those shows wanting to hear about Polar Allignment, or perhaps the history and principles of the Triplet Apo? Me neither....

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and you're studying what sounds like an excellent degree in Astrophysics. Why? Because we both wanted to take our academic interests further. As no doubt have many others out there and also on this forum. But to Mr. TV executive, very technical programs don't pull in masses of viewers. That's why it's so dumbed down. If people want to go further, then they take up the hobby, go on a course, do a degree...

I entirely agree with you on the title, the words "Star Gazing" should have been dropped for something more appropriate to the programs content.

However, I really do like to see more people take up our hobby, and mass broadcasts on space and astronomy (no matter how good or bad) seem to do that. Indeed I seem to recall hearing that suppliers like FLO and RVO have massive jumps in orders after these broadcasts. So they are good for the industry too as a whole.

Clear skies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rory

rory

Posted
Posted

i enjoyed it, but ive enjoyed every episode since the first series, so no suprise there .

when they defocused those stars to show colour...is that something some astronomers do to see its colour like that or was that just for tv. i only do it for collimation thats why i ask ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phil Fargaze

Phil Fargaze

Posted
Posted

P.S. I hypothesize that a significant correlation exists between the quality of presenting and the length of time they've had available to drink :grin:

1st episode: previous 24 hours before filled with other commitments, travel to JB, prep -> ok

2nd episode: previous 24 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> better

3rd episode: previous 48 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> hic!

An excellent piece of theoretical celebrity behaviour analysis. I feel that your hypothesis will agree with further observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Double Kick Drum

Double Kick Drum

Posted
Posted

P.S. I hypothesize that a significant correlation exists between the quality of presenting and the length of time they've had available to drink :grin:

1st episode: previous 24 hours before filled with other commitments, travel to JB, prep -> ok

2nd episode: previous 24 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> better

3rd episode: previous 48 hours staying hotel with nothing better to do -> hic!

I need to do some experiments to test this hypothesis to destruction, or my destruction. :grin: hic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted

I think it was more to show the colour clearly. It was hard to tell the colour when it was in focus.

Indeed. It's a tip I came across in a book once. Which also suggested taking a star trail photo - think this was back in the days of film - and progressively defocussing during the exposure, making each star produce a narrow triangle that really brings out the colours.

I actually enjoyed yesterdays episode more. I think today the still-heavy space science focus, as opposed to practical observing, did rankle a bit more considering the clear skies. However, I did learn something - Almach being a double, similar to Albireo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I've jumped to the end without reading all the posts so apologies if anyone else has mentioned this! Isn't it weird that male presenters can be any size, shape and level of attractiveness but the female presenters, like Liz, have to be eye candy? There are a lot of clever, female professional astronomers out there who could be excellent presenters, but possibly not the most attractive. Are they ever chosen?! It doesn't seem fair.

It's a weird thing. She has a Biochemistry degree and a Masters so academically she's no slouch and could presumably have made a worthwhile contribution to the "origin of life" discussion they had on Tuesday, yet they insist on her doing soundbite interviews for which she has demonstrably limited aptitude. Interesting as I find David Baddiel he really wasn't suited to appearing in the second show last night. They should have had her instead of him and got someone better at doing the interviews to do those.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.