What £70 on remote scopes can get you (Warning: Big Images)

[ncjunk]

After trying itelescope a while back I´m going to give it another go, after reading this.

I can see exactly where Euan is coming from and economically it can make sense to do what he´s doing and sell all the kit to use the money for a subscription. He´s already detailed the benifits for this.

My problem is I love playing with the kit and doing a few DIY focusers etc but. two small kids take up all my time. So work on the observatory is very slow and coupled with a mount which is away being fixed I thought I´d give this another try.

In theory when my observatory is fixed, the roof motor is working and the mount controller working properly I will have the same functionallity as an itelescope telescope. I use ACP and Maxim as well, have a domain setup and can ftp in.

So where is the difference with my setup and a itelescope setup? None

Why would I use both? itelescope for availability, for use on those nights where its cloudy here and access to soutern skies, my setup for satisfying my need to tinker. Also I have a history of tweaking something in the observatory roof and then it beeing out of action till the next time I get a 2 hour break from the kids to fix it.

I feel there might be a case for both but I can see why people may not like the robotic telescope route as it does feel like cheating, even though there´s no logical difference.

plus if I need to work away from home I´d much rather use the itelescope than mine. I dread to think what would happen if I was away from home and had to call the wife to close the roof because it was jammed or the ethernet had gone down.

[Komet]

I'm really impressed with the positivity in this thread since the last time I posted about this subject, are the UK conditions finally getting to people?

Here is a list of major plus points for me so far if anyone is on the fence.....

• Use kit you could never afford in a place you might never visit (great point mentioned above)
  
• snip ....
  
• Social life. Spend the afternoon imaging, then go out and enjoy yourself! This pointed nailed it for me, there has been so many times I can't image because of commitments
  

So which part of this is YOU actually learning about or even taking a real interest in understanding what you are doing? This is simply buying an image of a target you specify. You can nip off to NASA or stay here at SGL and see loads of pretty pictures you didn't have much to do with either - and that's free. You can do that in the afternoon or when it suits you so it doesn't interfere with the important things in your life, whatever they may be.

Is there any satisfaction in the result I wonder?

But if you do enjoy doing this then good luck to you. Have a blast. But please, never say (and I have seen/heard this said) - "here is an image "I" took". You didn't. You just chose a target.

[Polar Bear]

I can see this one running in a similar vein to the GoTo argument ...

[dmahon]

Whats the difference between remotely taking a picture 50m away, as I do from the comfort of my office, or doing it 20,000,000m away? Can I say that i took an image or did I just select the target too?

[Jessun]

But please, never say (and I have seen/heard this said) - "here is an image "I" took". You didn't. You just chose a target.

It's a fine line though, taking an image like this vs powering up an obsy in your garden with a mount that was aligned perhaps years ago and now runs off an iPad, whilst robofocus and automated plate solving looks after the target.

I certainly couldn't draw a definitive line what constitutes an 'acceptable' level of interaction in the taking of an image. The actual processing is the real kick for me personally. Everything else is just waiting to process.

/Jesper

[Scott]

Whats the difference between remotely taking a picture 50m away, as I do from the comfort of my office, or doing it 20,000,000m away? Can I say that i took an image or did I just select the target too?

do you focus the rig in Australia? (genuinly I don't know), physically change your filters, polar align your scope, check collimation, mirrors, lenses etc. I think It's a great concept and one i'd like to have a crack at some day but i'd be hard pressed to say its "my" image. I must stress that this is my opinion, not the right one or the wrong one...just mine

[Pete Presland]

the big difference for me is being "out there under the stars" last night was what astronomy is and has been all about. i imaged saturn for a couple of hours, while outside i saw the ISS, an owl, scanned the skies with my 15x70's and listened to the fish in my pond sucking food off the marginal plants.nothing beats being under the stars for me.

but your images are superb, keep up the good work!

the answer is the same for this discussion as for the GOTO debate, do whatever you want to do and most importantly enjoy it!!!!!!!!!

[Komet]

Whats the difference between remotely taking a picture 50m away, as I do from the comfort of my office, or doing it 20,000,000m away? Can I say that i took an image or did I just select the target too?

So who is responsible for all of the images that appear on this and other sites?

Look at a really basic beginner and his/her first attempt at any form of imaging. If that attempt was anything like mine was many years ago now then it would be pants. Yet that image is way more honest than any image from a robotic scope because it involves interest and effort. Extrapolate that beginners first attempts to a point further down the road where the interest has grown into a real hobby/pastime/call it what you will then of course that person is still responsible for the images they gather. The sheer amount of time and effort (not to mention )money put into the interest is incredible over the years but the images it produces and all of the trials and tribulations it includes are solely the owners. To say that just selecting a target and pressing go is the same is just plain wrong and really belittles the efforts of the the very new to the really experienced hands at this game..

.... and what about sketching? If you asked someone to sketch Jupiter for you say for a fee - whose work is it? Same principle - and there is no way that is your work.

Out of interest .... reading the equipment lists of some on here who seem to suggest that doing it yourself is the same as a robotic setup - why all the gear? Who gets the credit for the image, Mr Skywatcher, Mr Starlight Xpress, Mr AP or Mr FLO? (Other creditable sources are available)

I do feel rather strongly about this .... some robotic images are great, I am not denying this and if some folks like using the services available then that is their choice and good luck to them. But that is what it is - a service. You are buying a picture. You can do the same at Debenhams. You are NOT astroimaging.

[steppenwolf]

At last! Someone who gets it

Oh, I certainly get it but that doesn't mean it's for me! Fondling, maintaining and trying to get the best out of the kit I have are for me an integral part of the experience that is astronomy and frustrating though it may be at times in the UK, literal hands on the imaging equipment is a major buzz for me.

However, as I said at the start, I do 'get it' and your results speak for themselves so I wish you well with your new found freedom to explore.

[ncjunk]

Ahhh now here in lies the rub, if i take an image using my own equipment, even though i have set it up and paid hard earned cash for it, you can say I'm not astroimaging. It makes no difference, logically, if the kit is mine or the kit is someone elses. The software and hardwares doing all the work. In both cases I log on, command the equipment, download the photo and take credit for it.

My heart says thats not fair and if my equipment is used i deserve more credit but my head says no they are both cheating to some extent.

I never liked the image of the week/month in magazines because the real skill was in the images taken on eq3s or eq5s with dodgey cameras eeking every last ounce of stability, dragging the kit out every night, having to set it all up and having to baby sit it all the way then sort through all the subs........but then those images don't end up in magazines......those people aren't credited as they should. Many times i've passed over an image thinking thats a bit average without taking into account the shear blood sweat and tears that have gone into it due the use of low quality kit, because thats all they can afford or is available). It's LOT easier the more expensive your kit is, thats a fact i've encountered that no-one can change my mind on.

But through all this I would argue if i paid for using the scope, picked the target and then processed it then it's just as much astroimaging as any other type. I've still worked hard on it but on different areas.

But i can see where komet is coming from, it just leaves a nasty taste as if i 100% agree with him i'll have to logically conclude my images are not astro imaging either

[Jessun]

Out of interest .... reading the equipment lists of some on here who seem to suggest that doing it yourself is the same as a robotic setup - why all the gear? Who gets the credit for the image, Mr Skywatcher, Mr Starlight Xpress, Mr AP

Some familiar stuff you mention there Mick, but I don't see your what your point is. We use a plethoria of equipment and software for this hobby, and happily so - without being mocked for not building our own telescopes and writing our own software etc. So by including my kit in the signature I actually DO give credit to all these manufacturers/programmers who have been kind enough to make this possible.

Learning is great, but seriously, how many years should one 'learn' how to for instance set up in a field, before being allowed to move on?

I have a fair bit of gear, I like using it, I like the fiddling and tweaking, but once that's done I let it image while I sleep. If I was skint I'd happily invest in some telescope time instead.

Debenhams don't sell unprocessed FITS files, and processing as I already mentioned is a huge part of what makes this enjoyable for me, but in many respects what we are doing here is broadly speaking pointless, since it has probably been done before, and done better.

It's still fun! All aspects of it.

/Jesper

[Macavity]

Welcome to the world of professional science? Maybe THIS can be instructive? <G> I'm sure no one expects Prof. Brian Cox to run the entire LHC machine, as well as being "Mr Science" in the general public immagination? And, (genuine) teasing aside, where he is described as a "group leader", I believe this is re. a (laudable!) hardware subgroup of one institute, one national group, contributing to one collaboration re. one LHC experiment etc.

Maybe one should look at this from a positive standpoint? Astronomy is *lucky* to have both a Professional and an Amateur side. If I had "funding", the above could provide a complement to my (decidedly amateur) imaging. It would seem (like particle physics!) great to get one's hands on a large sample of professionally produced "unbiased" RGB data to tune up my image "analysis" skills? If such an facility is possible, I'd be genuinely interested... in the future.

If I am "radical", it is in a modest antipathy towards (occasional!) real-world scientists who refuse to do ANY "hardware" though! I do see their point - Dirty hands seldom gain promotion in the real world? Everyone want to be a "science journalist" or "science publicist", anyway? But Hey, we are still "amateur" scientists at heart? Not candidates for "The Apprentice", just yet?

[billhinge]

I'm a fan of itelescope as well, still on the old $40 plan (about £27 pm) and I save up a few months worth and I occasionally buy and extra $50 and have a splurge, may upgrade to the $90 plan in a year or two.

I must admit I like narrowband on the big 17" and 20" scopes when they are on moon discount

Sure I can understand wanting to DIY but no reason why you can't do both, just gives you a bit more flexibility

[todd8137]

This looks really interesting

pat

[Luke]

Congrats on the pics. I think this seems like good value! I'm having to cut back on deep sky imaging due to change of circumstances where I can no longer do the long nights, and I hadn't even considered remote imaging.

Remote imaging, why not, I say?

In my case, I've decided to switch to mostly webcam imaging with focus on solar imaging (webcam arrives Wednesday, with a bit of luck!).

I would consider remote imaging in future if it suited my needs/lifestyle.

[Polar Bear]

In a similar vein to the GoTo / No GoTo argument I see no problem with this type of imaging, with one proviso.

That full details are given when posting the images of how they were obtained and what processing they required.

Nobody has a go at NASA for the stunning images that the HST produces, or that the JWT will be considered as cheating !

And as for using those new fangled digital cameras, well I ask you......

Paul

[ollypenrice]

But that is what it is - a service. You are buying a picture. You can do the same at Debenhams. You are NOT astroimaging.

I can't agree with this, Mick. Once you've got the hang of it, data acquisition is a pretty potboiling activity, surely? Let's look at my setups. Yes, I polar aligned them all - once. It was a while ago and I always have to look at my crib sheet if I have to polar align since I do it so rarely. I'm glad to say that nobody has come to my place and said, 'I didn't polar align this mount so it won't be my picture till I do so. Please de-align it immediately!' (In case anybody now DOES want to suggest this I'll give you the answer now; NO!!! )

Collimation? I image with refractors (and Yves' ODK which seems to hold collimation indfinitely.) So basically I don't collimate the imaging scopes.

Setting up the Go To? Yes, I do this, but let's not get excited about that. Point at a star, say Yes, job done. Again, if I wander outside and somebody else has already done that bit I can't say I'd feel it wasn't my image if I used that rig.

So if all the above has been done for me I think it basically neither here nor there. What follows is for me the real business of AP and so far as I know you do all this yourself if working robotically;

Choose the target, frame the target, decide on the exposure times and filters to be used. Focus. Initialize the guider and Push Here Dummy! Wait. Experience that blazing rush of excitement when the image comes in.

Stack and callibrate the data. (Fairly boring?)

And then the real creativity begins. Image processing. For me all the stuff prior to this point is an amiable enough chore. It's mechanical. I don't dilike it but it isn't why I do AP, personally. The best bit is going outside with the bins or the Dob during the waiting!

So I think that saying a robotic imager has bought his picture is a bit hard. The OP didn't post a bunch of linear TIFFS on here, remember.

When (if!) I retire I'd try to find a place like mine, or Tivoli, or Le Mas de Gres, or Astro Adventures to keep my hand in if I didn't have the skies in the old peoples' home to use my own kit! Or if I could afford it, yes, I'd have the odd robotic session.

Olly

[Demonperformer]

I am well-aware that my AP "skills" leave an awful lot to be desired.

However, I am tempted to get some subs on one of these scopes precisely because so much of the 'mundane' bits are done. If I have a set of subs which are technically as close to perfection as possible, then I have no excuse for not being able to produce a good final result. It is all down to my processing ability. It would also produce a "standard candle" by which to judge the progress of my processing skills over time. I could go back to the same raw data in a year's time and reprocess it using the new skill I had obtained during that time and compare the results.

As for posting it on the forum - I think it would be a great way of getting advice on how to improve my processing skills, simply because so many of the other variables (setup, LP, etc) are no longer a factor. In doing so, of course, it would be a necessity to reveal exactly of what the original data consisted and how it was taken in order to get accurate feedback, so the question of some sort of 'fraud' would not arise.

In fact, by putting these thoughts in writing (and so some sort of coherent argument) I have just about convinced myself into parting with the money to actually do it. So, how much spare cash do I have this month ... ?

[Earl]

A film director, did not film, act, record the audio, the film, compose the score, write the script, did not setup any equipment, in fact might not even of been in the same country for sections of the making.

Yet it is most definitely their Film.

I see no difference.

Now I have pondered over this and could be very tempted as I cant be bothered with the tinkering anymore, especially without an observatory.... which when I had one was remote controlled.

[ncjunk]

If you do decide to give it a try I would suggest the Demo level and then get a demo-upgrade. The Demo gives you 40 points then the demo-upgrade gives you another 30 plus access to 4 more scopes and the ability to load plans.

It looks like my Demo-upgrade expires in a year, I bought it yesterday, so I could use this for a year and just add points to it at 1$ a point.

Then if I´m happy with it I´ll get a basic plan to compliment my own observatory. Not that I want iTelescope to send my observatory emails saying how nice it looks and.....oh you know what I mean.

[Macavity]

Some of us are still working on the refining of polar alignment etc. with a view to remote observation... over a gargantuan 30m distance! <G> But that's (the above) what interests me though... How high up the processing chain can one access this data? Like converting my vinyl records to . mp3 - I'd hate to "lose" anything! Is the *output* a (compressed) .jpg file - Or does one have access to some kind of data stream (.avi / .tif file(s)) of images? Perhaps that's hoping a bit much...

[Mark72]

Can only agree with Olly.

Mick,

Probably Robert Gendler is in dire need of being advised that he is NOT astroimaging.

You do need and most do not want to be auto-mechanic to drive a car or enjoy this.

Mark

[IanL]

I wouldn't under-estimate the difficulty of using a remote setup and getting acceptable results. I signed up a few months back on the demo upgrade, but still haven't used my points (mainly due to the fact that the one southern scope I have access to was partly or completely broken for most of that time, partly because I have been working on other projects, more on that soon, but it is relevant to this discussion!) I have been looking at the live results of others via the control panels and seen plenty of stuff go wrong, some of it clearly avoidable with better planning and some of it not. It isn't quite as simple as saying 'find this and take some great pictures', a fair bit of planning about the equipment capabilities and the correct targets for the time and date is required.

I like the technical challenges of setting up and running my own modest kit, but I also like the idea of having access to kit that is unlikely ever to be in my budget. (Hoping to get a CCD camera myself eventually, but suspect it may be a long time before that happens). Once it is up and running though, the imaging is a largely hands off process, mainly sat on the sofa watching TV and keeping an eye on the guiding graph via TeamViewer with the occasional excursion to supervise a meridian flip.

Processing is the thing where 90% of the time is spent and 90% of the talent (or lack thereof in my case) shows through, and with seriously limited time and opportunities to get decent data this has to be a good move.

[Komet]

Well (as expected), we appear to differ.

I made a comment about sketching though which everyone has deemed to ignore. The medium is different but the principle is the same. If you paid someone to look through a scope and sketch what they saw - be the camera in other words - then whose picture is it?

This is amateur AI I am talking about here - the likes of us taking pretty pictures and the question as I see it is not how far away you are from your equipment. Many of us operate our equipment remotely be it a few yards away, like me or further - if you are are operating YOUR equipment over a vast distance then it is still YOUR equipment that YOU have spent the time, effort and money to setup to do that job. But as it is your equipment then it is your image at the end of the day. Just renting some aperture time off equipment you have never seen is using a service. Any image you have bought using that service is not yours - you have done nothing to acquire that except handed over some money and pressed go. Somebody elses nous is being used - they set everything up, they polar aligned it, they collimate it, they maintain it, they rent it out.

If you choose to display that image that is fine but please do not say you took it because you did not. I would like to see a separate forum for remotely acquired images. Despite what it sounds like I do like to see what people do achieve through them. As I have also said though - the really amateur attempts through cheap scopes with poor processing by folks struggling to get going at this game are more honest. That epitomises what astroimaging is about to me. You do the best you can with the equipment YOU have got. You may have poor equipment or you may have over time, built up quite a posh setup - no matter and no difference, it is YOURS. Its a bit like decorating. You can decorate the house yourself or get the experts in - the latter will probably be a lot better and look very nice but you didn't do it.

Nothing anyone can say will sway me from my point of view and I have no doubt that nothing I say will alter anybody elses point of view. Pointless argument really but hey ho eh?

[Polar Bear]

To take this to its extreme, would you miss up the chance of 30 minutes with the HST? I certainly wouldn't.

As regards the car mechanic analogy, I have a lot of experience in this field having restored, rebuilt and customized many cars.

Take car A. Rebuilt by yourself, parts chosen by yourself, hour upon hour spent in the garage getting everything just right.

Take Car B. Restored by a garage.

The outcome (how the cars drive) will be very similar, however the feeling (and in most cases the respect from fellow enthusiasts) you will get is completely different.

I no longer have the time or resource's to restore cars so would resort to one ready done and just enjoy the driving.

But a word of caution, as with restored cars be honest and upfront with how the end product was achieved, that way everyone is kept happy.

Paul