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

[Mark72]

Mick,

Just out of curiosity - I own my equipment, it's set up in Arizona not by me but the scope and camera are the same as I have set up myself.

Remote imaging this way requires toooones of time to take care of all eventualities including roof not smashing the scope and thunderstorms not smashing the rest.

I'm not mentioning run-away slews, lost alignment, poor focus etc. Sometimes the roof needs to be closed just a minute before boarding the plane I need to catch or from the mountain top in the Alps.

You still need to keep an eye.

So is it still astro imaging or not from your point of view?

Paul,

With all due respect I consider the equipment as a car that should work as advertised and produce results you expect.

For me astro-imaging is about creating a nice looking picture of the galaxy or nebula. Some people do like to work on the equipment and then give away the images for free.

Well, it's still astro-imaging but really not for me.

Mark

[Sp@ce_d]

iTelescope will also host your own equipment for you. So what's the difference with remotely controlling your own kit or the rental kit it's sat next to?

As I've said before earlier in the thread, for me the buzz is tinkering and seeing those hard won subs come in. However, once setup my rigg is pretty much automated now so there's not that much difference whether the subs are rolling in from the obsy down the garden or 12,000 miles away. Fair enough, state how & under what skies the subs were acquired but with the direction the weathers been heading it may be the only way those in the UK will get any subs! Also, it does give you an opportunity to image targets we never get to see in UK skies.

[Komet]

If it's your gear then its your data your are gathering. Its your image irrespective of where it sits.

If you are buying time on a remote scope then you are only buying the data. Your are not imaging as you have not physically gathered the data yourself. Somebody else has done that - don't tell me that remote scopes are not looked after by somebody as they probably suffer the same problems as we all do. You have paid for the output - the data of that scope. So what you are doing is processing it. Jesper said earlier he enjoyed doing that. Me? I prefer all of it but each to their own.

Lets move this on a bit to see how far this could go before its gets really silly.

It is possible and very easy, armed with a credit card and a bit of processing software to be the best imager this particular, nay any forum has ever seen. You do not need to own any equipment. You do not need to know anything about the night sky. You do not need to know anything about the theory and practise of imaging, telescopes, cameras, filters, polar alignment - the whole nine yards - nada! You can do your "imaging" in the afternoon and go out with your mates in the evening. You pay for your time on some remote scope and when you get the really good data your process it and present it as your image. You may perhaps win "Picture of the whatever" with it ...... you are a great "imager".

Are you? Really? Because that is possible. Now how is that being an imager? Please somebody explain and also perhaps answer the sketching question because that needs answering as a point of principle.

[dph1nm]

Of course, if you want to do this for free there is nothing to stop you downloading the raw fits files from e.g. the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and making your own images that way. I do quite a bit of this sort of thing - but I would argue it is million miles way from doing your own imaging in your back garden.

NigelM

[Mark72]

Well, Mick why can't you believe you can know quite a thing about all the concepts you listed but be profoundly unhappy about the results you get with all the efforts you invested.

Why can't you be armed with the same credit card and order a very expensive mount, set it up (OK!) and take pictures forgetting about guiding etc.

You can also have a very expensive camera but some people would argue it's not true astro-imaging because you bought it. Try to get the same with a noisy Canon under the skies with 100% humidity - even remotely.

You reduce the hobby to technically talented who do not mind fixing numerous defects and have unbending patience waiting for this one day in a month when the skies cleared.

And why do you think a person who bought some time in iTelescope is necessarily trying to be the best imager in the forum. May be it's just fun to stretch the obscure galaxy from the Southern skies.

Sketching argument is not valid. Camera gives you raw ingredients - you do not post the raw fits - while a sketcher has finished the job for all intense and purposes. It's his work - you just look at it.

With processing you are just starting up. Nobody says it's not your pizza because you did not grow tomatoes.

It's correct that iTelescope can set up your equipment for you at astronomical price. What's the difference? Commitment of course. You are still operating it with all it involves.

Once again, you are not supposed to feel yourself somehow inferior if you did not build this car and did not repair it and did not fix it. You can still drive and be happy about this.

By the way, there are still astro-imagers who build their own scope. Say, 12'' RC (no kidding)! I really respect such efforts. So if I have mine 10'' at home set up myself I'm also not doing astro-imaging because I bought it, correct?

Mark

[Zakalwe]

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?

I know where you are coming from Mick, but your example isn't that applicable. The work in astro-imaging is in the processing. In your example, the sketcher is doing the "post-processing". Let me, if I may, use your example in a slightly different way: Say you are viewing a region of the night sky via a live feed from a remote observatory. You are then sketching what you see on the screen, with all your own interpretation of what you are seeing. I'm sure that you would agree with me that the final image is all your own work. And that work is n less valid than if you were sitting at the eyepiece. Or would you really claim that the final drawing isn't your own work just because you used someone else's equipment?

Rgds

Steve J

[Zakalwe]

If it's your gear then its your data your are gathering. Its your image irrespective of where it sits.

If you are buying time on a remote scope then you are only buying the data. Your are not imaging as you have not physically gathered the data yourself. Somebody else has done that - don't tell me that remote scopes are not looked after by somebody as they probably suffer the same problems as we all do. You have paid for the output - the data of that scope. So what you are doing is processing it. Jesper said earlier he enjoyed doing that. Me? I prefer all of it but each to their own.

Lets move this on a bit to see how far this could go before its gets really silly.

It is possible and very easy, armed with a credit card and a bit of processing software to be the best imager this particular, nay any forum has ever seen. You do not need to own any equipment. You do not need to know anything about the night sky. You do not need to know anything about the theory and practise of imaging, telescopes, cameras, filters, polar alignment - the whole nine yards - nada! You can do your "imaging" in the afternoon and go out with your mates in the evening. You pay for your time on some remote scope and when you get the really good data your process it and present it as your image. You may perhaps win "Picture of the whatever" with it ...... you are a great "imager".

Do you think that a concert pianist owns the instrument that they use when playing a masterpiece? Or that they tune it? Or clean and polish it? Would you argue that the music they create is not their own because the instruments are not their own?

What about in some sports? Take, say, motorbike racing. Does Jorge Lorenzo own and repair his motorbike? Does he get the spanners out after each session and make changes? Does he heck...he has an army of people that does that for him. Would you then say that his World Championships are not his? Of course not.

[Scott]

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?

They're not really just being the camera are they...If you are using the sketcher as an analogy then surely he's being the processer also.He's not choosing the lengths of subs, He's not deciding on which filters to use

As I've said earlier, I think it'd be great to have a crack at this, but I'd probably be inclined to say "look at what I made with data I aquired from siding springs etc.

With regards to the "if you bought the kit it's your image" arguement, well it really doesn't wash with me. if I send a shopping list to someone in Australia and get them to set the rig up so I can operate it remotely, how is it any different to renting a scope?

I'm not saying you are right or wrong with regards to whether or not a remote image is yours. I can't agree with these two points though

[Komet]

If YOU are the one sketching then the output - the sketch, is yours. Its no different to taking a photo of a subject and then going home and making a painting from it. This is commonplace. If you took the picture and then asked someone else to paint it the work would be theirs but if you bought the painting you would own it. It would not be your work though.

You can also have a very expensive camera but some people would argue it's not true astro-imaging because you bought it. Try to get the same with a noisy Canon under the skies with 100% humidity - even remotely.

Oh please .... lets all go and find silicone and make mirrors. Had you read the previous posts you would have read "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." The gear you use is completely irrelevant. It is the data it produces that is important and it matters not whether it is excellent or complete rubbish. It is yours. You are the IMAGER. You have captured it. You have setup YOUR equipment and used it to the best of YOUR ability. Anything you do with that is down to you. You can rightly lay claim to the final image be it good or be it bad.

Just going and buying data and then claiming it as your own is just plain wrong. Buy it by all means, process and produce an image - that is fine. But please get off the "this is my image" cart. It isn't - it is somebody elses image processed by you. You were NOT the imager!

Just go and try and produce something serious rather then the mostly frivolous output produced by this lark and if you use material that is not yours without due credit you will be landed upon from a great height. If it is now deemed OK to use data from any old source whether free or purchased and claiming it as your own then what is the point of anybody ever setting up there own imaging rig be it big or small. Just go and buy stuff - and learn zilch in the process. I see the image as the end result of a process during which you have learnt loads and mastered equipment and techniques to enable you to view the final output. Short circuiting all of that and just jumping to the processing is almost completely missing the point imo. Also, I wonder how many images floating about are hybrids of someones own work - (and there is a phrase we should be proud of .... ALL MY OWN WORK) - a hybrid of someones own work and unattributed data bought/acquired over the net. Hmmmm .....

My last word on this ..... Buy your data, process it but please list the source of all the data and don't claim to be the imager.

Now over and out from me and back to the height of summer, short and light nights, mossies and beer!

[Mark72]

OK Mick,

Probably beer is the best alternative to this discussion.

I'd just say that I personally prefer to be happy "non-imager" than unhappy "imager" in your sense.

What I hate most is to wait for months for clear skies and produce an image which I just do not pluck courage to post on any forum

Mark

[Demonperformer]

You have setup YOUR equipment and used it to the best of YOUR ability.

So if I book a week at Olly's place, use HIS equipment that HE has set up and take HIS advice on how best to achieve the result i want, is it my image or his?

[Scott]

I took this on a camera I borrowed from my daughter mounted on a tripod borrowed from my sister and processed it on a laptop owned by my mum. all I did was frame,focus and select the length and setting for the exposures. I'm still calling it mine though

Milky Way by Scott Prideaux 1961, on Flickr

[Komet]

Do you think that a concert pianist owns the instrument that they use when playing a masterpiece? Or that they tune it? Or clean and polish it? Would you argue that the music they create is not their own because the instruments are not their own?

What about in some sports? Take, say, motorbike racing. Does Jorge Lorenzo own and repair his motorbike? Does he get the spanners out after each session and make changes? Does he heck...he has an army of people that does that for him. Would you then say that his World Championships are not his? Of course not.

Deffo last word ....

Concert pianist ...... playing whose masterpiece exactly? Also its the wrong way round. The pianist puts stuff into a piano to make noise. If you like he is the object in space and the piano is the scope. Imaging is the other way about. Now if someone recorded what he played, jigged it about a bit and released it as their own they would have their bottom sued off them. Its called sampling and you have to get permission to do it.

Team sports are team sports. All members of the team contribute. One person cannot (sensibly) compete doing everything themselves. Its a faulty analogy surely ....

Beer ......... tired of the "what ifs" now ....

[Komet]

I took this on a camera I borrowed from my daughter mounted on a tripod borrowed from my sister and processed it on a laptop owned by my mum. all I did was frame,focus and select the length and setting for the exposures. I'm still calling it mine though

Nice.

But you did everything and you were related to the owners of all the equipment so it doesn't count and the argument is surely flawed.

(Had you asked them to take the picture for you while you sat at home would it still be yours?)

[ncjunk]

I took this on a camera I borrowed from my daughter mounted on a tripod borrowed from my sister and processed it on a laptop owned by my mum. all I did was frame,focus and select the length and setting for the exposures. I'm still calling it mine though

Milky Way by Scott Prideaux 1961, on Flickr

There's a fair bit of skill involved in setting up, framing and setting the exposure. In that case it's irrelevant whos kit it is as your still doing most of the work (if we are following the line of argument from earlie). In a robotic setup i click go and then do nothing. I could go to google and click download pic instead same end result and same amount of work.

Also, going to ollys is worse than a robotic setup...hes got it all working and doing everything AND your get a holiday out of it and astro pics...lazy swines...

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Tapatalk 2

[Scott]

Nice.

But you did everything and you were related to the owners of all the equipment so it doesn't count and the argument is surely flawed.

(Had you asked them to take the picture for you while you sat at home would it still be yours?)

Sorry, I missed the post that states family doesn't count now I wonder what uncle Miguel down in Chile is doing tomorrow.

Yes I'm being silly now... As I've stated on other threads...very few people join these threads with an open mind....me included. and Whilst I don't neccessarily think that renting telescope time is cheating, I will say that for me, its about getting out there and enjoying the whole experience

[Scott]

There's a fair bit of skill involved in setting up, framing and setting the exposure. In that case it's irrelevant whos kit it is as your still doing most of the work (if we are following the line of argument from earlie). In a robotic setup i click go and then do nothing. I could go to google and click download pic instead same end result and same amount of work.

Also, going to ollys is worse than a robotic setup...hes got it all working and doing everything AND your get a holiday out of it and astro pics...lazy swines...

Sent from my GT-I9003 using Tapatalk 2

But do you just click go? As I said earlier...i don't know how these remote setups work

Oh....and I wanna be one of those lazy swines

[Zakalwe]

Deffo last word ....

Hey..you said that last time! :-)

Team sports are team sports. All members of the team contribute. One person cannot (sensibly) compete doing everything themselves. Its a faulty analogy surely ....

The team and manufacturer wins (in the case of bike racing) the constructor championship. The rider wins the World Championship and is recorded as World Champion.

Concert pianist ...... playing whose masterpiece exactly? Also its the wrong way round. The pianist puts stuff into a piano to make noise. If you like he is the object in space and the piano is the scope. Imaging is the other way about. Now if someone recorded what he played, jigged it about a bit and released it as their own they would have their bottom sued off them. Its called sampling and you have to get permission to do it.

In the same way that an imager puts stuff into the development of the data. The raw data is just that...raw data. Part of the imagers skill is taking that data and making it into an image.

I think that you are approaching it form the position of someone who's mind is already made up and won't be swayed. Nowt wrong with that (boring world if we were all the same). Enjoy your beers and the sunshine (I'm sitting in my home office in shorts an T-shirt (the joys of working from home) wishing I was in the back garden!

[Pete Presland]

i thought this one would run and run and run! never mind who owns the kit or where it is based, there some cracking images in this thread!

[Jessun]

Hmm, I though we were all marvelling at the grandness of the Universe - each in our own way.

I would hesitate to exclude anyone from doing what suits them best, and everyone should also feel welcome to post any results here - and be proud of it.

A Planewave CDK on a SB robotic mount is actually no absolute guarantee for a nice image either.

I fully understand different schools of thought, different personal objectives, but there's no need to rank these in some sort of hierarchy of nobility. We've got a range from webcam captures to new takes on Hubble heritage data posted on SGL. I like looking at them all, and I fiddle about somewhere myself in the grey area in between.

/Jesper

[Sp@ce_d]

Surely if we are talking about "creating our masterpiece" (and not scientific study) we are just using the tools at our disposal. The way we process the data to produce our interpretation is as much in the same way as a musician uses instruments and studios to produce. When we listen to The Beatles who do we hear.. John, Paul, George and Ringo or Abbey Road? As long as credit is given in the same way you'd read the album sleeve notes then I have no issues with that.

[ollypenrice]

So if I book a week at Olly's place, use HIS equipment that HE has set up and take HIS advice on how best to achieve the result i want, is it my image or his?

I'm aware of the policies of SGL and invite the mods to delete this immediately if is inappropriate.

The image would be yours. You would do a processing, we would do a processing, yours might be better than mine (it wouldn't be the first time...) and we can both post whatever we like.

Mick, I'm honestly astonished by your insistence on who owns the kit. SInce sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century the professional astronomers stopped owning the kit they used, with the exception of certain wealthy individuals. (Including the deranged Percival Lowell. Sorry, Perce, you saw Martian canals with your own kit. E.E. Barnard (lovely man) could not see them in the kit that did not belong to him. (He wasn't rich.) No canals, Perce. Edward Emmerson was poor and he was right. He was nice as well, but hey-ho.

I don't own Yves' telescope and I don't care a hoot. Yves does own it and I know Yves well enough to know that he doesn't care either! Tom O'Donoghue will be leaving some kit here for me to run in joint ventures with our guests and himself and he doesn't care a jot! What we are all into is meeting the sky!

It's like collaborations. Some people don't wat to work like that. Me, I love it! The sky comes first. Get the data!! When you have the data you're an imager!

Olly

[Ben Ritchie]

I use a rather large telescope in Chile a fair bit, and don't do anything more than write a proposal and fill in phase-2 instructions. Still reckon the results are my work though

[Sp@ce_d]

and as the OP was discussing iTelescope.net

I quote..

"All image data taken is your data – iTelescope.Net doesn’t hold any intellectual property rights."

"Select from a large range of filters including narrowband, LRGB and UBVRI, as well as control pointing, filter selection, focusing, exposure times, image counts, repeat loops etc."

This is what I do with my own kit too...

[Sp@ce_d]

Just thinking about this a bit more.. one thing I do want to make clear is that I totally agree with Mick (Komet) when he says state how and with what you acquired the data. I certainly do understand the amount of blood, sweat and tears that go into learning the ropes and acquiring data. He's right that newcomers need to understand whats involved. I guess it's the "apprenticeship" and "First Blood" experience.. sadly that seems to have disappeared from a lot of trades these days. I have always found SGL members to be pretty good at judging results by the levels of expertise & kit though. Yes, why not have a section for remote imaging with "professional kit" although how you draw the line I don't know...

However, I still don't get the difference between borrowing the neighbours "tasco" or using an iTelescope .. ( my neighbour might be Nik Szymanek ) as its how you use it that makes the difference.... I have, amongst my guitar collection one signed by Mr Clapton... but there's no way I can play it like him!!