Video astronomy Vs eyepiece

[hoops86]

Hey Guys,

How come video astronomy isn’t very popular? I only ask because im pretty new to all things astronomy (started in Feb).

I was very disappointed when I got my first GOTO to find that the cable would only control my scope and not show the images on screen (stupid I know). Made perfect sense why it wouldn’t show images on screen after I thought about it though

I only recently learned that no matter what eyepiece you have… DSO’s will always be black and white!

Until I got the Sammy up and running (like a week ago) I had been considering buying a premium eyepiece (£150+) but now im thinking…why even bother? I have loads of decent eyepieces now (BST’s, meade 4k’s, celestron x-cel lx’s) and im thinking spending more on something that will never get used as the views are just poor compared to the Sammy would be a waste! I don’t want to see black and white I want colour!!

I get that the camera will have a much smaller field of view than say a 25mm eyepiece…. But when a scb2000 costs £40 and say a 6mm televue whatever costs £200+…one is colour… one is black and white…I just don’t get it!

So im thinking….why waste money on an eyepiece when I could just buy a better camera!

Anyway I don’t know what point im trying to make here lol I just thought it was weird that people still buy eyepieces at like £700+ when all they are going to get is black and white views. And a video camera of the same cost would provide much much much better views….

/confused!

Cheers

Chris

[James]

I think it depends on what you want. I must admit I'm beginning to look at video astronomy myself but... that's because my eyesight isn't what it used to be. There's nothing for me that beats a pin sharp view of a starfield through a nice eyepiece on a nice scope and I love trying to get more details of a galaxy out using my eyes alone and I like trying for ever fainter objects visually (tricky that one with light pollution growing). AFAIK most video setups just don't give that same crisp sharpness. I'm guessing it's really just a matter of time though. I had a good view over a shoulder at someones video setup at one of the SGL star parties and sure, you could see lots more using a humble video camera but the sharpness and clarity that I love just wasn't quite there.

I must at some point have a look at a real top end setup and see how it is - after all in a few years time that'll be low-mid end kit and my vision will also be low to mid end...

There is of course also the problem of light adaption - looking at a screen doesn't help that and at star parties you could become quite unpopular...

James

[Dragon Man]

Well, not all objects in an EP are black & white Chris, but I know exactly what you mean.

Yes, video astronomy gives fantastic colour views that our eyes will never see, and it gives instant gratification.

Not like Imaging where several 20 minute lights plus darks, stacking, processing etc are the norm, just to get an image.

Video is in your face, right now, in living colour. 

Here in Australia I have spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to encourage people to try Video.

Before me Steve Massey and Steve Quirk have spent the last 7+ years trying to get people into Video (Steve Massey is the owner/seller of Gstar-ex cameras), and even before them, people like Jeanette Dunphy and Shevill Mathers have been promoting the advantages of Video for 10 - 15+ years.

Yet Australians just don't take it on board. I only know of about 6 people in Australia that do Video Astronomy.

Maybe EP's are still preferred due to the easy access to dark sky here.

Even though I live in absolute dark skies with 6.6mag I still prefer Video. But what makes it even more fun for me is Live broadcasting on NSN so I can share my sky with others, and talk with the viewers.

It's like having the world in my back yard watching the screen with me 

[hoops86]

Cheers for the replies guys!

hmmm i cant say i noticed that the eyepiece views were sharper...Maybe that comes with the super expensive eyepieces! But i have what is meant to be a fantastic eyepiece... a meade 4k 14mm UWA (apparently the best eyepiece meade have ever made) i know the field of view is different to the sammy but the details i could see from the samsung were just breathtaking compared to the eyepieces i have!

Also i dont think it can be down to my eyes as i am only 27 and have perfect vision....i think.

Is the popularity issue maybe down to the insane prices of the dedicated cameras and lack of knowledge of cheaper options?

Ken seems weird only 6 people in a place that size use video!

[Naemeth]

I can see colour in some DSOs, M57 for example always gives me a hint of colour in my 10" dob . Mind you, I'm younger than most people on here so that may be rather a large factor .

[hoops86]

Ohh thats interesting Jonathan! For me M57 is just a grey smoke ring with not even a tiny hint of colour! My light pollution is very very bad tho!

[Naemeth]

Ohh thats interesting Jonathan! For me M57 is just a grey smoke ring with not even a tiny hint of colour! My light pollution is very very bad tho!

My light pollution is pretty dreadful too being 3 miles outside of Leeds city centre. I do mean a hint of colour - mostly in averted vision but it is there. I think the Orion Nebula will probably show me colour too, I've heard of quite a lot of reports of a slight green tint.

[Carl Reade]

Easy answer from me. I knew nothing about it. In my earlier days I was bored just seeing fuzzys and in my day and Im 40 all you had access to was film SLR cameras and you didnt know what came out until it came back from the shop

I only stumbled on VA by accident then started looking into it cameras etc Then recently took the plunge on my 40th and bought a scope and camera and havnt looked back.

I think it is very badly advertised TBH and people simply arent aware of it.

Carl 

[Stu]

I've dabbled with video astronomy, but to be honest, for me astronomy is all about actually seeing the object with my own eyes, not on a screen. I spend my work life looking at a screen so actually seeing things myself, even in shades of grey does it for me. Getting away from too much technology is also something which I find relaxing.

I do agree that the star images seen through an eyepiece are sharper and more contrasty than on a screen, and also show lovely colours. DSO's are obviously a different matter and a video camera will show far more, generally.

I fully get that everyone is different, and have complete respect for imagers and guys doing video astronomy, it's just not not for me. Just a different perspective on the same hobby I guess.

Cheers,

Stu

[Macavity]

Heheh. Never really sure why people post on the "video astronomy bit" re. why they didn't enjoy it. [teasing]

For me personally, Video Astronomy proved something of a genuine "revelation"?

Although interested in Astronomy since 1963(!) - Back then, scopes cost a "king's ransom" and somehow "LIFE" intervened? When I rediscovered Astronomy (early retirement) in the nougties, I was amazed that scopes were within (my modest) budget.

But even a variety of Scopes / Mounts... MAK127... MAK150... VISUAL... A succession of "Planetary Imaging" Cams proved disappointing. In the interim, I had started to build my small observatory - With no spectacular hopes. Not sure how I "discovered" Video Astronomy - A Google search? I was certainly within an iota of *giving up* Astronomy, period. On a financial wing and a prayer, I bought a Watec...

The rest is history! The slightly-dodgy GSO 8"/F4 (Hey I'm working on it!) - But real incentive / fun at last!

Not quite *Hollis Brown* - Down to those "Seven Shotgun Shells" (I've recovered a bit since then!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dw-MvBnlFg

[Laurie61]

I think my brother summed this up quite well whilst we were sitting looking at the dust lanes in the Andromeda galaxy, with a 62mm ex projector lens/pd camera, he said " I think we just turned our 2k OO into a big finderscope" Not exactly true but I know what he meant  .     

[DoctorD]

Hi Chris

Video astronomy is often seen as the poor relation of "proper" imaging however most people who actually do video astronomy want to be able to "see" more through their scopes and are not as interested in capturing and processing.

I turned to video astronomy when I realised that there was very little I could see through the eyepiece from my light polluted garden - both skyglow and local light pollution which means my eyes are never dark adapted. Video opens up a whole load of objects that I would not see otherwise.

However get your scope to a really dark site and there is a real thrill in finding and seeing many objects.

Clear skies

Paul

[hoops86]

Thanks for all the replies guys! im loving hearing how you all got into video and the path that led you there! And the reasons why some of you prefer the eyepiece!

Some very interesting opinions here!

[Stu]

Heheh. Never really sure why people post on the "video astronomy bit" re. why they didn't enjoy it. [teasing]

Just answering the question Chris, which was why it is not more popular? OP seemed to be interested in different opinions on it so I offered my perspective which I hope was helpful.

Cheers,

Stu

[shirva]

Well I like it all..cake and eat it approach. .love skipping through the skies wae a 28mm eye piece and get the dropped jaw syndrome. .wow.

Now I know why I'm standing alone in the silence of the night keeking through a scope...then the long exposure work wae dslr just for the hell of of it...then va, so your not freezing the brass monkeys off ...va is good but can't beat mk1 eyeballs. ..but big screen va has to something else...Davy

[johnno]

I know when I first started out about 18 months ago, I remember stumbling across some colour dos images on the net and I thought wow, I want to see them for myself.

I didn't know anyone who was into astronomy, didn't know of any clubs , so I did bit of a read up on the internet and decided to get a goto mount thinking I would just switch it on and tell it want I want to see, that's what the advertising led me to believe { how wrong was I }
 
So I picked up a second hand 130p goto with EP's off the internet, he was only 30 miles from me and shot home, threw it all together switched it on then it started asking me for the alignment routine, well I was buggered.
 
went back inside found the manual on the net printed it off, ran back outside had a go at setting it, no use I didn't know any stars, that was that for that night.
 
Cut a long story short, when I finally managed to get it setup more or less and pointed it and I located my first dso M42, it was a big let down, no colour just a smudgy thing in the EP,
 
Then one day I came across a article by Steve Wainright I think that's his name and Steve Massey about VA, and I've never looked back...... I want to see it now in all its glory,

so to me VA is a electronic  colour EP and I love it, just hope someday I can move up the ladder and get a better cam

[Macavity]

Just answering the question Chris, which was why it is not more popular? OP seemed to be interested in different opinions on it so I offered my perspective which I hope was helpful.

I don't think we are at variance on that. Perhaps why I pepper my posts with

(to many, the irritating!) emoticons and occasionally a "[teasing]" or two?

On the general question only:

I suspect (see above posts!) one of the main reasons is a previous / general lack of "visibility".

Without being churlish, astronomers are quite a "conservative" (no politics please!) bunch. I stole myself to give a "talk" on Video Astronomy at my local Astro Soc. A few (senior?) members seemed to walk out (to fiddle with the group 12" Dob!) BEFORE I had even started. lol. They reappeared a bit later - It was a COLD night? But many [they] gave it (me) a chance... Overall, it seemed rather *well* received!

The real sadness is that so many within our group have "given up" doing ANY Active Astronomy. Local seeing is actually not too bad! But I live in an area where people are older, not well off. The canonical "Big Dob" is physically unmanageable. "Imaging" is perceived as (is) WAY too expensive. Although crime is low, our non-astronomer neighbours floodlight *everything* "just in case"!

You'll have to forgive me if I get a tad chauvenistic or proselytising re. Video Astronomy... 

I spent many years as a scientist promoting stuff that was obviously / genuinely USELESS.

When I see something that has *genuine* prospects, I get a tad "over excited" (protective).

[nytecam]

Chris - you're preaching to the converted here - video or CCD cam in brief exps zaps eyeballing every time IF you want to see something - the long running thread on SGL "Show me your EP case" is a farce - may start a thread "Show me your astro-camera collection" 

[Macavity]

Chris - you're preaching to the converted here - video or CCD cam in brief exps zaps eyeballing every time IF you want to see something - the long running thread on SGL "Show me your EP case" is a farce - may start a thread "Show me your astro-camera collection" 

Ooooh, Harsh. At the moment I'm (temporarily) minus "serious" eyepieces!   It is a shame so much of my "cool stuff" has been "sacrificed" for BORING old CAT6 cables, coax, splitters, DIY "boxes" etc. (N.B. VA doesn't have to be like that! lol) On the upside, the "eyepiece thing" is one less controversy in my life? OK, I lied about my remaining *rather cool* 31mm Hyperion Aspheric - Retained for *sentimental* reasons... Commensurate with budget / eyesight / abilities etc.

[James]

When I look at images from video camera's, be they on the internet or that time at an SGL starparty when I hovered over a shoulder the problem I had with it was that the image was invariably pushed a tad too hard and various artefacts start appearing on the screen (dark rings around stars etc).

Don't get me wrong, I get the same with my image processing sometimes but my question is, is there a point whilst viewing the screen where an image can appear as clear/sharp etc as what I get through an eyepiece - even if you don't see as much as you can extract from the system. For example if I process one of my images it starts off with not much being visible and through stretching etc I end up with an image that shows much more. If I get it wrong I end up with an image that may show tonnes of data but shows too much noise, ringing artifacts and so on and to me is ugly. With VA is is possible to tone an image down to avoid this but still see lots more than a view through the eyepiece will give?

James

[Macavity]

James,

Yeeeees... I have often wondered about "Inverse Polo Mint" artifacts too.

Seemingly something to do with the internal stacking of Video Cameras?

To provide non-astronomer-friendly displays, I lower my sights significantly.

Globular Clusters seem fairly "solid" targets! But, with limited aperture, e.g.

Galaxies are still fairly underwhelming in real time? The camera settings for

subsequent stacking / processing are significantly different to "on-screen"?

These days, to write a video for subsequent processing, I NOW ease back

on "contrast"... I turn the "gamma" OFF... I use maximum integration settings.

II "up the gain", so sky-background becomes almost GREY? Latterly I fiddle

far less with "native" settings. Bit like writing your Vinyl / CDs to mp3 format?

If only I could master post processing... I cheat use "levels" quite a lot now? 

[Spacedout]

Interesting discussion this one so I'll give my 10 cents worth!

Firstly, in my opinion I do not think that one type of astronomy is better than another as all aspects are fantastic and it is merely a case of preference/horses for courses!  My preference however is currently Video Astronomy and I'll explain why.

I started out with this ridiculously addictive hobby just after Christmas 2011 after buying the Sky Watcher 200P Goto (FLO).  This was one of my many selfish presents to my good lady (this year motorbike!) which ended up on permanent loan to me!  I had never looked through a telescope before so I was amazed and hooked straight from the off and spent several months that winter with little or no sleep.  However, after seeing all the usual suspects that are exciting to the newcomer like the Moon and planets I soon started to lose interest.  The smudgies were cool at first but like all newcomer's I very quickly wanted more (APERTURE FEVER).  I decided if I wanted to see more detail I needed the biggest mirror I could afford but then quickly realised I already had it! 

I then went down the route of a self build project and planned to build a 20" Obsession style Newtonian.  I got as far as building the workshop in the garage and the mirror cell before changing my mind again.  At his point I was thinking what do I really want other than more detail and concluded this had to be comfort.  I started to think about all the nights I spent with eye strain from squinting and back ache from being bent over depending which target I was trying to find and I decided there must be a better way!  I then decided I was going to build a bino scope with not one but TWO 20" mirrors and all this with out knowing how to do it!  This then led on to crazy plans of a bino scope chair with all manner of gadgets and comforts!  I even drew something up on Sketch-Up which I may post one day for a laugh

Anyway during all this thinking, planning and research I came across Video Astronomy and realised this would give me exactly what I was looking for:

More detail and in full colour

More DSOs to find that I could never see with just an eyepiece and 8" scope

The use of both eyes

The use of my comfortable couch

The ability to impress newcomers

and so on and so on....

(If anyone is interested to see why I get so excited about VA then please visit my gallery.  These are all images taken of my TV showing near live images and these are not processed in anyway!)

This discovery has saved me from divorce and bankruptcy as I would have inevitably spent months in my "man shed" like a man possessed banging and cutting away until the beast was built!   Now, no need as my fever has been cured.... well actually it has simply taken another direction but you get the gist!!

Well that is my take on VA and why I am currently into to it but as I say it really is horses for courses and so whatever you enjoy then that is the best kind of astronomy   

Regards

Karl

[Joves]

Let me start by saying... I've really enjoyed this thread. Well done, Chris, for starting it!

I actually enjoy hearing each persons point of view regarding both eyepiece and VA viewing, both good and bad. For me, I absolutely think there is a place for both. Like probably most when they first looked at the sky through a telescope, I though I was going to see more (well, actually I lie... My first proper look through a scope was at Saturn, which blew me away... Was some guy on the side of the street... I was drunk, but it still fired a passion in me that I will probably never get a chance to thank him for... Pardon all the dot dot dots), however, just paying the slightest amount of thought toward WHAT I was actually looking at was enough to make me awe-struck and interested in seeing more! After awhile, with a few different aperture scopes and several eyepieces, I realised that (give or take) I'd probably seen things about as well I was going to see them, short of the pretty pictures I could look at in magazines. Even most of the telescope ads and "choosing a telescope" forums/websites came with the same caveat... "Astronomy is great, but don't expect much... Your never going to see things the way you think/wish you are going to! And colour, forget about colour... That's only in the pictures! You're going to be disappointed by little grey smudges, but stick with it... You'll grow to like it!!" I had pretty much resigned myself, happily though, to this being the truth, until one day I was reading Sky at Night magazine when I stumbled across Rod Mollise's article on Video Astronomy (I'm sure most of you have probably seen it!). It spoke of things that apparently weren't possible... Seeing DSO's, clusters, nebulae and galaxies, practically live... And in colour? It couldn't be?! Anyhow, needless to say it got me started with VA (first with a modest Orion Deep Space and now a Mallincam Xtreme) and the impossible became possible! Let me say, to those few in here that haven't experienced video... There is nothing quite like it! I'm not saying it's better or worse than looking at grey smudges through the eyepiece, which I absolutely adore doing, but it certainly is a whole different experience!

Long story even longer... Wanna know what my very next purchase after the Mallincam was? A pair of binoculars (yes, I know you're not supposed to call them a "pair" of binoculars, but old habits die hard)! Wanna know what my next purchase was after that?? Another pair of binoculars!! Wanna know what my latest purchase has been??? Three Televue Ethos eyepieces (haven't even had the chance to use them yet)!!! If my point, although very long-winded isn't yet clear, it is this... To me, one of the beautiful and magical things about astronomy is the multitude of different ways you can look at the exact same thing. Heck, look at the exact same object through the exact same equipment on two different nights and you will never see it in the same way! Tell me... Is there another hobby on this little planet of ours that is more awesome than that?!?! Surely not...

[Joves]

Excellent post, Karl. Looks like you and I were rambling on at the exact same time!

[Dragon Man]

I notice in a few spots in this thread 'Video Astronomy' is referred to as 'Imaging' and in one instance the term 'the poor relation of "proper" imaging' was used.

I believe Non Video-Astronomy people need to understand that Video Astronomy is NOT imaging, nor is it meant to be a form of imaging.

If someone wants to 'Image' they can buy quite reasonably priced cameras for that purpose and get pretty pictures with far superior detail than that of a Video Astronomy camera.

Example, a $150 DSLR will cream a Video camera for detail.

The whole purpose behind Video Astronomy is for Observing, Viewing, Looking. 'Live'. It is not meant to be an Imager. Though many people do 'Image' with them because they have them. But that is not what they are made for.

(However, the Mallincam range of Xtremes have 'CCD Imaging' capability as an added feature over previous models)

Some of the advantages of Video Astronomy, whether you like it or not, is that the vision impaired can see objects on a Monitor or TV, the Physically handicapped that are unable to ever get up to an Eyepiece can sit in their wheelchairs an have us bring the sky to them, Internet broadcasting of 'Live' shows (my favourite) to the world, Public Outreach at Club nights to large crowds by throwing the Live image up on a large screen or the whole clubroom building wall (can you imagine your favourite galaxy in full colour 10 feet wide! not to mention never getting mascara on your EP's ever again   ).

I know of a friend in USA who sets up in his driveway and projects his Live show onto his garage Door, and the neighbours come with fold out chairs and watch!

It has also become common practice at Astronomy open nights to see more people huddled around the monitor of someone doing Video Astronomy than the amount of people in line to look through the eyepieces of the scopes set up.

Not that that is anything against Eyepieces. Video just attracts more people.

I still love doing Visual with eyepieces on club night. 

I like to keep my skills up at spotting extremely faint mag 13+ Galaxies with my real eye. It gives me a buzz every time I see one that I haven't seen before. And I like to show other people super faint super distant galaxies in an EP.

But Video is my Favourite. I become totally enthralled showing my Southern Hemisphere objects Live over the internet to Northern Hemisphere viewers. Stuff they will never see, and I can show them Live. If they want to see a particular object, they ask and I go to it.

In my Audiences over the last 2 years broadcasting with Night Skies Network I have had the pleasure of showing my southern sky Live to several American High Schools, Universities, an Astronomy Class, and even an Orphanage!

Try do that with an eyepiece   

One day my son came home from school and said his Science class was watching an American broadcasting his sky on Night Skies Network, and his class was excited and learnt heaps from the broadcaster. Priceless!

​Video Astronomy will not capture the interest of everyone. No branch of Astronomy does. But it has so many benefits that get overlooked.

My Eyepieces are always near me, I am still interested in Astrophotography, and I still enjoy teaching Astrophysics to junior members and school kids when I do telescope displays in schools. But I personally find Video Astronomy 'exciting' and 'fun', and it gives me great pleasure to share it with the World 'Live' 

It doesn't even have to look 'Astrophotography Quality'. It just has to 'be there' on the screen. Noise and Artifacts, and the 'On Screen Display' etc. In fact, the more the mount moves, the more the stars dance, the more satellites and meteors that shoot through the FOV the more it adds to the 'Live' experience!   

And gradually, Video cameras are starting to give an almost 'Astrophotograpy Image' quality view. 

As our night skies disappear to Light Pollution and Air Pollution, more people will eventually turn to Video Astronomy, or give up Astronomy altogether. Because it may become the ONLY way to see the anything up there but the Moon and close Planets.

But until then, enjoy whichever way you see the sky, and have a blast doing it.