Simulation of Eyepiece View

[RobertI]

I have often wondered whether visitors to my humble website might look at my captures and, if they are not familiar with EAA, might look at them as unimpressive attempts as imaging (especially if they have seen some of the amazing long exposure results posted on SGL and elsewhere). I don't lose sleep over it as the website is primairly for my own amusement and a 'scrapbook' of my EAA observing sessions. But Martin recently made a comment in another post that EAA observers could apply a circular mask to their captures to simulate the eyepiece view. So for a bit of fun I tried some experimenting. One thing to consider is how they render on websites with different coloured backgounds - some look better on a black backgrounds and others better on white. Obviously an eyepiece view would only work for objects where you don't mind missing the periphery.

Anyway the results are below - I have a favourite, but I'll reveal it later. Which do you prefer?

[RichM63]

For me, the white framing instantly focuses attention on to the subject matter. Although I would pay attention to centering within the mask.

The last image also works for me in that the peripheral sky is also present.

[Martin Meredith]

Excellent. I was meaning to have a go at this but never got to grips with Gimp, as it were.

I like the last one because it doesn't exclude anything from the shot and because I have a feeling after looking at them in both SGL themes that surrounding the central circle with a greyish portion may go some way to neutralising the effect of viewing it against a light or dark background.

But I only marginally prefer this to the penultimate version, because it looks most similar to an eyepiece view (except for the view from an Ethos where the field stop isn't visible 

Options 2 and 3 look like a sketch with a hard chalk circle. Option 1 doesn't really do it for me.

What would be great would be to have the option to apply one or more of these.

It would be interesting to see the effect on an image showing some coma or vignetting too. Your base image is too perfect...

Thanks for doing this!

Martin

[Scooot]

I like 4 best. It looks more like an eyepiece view to me than the others.

[Astrojedi]

Rob, thanks for putting this together. I prefer the last one. Frames the object nicely without letting pixels go to waste. Also for some of the larger objects which may nearly fill the eyepiece circle the area outside the circle should help with framing and context.

[Dazzyt66]

I think 4 pips 5 marginally - looks like an eyepiece view but 5 makes it more interesting somehow... Maybe 5 wins!! Lol

Dazzyt

FirstScope (soon to be Skyliner 200p)

[seo]

My vote goes to the last one (5) where the rest of the sky "FOV" is less transparent but still visible.

[RobertI]

Thanks for all your responses and interest. I can now reveal that my favourite is (drumroll....) number 5. Having produced the first four I liked 4 the best as it seemed to represent the eyepice view best. But then as a last minute thought I tried the translucent mask and it seemed to work. It seems to nicely convey that the image is a representation of the observing session itself and not a post processed astro image. It also has the advantage of not losing any significant information. I also really like the way it seems to create a "space walk" feel, a bit like a wide angle eyepiece. Might be a nice addition to Starlight Live at some point. I will redo some of my website images in this form and see how it goes.

[RobertI]

Further to Martin's suggestion here is an example of the translucent e/p view with a very imperfect image that demonstrates coma and vignetting.

Here is an alternative view for large objects (I actually really like this version):

[Dom543]

Great experiments Rob!

For a simulated  eyepiece experience, my favorite is #4. Gray is our current space and time and through the hole we peek out into the infinity of the universe, a completely different world. There is no need for a frame or dividing line, in my opinion. It's a hole and is even more dramatic if unfenced.

#7 would be perfect to mask the vignetting of the Meade 3.3 reducer on an 825 sensor. It cuts off almost exactly the area, where light fall-off would start to be noticeable, It is much easier to apply than a flat.. But to me, it doesn't convey the sense of an eyepiece as well as #4. It's a great design but for a different purpose.

Clear Skies!

--Dom

[HiloDon]

Great idea, Rob.

I usually view images on my computer or iPad, so I downloaded yours to see what would look the best. Number 2 won. It just shows up as a circle with a black background, just like an eyepiece. Looks great! I think it would be even better without the faint white circle.

I think this would be a great new feature if incorporated into LL or SL.

Don

[nytecam]

Nice multiple demo of N40 but what's this obsession with the 'EP view"? Long discarded by me even for hiding coma :-)

Nytecam

[RobertI]

Thanks for all the feedback folks. Well it seems that almost every simulation has had a vote, but the translucent and grey backgrounds, without a line, seemed to win.

Having slept on it I think there are two aspects to this: one is trying to convey the eyepiece experience (either during or after the session) and the other is trying to remind people when viewing the image on the website that it is a capture of what was actually seen on the night rather than a image in its own right if you see what I mean - a subtle but important difference. I think the small e/p view of #4&5 does the former and the large e/p view of #7 does the latter. My main concern was with the latter issue i am inclined to go with #7 with a grey or transparent sorround but I think a variety of options would be a nice feature in SL.

The expriments continue.....

PS: Nytecam - you were clearly ahead of you time!

[Paul81]

A 'eyepiece view' checkbox on the image export would be easy enough to add into SL!

When we know what simulation wins the day will look to get something added :-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Martin Meredith]

Just to add to this, it occurred to me that if there were to be an eyepiece view, how difficult would it be to add an image rotation option? That is, instead of having to physically rotate the camera to have N up (something I almost never do as I then have to refocus), it could all be done in software. I'm not sure if any image quality would be lost. I guess a switch to flip E-W would also be easy enough to add.

That way, using charts for star-hopping would become easier.

Martin