Clearer view of Jupiter when moving the scope????

[Langworthy]

Good to see Calisto emerging in front of Jupiter this evening with clear views of its shadow on J's surface. Very exciting. However I noticed that when trying to get a clear view and minutely adjusting the focus, I was able to get a clearer view by moving the scope slowly - not necessarily to follow J's path across the field of view. I found that if I moved the scope so that the planet shifted gently I momentarily got a better image. Why's that - or am I or my scope defective?

[laudropb]

Sometimes a bit of movement gets a better response from the eye and things look momentarily clearer. It is an old trick to tap the scope gently to see better.

 

[Langworthy]

Reassuring to read that - thanks.

[chiltonstar]

I move the planet slowly across the FoV with the slow motion and relax the eye as far as possible - this way you often see detail that would otherwise not be visible.

Chris

[MrBill]

It really works well with dim objects, like galaxies.  A tap to the scope to get it to move a little will make the galaxy pop right out many times.

[Langworthy]

So why is this?

[happy-kat]

In my telescope if this happens I know I need to collimate.

[todd8137]

 Hi there I tap my scope as,stated on some targets and as it wobbles a,little,the view becomes crisper ,but am not bothered why it does this 

pat

[John]

3 hours ago, Langworthy said:

So why is this?

Possibly because the movement of the object brings different receptors in the eye into play ?

We know that using the averted vision technique helps with faint deep sky objects and the scope "knocking" approach helps to detect them as well.

There is much more light coming from Jupiter so I guess it's not the same receptors that we need to bring into play but I suspect that the principle is similar.

Some experienced planetary observers deliberately make their pupils contract by viewing an illuminated white card or similar prior to observing their target. Quite the opposite of the dark adaptation that is needed to observe faint deep sky objects but it does work.

 

 

[Pondus]

Jupiter is a Bright Object, so it is Your foveas job to pick up details (clarity of vision).

I simply dont understand how faint fuzzie technique comes into play here (detect light/ movements better With peripheral vision, a job for the rods, but With less acuity)

Whether you (OP)  drift or manually track the planet, Your eye stay focused on Jupiter so I see two possible reasons (both mentioned in posts above):

1. You are a skilled tracker, and this is the most relaxing way for you to observe a Bright Object.

2. There is something optically wrong in Your setup (collimation, poor eyepiece), but you are a skilled tracker

   so you manage to keep Jupiter at the point were you get Your sharpest view, EDIT : (for a longer time, than just letting it drift past Your Optical sweetspot).

I definitely think you are a very skilled tracker indeed, however something sounds optically wrong With Your setup. 

 

Rune

[John]

2 hours ago, Pondus said:

 

.....I simply dont understand how faint fuzzie technique comes into play here (detect light/ movements better With peripheral vision, a job for the rods, but With less acuity)

 

I was not suggesting that deep sky techniques would work, merely speculating that the movement of Jupiter was bringing different receptors in the eye into play.

Similar principle to averted vision but different receptors involved ?

Maybe nothing in it though - I was just thinking aloud really.

[Pondus]

9 minutes ago, John said:

I was not suggesting that deep sky techniques would work, merely speculating that the movement of Jupiter was bringing different receptors in the eye into play.

Similar principle to averted vision but different receptors involved ?

Maybe nothing in it though - I was just thinking aloud really.

Well, I learn alot when People like you think loud.

[Paul M]

I'm sure I read somewhere that our brains only notice moving things. Our eyes dart about a subject constantly, scanning and refreshing the image on our retinas.

I know that if I concentrate very hard on a page full of text and try to prevent any eye movement the peripheral text can completely disappear and my central vision seems to diminish too. Our eyes suffer from a residual image too. 

Look at a brightly lit object in a dark room then close your eyes, a "negative" image persists. Moving our eyes it prevents details getting "burned in" and definition being lost.

[skybadger]

Apparently if you stare very hard at a non-moving object the eyes can become very confused since the current thinking is that the brain runs a model in your head and only updates the model when something moves or new information comes into view. For example when you move your head the bran blainks the image until your eyes settle again..

Maybe what you are experiencing is the your brain 'zoning out' since the target is not moving. Try changing your eyes focus around the image rather than settling on the planet.

Mike

[AstroAdam]

Basically, you're wired to see moving objects more clearly. Hunting and staying away from predators were the original reason, but comes in kind of handy to know in this little hobby

[Pondus]

If you let a planet drift across the Field of view, you move Your eyes. But you still use the same part of the eye to look at it to get the best details

You move Your eyes when Reading a book. You dont move the book.

The OP was interesting. I really hoped I could learn some good observing techniques I didnt know of.

So maybe there is something to learn, using that technique. I simply dont understand it yet.

 

[Paul M]

3 minutes ago, Pondus said:

If you let a planet drift across the Field of view, you move Your eyes. But you still use the same part of the eye to look at it to get the best details

You move Your eyes when Reading a book. You dont move the book.

The OP was interesting. I really hoped I could learn some good observing techniques I didnt know of.

So maybe there is something to learn, using that technique. I simply dont understand it yet.

 

Looking through the scope your brain will be aware of at least two things, the subject and the edge of the field of view. Your eyes will be constantly but momentarily scanning the edge off the field of view for your brain to know the object is moving. That's the movement that refreshes the brains awareness of what your eyes are looking at.

If there was no movement then perhaps your eye stays too long on the subject and the brain gets bored. Nudge the scope and suddenly the brain is interested again. 

So it's not so much about what part of the retina but that the image doesn't remain fixed on any part of it.

[brantuk]

The rods which perceive light and dark and account for peripheral vision, are also the primary receptors for movement of objects within the visual field of the eye. So tapping the scope seems like a reasonable way to stimulate them when it's hard to see something in the view.

[Langworthy]

Well, I for one have learnt something here. Cheers.

[StarSapling]

Tapping the Scope - Old School - Poor Man's Adaptive Optics

[Langworthy]

2 hours ago, StarSapling said:

Tapping the Scope - Old School - Poor Man's Adaptive Optics

Poor man - that's me.