How do we define Video Astronomy

[MartinFlower]

Hi,

 

Im currently using a starlight ultrastar on an 80ED. Im taking 30s or 60s exposures and then stacking etc.

 

I was just wondering how are people defining what they do as video astronomy rather than short exposure astrophotography? Is it just the use of a tool such as starlight Live or the atik software or something more?

[michaelmorris]

Wow, you have opened the proverbial can of worms with that question.  

The problem is that modern camera technology and image processing techniques means that the previously relatively clear distinction between webcam imaging, video astronomy and long exposure astrophotography is fast disappearing, making the question somewhat obsolete.

My personal take on it is that, for me, video astronomy covers two areas

1 - Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA) - near real time viewing of deep sky objects through a very sensitive fast frame rate camera, often with some sort of in-camera or computer software-frame integration.  There is no intention to save the images viewed.

2 - Live video - real time viewing and/or recording of fast moving astronomical events such as meteors, lunar meteoroid impacts or satellite passes using a high frame rate camera such as  a video camera.

I feel certain that others will totally disagree with me, which is fine.

[Alien 13]

The Live view on my Canon 

Alan

[RobertI]

It is a can of worms indeed! On the Cloudy Nights forum there are some quite strict definitions and there have been very heated debates about what should or shouldn't be allowed on the EAA forum. I think more recently people are a bit more relaxed because of the rapid technological developments taking place and the different ways people choose to use the equipment. 

For me it's all about observing and getting the results on the night, ie: it's more about the intention than the equipment. If I have to wait 2 minutes for an exposure I still consider it EAA because I use it for observing. Personally I do save my images as a 'scrap book' to share with others, in the same way that a visual observer might share a sketch. Occasionally I might do a little post processing if I have time and might share for interest. Strictly speaking this should be put on the imaging forum, but again people are relaxed if the intention is made clear.

 

[vlaiv]

Don't know much about Video astronomy, but I do have opinion on EAA, loosely speaking sort of definition of it.

For me, EAA should be following:

Near real time observing of target via means of electronic equipment.

So electronically enhanced eyepiece should fit within this definition, but I'm primarily talking about following:

System that is capable of self tracking / guiding (so no need for "external" guider), progressive image enhancement, multiple resolution presentation, annotation enhanced presentation, ...

It is really more down to software than "hardware". For me close to ideal setup would be:

Large cooled OSC CMOS with low read noise, coupled with decently corrected large aperture optical system in such way as to provide range of resolutions - good range would be from 4"/pixel down to 1"/pixel (so system native resolution would be close to 1"/pixel - other resolutions 2,3,4"/pixel would be achieved by binning in software). Rest is down to software really, it needs to provide guider functionality, dark and flat frame subtraction, real time alignment & stacking,  automatic stretch based on noise levels, automatic binning / cropping depending on selected target & zoom and FOV, and plate solving + annotations.

Optionally software should be able to decouple "command interface" from "output" - so one can use large screen / projector for larger audience for output while being able to switch on/off different features - like select zoom level / area, choose what annotations to display, etc ...

 

 

[MartinFlower]

I think thats an interesting slant - That the results are near-real time available using software rather than after-the-fact processing. You may not get the polished finished product of a Pixinsight driven process but you get them NOW-ish and they can still be pretty impressive given what were trying to achieve is gather a small amount of photons from millions of years ago in a tiny section of sky within back gardens.

I currently use SGPro for capture  but would love a tool that gives you the immediate stacking as in Starlight Live with the plate solving ability within SGPro in one package. Ive done it using Astrotorilla but find the SGPro flavour easier. Labelling would be nice too.

With some on the fly image processing of course built in...

 

[RobertI]

2 minutes ago, MartinFlower said:

would love a tool that gives you the immediate stacking as in Starlight Live with the plate solving ability within SGPro in one package.

I believe Sharpcap Pro does this and I also believe it now supports Starlight Xpress cameras. I was going to give it a go to see how well the plate solving works for homing in on the object.

[xtreemchaos]

I thought video astronomy was watching a recorded ep of the sky at night  I'm off . charl.

[London_David]

I agree with much of the above -- And I think the distinction is only useful in helping people find the right board to post on. So, the true definition is simply whatever the moderators say it is in the posting rules!

However, if I was pushed to come up with one myself then I'd also suggest that it is entirely about intention. I'd also conflate EEA and Video -- since the word video relates to a technology of moving pictures, which is the same technology used in any cameras. All cameras are essentially video cameras now.

So I'd say astrophotography is about aiming to create a beautiful or interesting image that, like any other photograph, has aesthetic or communicative value, and it is probably for made for an audience (even if that audience is only the photographer himself, at a later date). EEA and Video Astronomy is about the act of observing, whether that be in the moments at the scope with live stacking or, I would suggest digging into photographic data at a later point in time. How can you exclude from "electronically assisted astronomy" or "video astronomy" a scientist who is looking at images from a video camera sensor trying to determine the chemical make up of a star. However, it seems clear to me that this is not a suitable fit for "astrophotography". The image itself is not the value, but the information it contains.

I don't think you can ever draw a clear and satisfying definition using technology or exposure times because they will always change, and the image will never really tell you what the technology was. And either way, does it matter how something was created if it looks exactly the same to the pixel? There is nothing inherent in an image that you can look at and see is the essence of astrophotography or video observing. Any image will resist classification outside a context.

So, as a definition:

In astrophotography you are primarily interested the aesthetics of the image. In EEA or Video Astronomy you are primarily interested the meaning of the image.

It is true that under my definition some images may start as an EEA/video observation then become astrophotography.Or indeed, two people could look at the same image at the same time and one person is engaged in astrophotography while the other is engaged in EEA. It is the use of the image in the context of the moment you are asking the question that matters. 

But I think the main thing is that "EEA" "Video" and "astrophotography" have a vague but specific enough catch for people to just about know what it is -- so they can find the right place to talk about things without too many confusing posts from different interests clogging up the board...

[AKB]

On 22/11/2017 at 13:36, RobertI said:

If I have to wait 2 minutes for an exposure I still consider it EAA because I use it for observing. Personally I do save my images as a 'scrap book' to share with others, in the same way that a visual observer might share a sketch. Occasionally I might do a little post processing if I have time and might share for interest. Strictly speaking this should be put on the imaging forum, but again people are relaxed if the intention is made clear.

Bang on, I would say.  That’s exactly my take on it too. 

[Macavity]

I think I would feel much as the above! Rules are fine and often serve
a useful purpose. But I find multiply bulleted lists a bit of a turn off.
That people need repeated "simplification" might suggest something?

Putting a post-processed video image on a Classical Imaging forum is
(with best will in the world) of LITTLE interest to most participants?  

What did someone once joke... "There are two types of people...
Those who divide others into TWO groups (and those who don't)"?

But I do derive a lot of ideas from moving outside my specific area
of interests... Shame there is so little TIME to explore everything...

[furrysocks2]

I don't consider any of what I do to be astrophotography, nor do I really do much visual - neither seems to excite me that much at this point. So I identify more with EAA/Video, or at least consider this best-fit for my aspirations.

Personally, what I look for is learning and discovery. It satisfies my tendencies towards DIY and problem solving, and is a way to achieve something (a result, a better one, or any at all), taking into account the constraints of a hobby - time, money, storage, headspace, skill level, interest, etc. This was the drive behind building my own 8.5 f/7.6 reflector, and that already was a burden on all of those constraints. And it's not even that good.

Traditional (long exposure?) "astrophotography" for aesthetics is "difficult" and "expensive"... many jokes are made about bank accounts and relationships, time and money, but there's perhaps nothing too fundamentally different in character between this route and what in my mind could perhaps be considered something a bit more "agile". Indeed, sensitive, CMOS, short-exposure imaging seems to be narrowing the gap in terms of the acquisition process. I don't think it's all about exposure time, or resolution in terms of megapixels, though I believe this has been a fairly reliable differentiator in recent years. And it's not down to cost either, EAA can suck a wheen of money too (thinking Sony A7S). The post-processing aspect (or absence of it) is certainly something I've seen driven home on CN, and bringing processing steps such as stacking, stretching, calibration/correction, narrowband composition, etc, forward in the pipeline in order to achieve a more pleasing near-live, at-the-scope or from-the-armchair view may still divide opinion.

I don't have what anyone would consider a decent mount, or camera, or scope. In fact, I have several crappy mounts, cameras and scopes. In practical terms, currently I don't level or align my scope with anything more than an eyeball. I've got an achromatic ST102 and an ASI120MM clone, giving me half a degree FOV at 1.55"/px. I'm in the process of converting my EQ3 to goto and only recently had my first "look, there's a galaxy" moment. And that was before getting the RA motor working. To date, I've used nothing but SharpCap and GIMP. Given my equipment constraints and lack of skill and experience, an after-the-fact tweak always features. It's all very much entry-level stuff.

So the key technologies to help me achieve a result, any result, are short exposures, live-stacking and a modicum of software processing (each one, a necessity). To some extent, even just that can overcome shortcomings elsewhere in the overall setup. On-camera integration and noise reduction have a history in EAA, which as a newcomer I think of, rightly or wrongly, as its roots. Fast forward a little, take what the market provides, and perhaps that's where I'm at just now, or trying to go. I'd love to guide, live-solve, live-annotate, have multiple image scales, better cameras, remote control, etc. For now, I'm trying to eek out enjoyment without spending a fortune or spending hours post-processing. Occultation astronomy, minor body astrometry, photometry, spectrography, etc, ("science") all sit for me somewhere else again.

I've no idea if I'm scratching around in EAA or simply an inept astrophotographer (I don't mean this as a general comparison!!), but either way the drive is in the room for improvement. My main criteria, and I'm nowhere close yet, is if my kids (or anyone else with less enthusiasm than myself) gets bored looking at a screen, I'm doing something wrong.

[AKB]

1 hour ago, furrysocks2 said:

what in my mind could perhaps be considered something a bit more "agile".

Oooh, I like that... EAA = "Essentially Agile Astrophotography"

 

1 hour ago, furrysocks2 said:

So the key technologies to help me achieve a result, any result, are short exposures, live-stacking and a modicum of software processing

Yup, that certainly fits the bill (in several meanings of the word!)

 

1 hour ago, furrysocks2 said:

I'm trying to eek out enjoyment without spending a fortune or spending hours post-processing

Ah, here's the thing: something that EAA is not.

 

1 hour ago, furrysocks2 said:

I've no idea if I'm scratching around in EAA or simply an inept astrophotographer

Maybe that's my problem too!

 

Anyway, all great thoughts.

[shirva]

Video astronomy ? how is it defined these days,  as we have all read there are many different ways  look at it and define it.

One of the ways that I defined it was 

Video,, live viewing

If you use a single frame from the video it's an image, processed or not

Near live,, video frames stacked

But given new camera's and techniques these days, it all kind of gets landed on it's head,, 

EAA seems to cover video and it's variants but it,, can upset video astronomers ? or purists.

Seriously think the folk who have been done it for a few years are having a chuckle given the amount of time spent trying to define it, for it all to change again and again.

Think we can all agree it's very close to astrophotography these days and not the poor man's astrophotography as thought of years ago..

Thing is where will it all go in a year or so. And can we make it better, the video or EAA scene has grown , no doubt about it,,

Why is this

Better equipment,better software

Or the weather,, needing faster method to astrophotography.

I don't know but it's great seeing it grow

 

[saac]

I must admit I don't really see the divide - surely it is all electronically assisted?  Major difference being exposure times and amount of image processing.  I haven't yet done any video camera work but I can really see the attraction and it's something that I'm edging towards if I can save enough for a decent video camera.

Jim 

 

[Dave In Vermont]

The draw to V-AP or EAA or anything else one cares to call it - to me - is the lack of rules involved. This being around the time people started to take notice of such things as a webcam and an eyepiece = why not? And something amazing happened. They looked through the telescope with the EP and the webcam and saw something! And it looked suspiciously like 'freedom.'

It didn't take long before the 'freedom' morphed into the availability of specialized video-cams for using through the telescope. And not long after that did the first Zealots run onto the playing-field.

One month and the pendulum swung to the expensive specialized-cams. The next month and it swung back to cheaper webcams. And so forth, to & fro, it's been swinging since. Fortunately, in my view, the Zealots seem to have thrown in their proverbial towels and are back to playing nice and not running with scissors. Much. I have a cheap Logitech webcam. And a rather high-tech MallinCam. And being an artist as well as a scientist, enjoy "EAA" for close to live viewing. And the frame-grabber and computer to play with too.

- Instructions For Making a Zealot Disappear -

1. Take a hammer.

2. Go to your bath.

3. Smash the mirror with hammer.

 

I'll go away now...

evaD <POIT!>

[shirva]

2 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

The draw to V-AP or EAA or anything else one cares to call it - to me - is the lack of rules involved. This being around the time people started to take notice of such things as a webcam and an eyepiece = why not? And something amazing happened. They looked through the telescope with the EP and the webcam and saw something! And it looked suspiciously like 'freedom.'

It didn't take long before the 'freedom' morphed into the availability of specialized video-cams for using through the telescope. And not long after that did the first Zealots run onto the playing-field.

One month and the pendulum swung to the expensive specialized-cams. The next month and it swung back to cheaper webcams. And so forth, to & fro, it's been swinging since. Fortunately, in my view, the Zealots seem to have thrown in their proverbial towels and are back to playing nice and not running with scissors. Much. I have a cheap Logitech webcam. And a rather high-tech MallinCam. And being an artist as well as a scientist, enjoy "EAA" for close to live viewing. And the frame-grabber and computer to play with too.

- Instructions For Making a Zealot Disappear -

1. Take a hammer.

2. Go to your bath.

3. Smash the mirror with hammer.

 

I'll go away now...

evaD <POIT!>

Got to agree it has went as said,, cheap webcams to expensive camera's and possibly heading back again to cameras such as the Samsung scb,, 

Lol I've been on that roundabout,

And you hit the nail on the head,, the freedom of video astronomy the wow factor of a live view, and I think that this is coming back,, I know from personal experience that I've went from live viewing right to astrophotography using cameras and software,,

And I get it now after six years,,, it's the freedom to choose in this section of astronomy,, we can move the parameters to suit what we want,, just now I'm moving between Byeos/astrotoaster to zwo asi178 and sharp cap to buying my second water 902h camera,, the simplicity of the watec is getting more appealing because if it's basic simplicity,, live viewing with a very sensitive camera

[HiloDon]

One of the great benefits to Video/EAA is the ability to show the wonders of our universe to groups of people through outreach programs.  I do a lot of that at the VIS on Mauna Kea here on the Big Island of Hawaii and through our weekly broadcast on NSN.  The most asked question is “ is that what the scope is looking at now?”  The real time feeling or belief is what thrills the viewer.  If I had to wait more than two minutes to get an image, I would lose the crowd.  On a broadcast with more sophisticated viewers, you can use longer exposures that approach AP.  But, it’s all good and the simpler the system, the better for live crowd shows.  Less time to get an image for viewing, the more the crowd likes it.  So, there’s always that trade off of getting something faster or higher quality.  In any case it’s a lot of fun to see people get excited about deep sky objects.  Most are impressed when I tell them that they are looking at light generated thousands or millions of years ago.

Don

[alphatripleplus]

I have to agree with Don about the benefits of EAA or Video or whatever we call it as an outreach tool. I want to add one other thought - lots of us are challenged to get any kind of a decent view through a telescope visually. It could be failing eye sight because of age or disability, or it could be just that you live somewhere with awful light pollution. For anyone challenged in these ways, Video/EAA is a real godsend. I had pretty much given up amateur astronomy until about two years ago when I saw what Don and other were doing with their Lodestars and Ultrastars in this forum and on the CN EAA Forum. From then on I was hooked. As for the rules for what constitutes EAA, I would not worry too much. Things change quickly, and there is definitely an ongoing convergence between EAA techniques and AP imaging.

Errol

 

[shirva]

Things are a lot more relaxed with EAA or video astronomy now,, think a lot of us tried to pigeon hole it years back and I was guilty of it,, but it was in the hope  that there were some clarification of it, and not stuck with the poor man's astrophotography, but look at the changes its went through in the last couple of years,,  we are getting fantastic images from folk who have stuck with it,and have manufacturers actually catering for us as well now.. all great stuff.

[Robrj]

On 11/22/2017 at 07:22, RobertI said:

I believe Sharpcap Pro does this and I also believe it now supports Starlight Xpress cameras. I was going to give it a go to see how well the plate solving works for homing in on the object.

Sharpcap's plate solving works pretty well with my ZWO ASI224MC and my setups, the 130SLT and the ED80T-CF/AVX.  The last few times I was out, it was solving in about 15s after it got the exposure.  I've not tried Sharpcap's plate solving with the Starlight Xpress cameras but I don't see why it wouldn't work as long as you have the correct indexes installed.  Sharpcap's support for Starlight Xpress cameras is still somewhat limited though, even with the native driver.  It worked with my Ultrastar-C but there is no color adjustment, only gain.  Generally, Starlight Live is a better program for Starlight Xpress cameras.  For Plate Solving with a Starlight Xpress camera and Starlight Live, I use Astrotortilla and APT.  APT/Astrotortilla and Starlight Live will play well together as long as they're not collecting an image at the same time.  After starting and connecting APT to the camera, I just minimize it.

[Robrj]

I don't get too hung up on terminology.  Other than Night Vision EAA, I see video astronomy/EAA/Near Realtime Imaging as more like Astrophotography Lite.   I think it's a waste of time and effort to try and delineate it so much, especially as newer, more powerful software and cameras come out.  As the software advances, more and more of the things that were considered in the realm of Astrophotography will slip into the EAA/Video Astronomy/Near Live realm.  My view is if you're willing to sit there and watch it, and your intent is to see it now, it's EAA/Video Astronomy.   I don't have exposure limits other than making it short enough  if you're doing outreach so it doesn't become boring.  Some freak out if you use another program to adjust things like brightness and contrast on a saved image, but if you do it in the capture program before you save it, for some reason, that's acceptable.  It's even more pure to them if you don't save it.   There's nothing magical about hitting a "save" button that now makes it astrophotography.    I see Video Astronomy more as an overall goal,  to see objects I can't see in the eyepiece and to see it while I'm collecting it.  

[RobertI]

27 minutes ago, Robrj said:

Sharpcap's plate solving works pretty well with my ZWO ASI224MC and my setups, the 130SLT and the ED80T-CF/AVX.  The last few times I was out, it was solving in about 15s after it got the exposure.  I've not tried Sharpcap's plate solving with the Starlight Xpress cameras but I don't see why it wouldn't work as long as you have the correct indexes installed.  Sharpcap's support for Starlight Xpress cameras is still somewhat limited though, even with the native driver.  It worked with my Ultrastar-C but there is no color adjustment, only gain.  Generally, Starlight Live is a better program for Starlight Xpress cameras.  For Plate Solving with a Starlight Xpress camera and Starlight Live, I use Astrotortilla and APT.  APT/Astrotortilla and Starlight Live will play well together as long as they're not collecting an image at the same time.  After starting and connecting APT to the camera, I just minimize it.

That's really useful Rob as I'm literally about to press the button to start installing some software to make this all happen (see my separate post). I didn't realise APT supported such a wide range of cameras (shows how out of date I am) and sounds like it might be a better bet so will give this a go. Thanks again.

[Robrj]

2 hours ago, RobertI said:

That's really useful Rob as I'm literally about to press the button to start installing some software to make this all happen (see my separate post). I didn't realise APT supported such a wide range of cameras (shows how out of date I am) and sounds like it might be a better bet so will give this a go. Thanks again.

I put a more detailed post in your thread.

[Stub Mandrel]

I was a bit nervous - I recall a similar debate a year or two ago almost ended in violence!

I suppose my main question now is 'why do some people feel the need to define it in such narrow detail', as that always seems to exclude certain approaches, rather than accepting diverse solutions accepting there is no single best way that suits everyone.

Me, I image as I don't get on with eyepieces very well (getting better!) but my thought is that video astronomy is simply where you view your target on a screen instead of an eyepiece and the technology involved is incidental.

I love watching planets or the moon live as I record them, especially when there are brief moments of great clarity. To me that's 'video astronomy', or even when I get something interesting, like a globular cluster, appearing on the guiding screen!