Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_globular_clusters.thumb.jpg.b518052b915c2cf31f5f12e33ce0e9d2.jpg

peter shah

Remote imaging experiances

Recommended Posts

I remember that some years ago there was a thread on SGL where someone had done this and was displaying some of his results. That thread also rapidly became a 'you can't call those your photos' discussion. I seem to remember adding some sort of inane comment to the thread, so will have a search when I get a spare hour.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, peter shah said:

There has been some very interesting points made here but I haven't really got the answers I was looking for... Everyone has there own idea of what is right and what is wrong that is very clear .... and I have my own....

 Can I bring this back on to topic please :thumbright:

I already have a high end setup here in my back garden, I even have some of the darkest skies in the UK. (Boo hiss.... I hear you all say.. :wink2:)  When the skies are clear, which isn't as often as I would like, I can get some really good quality data sets......I just need more clear skies so I see buying telescope time as a good option for me  ..... Does anyone have any experiences they can share on how user friendly these remote facilities are? has anyone had any issues using  them? How good is the data? how satisfied were you and do you think it was good value?

I'm a member of Deep Sky West in New Mexico and belong to the widefield team.
The widefield setup is a Rokinon 135mm lens on a QSI583 with Astrodon filters.

I am well pleased with quality and quantity of data from this 7500foot dark site, quite honestly more than I can handle. :icon_biggrin:
I joined around Sept 2016 and up till now have over 150GB of light data with 54 completed targets.
Most team members have the chance to pick targets although I never have as most of the targets were new for me.
At the moment data is distributed via Googledrive but after some problems they are leaning towards their own system.
Lloyd answers queries quickly and there is a Yahoo group although there is now an on site forum.

The raw data is copyright of DSW but the members images are their own.

Is it worth it, just under £500 for a lot of data that I could not collect here, imo yes.
Do I feel a cheat, no, I'm contributing towards the running costs even if I cannot be there to run the gear.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wxsatuser - How many people do they have as part of a team? I guess that would be an important consideration for some...... when a new data set is available for example do you want to have a load of the 'same' images around at the same time? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swag72 said:

@wxsatuser - How many people do they have as part of a team? I guess that would be an important consideration for some...... when a new data set is available for example do you want to have a load of the 'same' images around at the same time? 

 

I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but their are DSW teams and private hostings with individuals sharing costs and their own gear.
A big guess, most likely less than 10 for private to may be a couple of dozen for DSW but could be more or less.

Everyone posting the same image, yes that will most likely and does happen, depends I suppose where they post their images.
I suppose this may deter some it really depends on the individual and how they feel about it.

I struggle to get through the data and only post the odd image on SGL, no where else.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!  INTERESING REMARKS BY MANY,..........ME , I JUST DO WHAT MAKES ME SATISFIED, IF I BUY A RACING CAR BUT CANNOT ENJOY DUE TO WEATHER THEN I HAVE A CHOICE GET RID OR DRIVE IT WHERE THE WEATHER ALLOWS.....HENRY B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saved myself a few bob by going to the Hubble image galley and selecting the item of interest to view. There is no way an earth based remote imaging system can beat these images. Just a few key presses is all it takes.........All from the comfort of my armchair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, henry b said:

WOW!!  INTERESING REMARKS BY MANY,..........ME , I JUST DO WHAT MAKES ME SATISFIED, IF I BUY A RACING CAR BUT CANNOT ENJOY DUE TO WEATHER THEN I HAVE A CHOICE GET RID OR DRIVE IT WHERE THE WEATHER ALLOWS.....HENRY B

Yes indeed.  But then, using your own analogy, you wouldn't travel to Spain to watch Lewis Hamilton win the Spanish Grand Prix in the sunshine and claim the win as your own because you've come away with a momento of the day.  Or indeed watch him win it on the TV and claim the win because you have a Sky TV subscription.

That isn't n opinion btw, it is me playing devil's advocate as I can see both arguments with equal validity.

Edited by RayD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Allinthehead said:

Since there are so many who like to use downloaded data, maybe it would be a good idea to have a processing only challange. Maybe someone who runs a setup that provides such a service could offer some high quality pro data for the challange? Cough cough:icon_biggrin:

I would be happy to oblige - will clear it with the powers that be as to whether we can do here - great idea :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even I am happy to join in with this if every-one is doing the same thing, and its a downloaded data challenge. 

Would perhaps be good for you to try too Peter might get you some of the answers you are looking for. 

Carole 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think this would be good for novices as well.

How good/bad is my end-result compared to the experts (no chance of me blaming the data this time :icon_biggrin:) and the details provided with the images that are posted would enable me to see if following the same procedure produced better result, leading (hopefully) to my processing improving - a worthy goal for an SGL challenge if ever there was one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RayD said:

But then, using your own analogy, you wouldn't travel to Spain to watch Lewis Hamilton win the Spanish Grand Prix in the sunshine and claim the win as your own because you've come away with a momento of the day. 

No, but if I had hired his car and pit crew for the duration of the race, and using his equipment had driven the car to victory I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

No, but if I had hired his car and pit crew for the duration of the race, and using his equipment had driven the car to victory I would.

But you are there then, actually driving and physically using the car, not doing it virtually or remotely which is what the question relates to?

As I said, I see both sides so sit on the fence with it, and can see the benefits to those who have no access to dark skies.  I can also see the point of people who see it as a halfway house almost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought this was about the equipment not belonging to/ being set up by the individual.

If it is about imaging being done remotely, why is it all right to image remotely from 20 feet away (from the warmth and comfort of your lounge instead of being outside in the cold) and not from 200/2000 miles away (ditto)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

If it is about imaging being done remotely, why is it all right to image remotely from 20 feet away (from the warmth and comfort of your lounge instead of being outside in the cold)

That's exactly what I do and I think it's fine.  It's my kit, in my obsy, built by me and I connect to it remotely.  I do confess that I personally wouldn't feel the same driving someone else's kit, put in by them, owned by them, maintained by them and fixed by them, but then I have access to my kit in a dark site in Spain.  However, I can see why those without this benefit would appreciate the ability to have access to hosted sites.  Conversely I can also see why those who feel that part of the challenge of imaging is the saving, buying, getting working, maintaining and running the kit, and as such feel it's possibly an "easy option" or I've seen the word "cheating" to use hosting services so don't like it.

The thing with this thread is that it's gone off track, and the should he shouldn't he debate is based totally on opinion, nothing else, which means it is not possible to have a right or wrong.  This is precisely why I am firmly on the fence and don't think that because someone else has a different opinion on the subject to me, I should argue why they are wrong.  Both sides are right in this case and I hope that anyone who makes the effort to provide a service where there is a market succeeds, as this means they judged the market correctly.

Edited by RayD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, RayD said:

That's exactly what I do and I think it's fine.  It's my kit, in my obsy, built by me and I connect to it remotely.  I do confess that I personally wouldn't feel the same driving someone else's kit, put in by them, owned by them, maintained by them and fixed by them, but then I have access to my kit in a dark site in Spain.  However, I can see why those without this benefit would appreciate the ability to have access to hosted sites.  Conversely I can also see why those who feel that part of the challenge of imaging is the saving, buying, getting working, maintaining and running the kit, and as such feel it's possibly an "easy option" or I've seen the word "cheating" to use hosting services so don't like it.

The thing with this thread is that it's gone off track, and the should he shouldn't he debate is based totally on opinion, nothing else, which means it is not possible to have a right or wrong.  This is precisely why I am firmly on the fence and don't think that because someone else has a different opinion on the subject to me, I should argue why they are wrong.  Both sides are right in this case and I hope that anyone who makes the effort to provide a service where there is a market succeeds, as this means they judged the market correctly.

Back in the pre digital day, myself and my brother made an EQ mount from scratch, simply because it was an easier means of acquiring one, given we had the skills and facilities to do so. Second time around I purchased a mount because that was the easier route. It’s never occurred to me that first time around was a more “noble” means of acquiring the image, they definitely were not in the same league, quality wise. Are astronomers who make their own optics closer to the real thing?

In the words of John Lennon, “Whatever gets you thru the night”.

B9341E8B-9EE8-47DB-8C8D-8709080960E6.jpeg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tomato said:

Are astronomers who make their own optics closer to the real thing?

Nice work, very impressive :thumbright:

I'm not sure, I suppose they would feel a huge sense of achievement, as I suspect you did when you built your mount.  I did when I built my obsy, and personally believe I enjoy being in that more than if it was an 'off-the-shelf' affair, but I don't really know for sure.

I totally agree with your last quote, it comes down to whatever suits the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thing is it seems people are under the impression I'm against hosted imaging; far from it.  I have said several times I think it is a great thing if it is people's only means to image at dark skies, then what a great service it provides. It isn't for me personally, but that doesn't mean I don't think it should be for anyone, as that simply isn't the case.

Edited by RayD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tomato said:

Back in the pre digital day, myself and my brother made an EQ mount from scratch, simply because it was an easier means of acquiring one, given we had the skills and facilities to do so. Second time around I purchased a mount because that was the easier route. It’s never occurred to me that first time around was a more “noble” means of acquiring the image, they definitely were not in the same league, quality wise. Are astronomers who make their own optics closer to the real thing?

 

4 hours ago, RayD said:

However, I can see why those without this benefit would appreciate the ability to have access to hosted sites.  Conversely I can also see why those who feel that part of the challenge of imaging is the saving, buying, getting working, maintaining and running the kit, and as such feel it's possibly an "easy option" or I've seen the word "cheating" to use hosting services so don't like it.

 

4 hours ago, RayD said:

The thing with this thread is that it's gone off track, and the should he shouldn't he debate is based totally on opinion, nothing else, which means it is not possible to have a right or wrong.  This is precisely why I am firmly on the fence and don't think that because someone else has a different opinion on the subject to me, I should argue why they are wrong.  Both sides are right in this case and I hope that anyone who makes the effort to provide a service where there is a market succeeds, as this means they judged the market correctly.

 

I don't think my opinion could be any clearer and hopefully answers your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, there is no right or wrong in this debate. I admire the skills and dedication  of anybody who puts effort into producing an image, regardless of wherever along the path they decide to join.

The hardware side of things comes easier to me, so I tend to gravitate to that, I know  I couldn’t process an image as good  as the best you see on this forum, no matter how good my data set is, but the fun is in the trying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tomato said:

I couldn’t process an image as good  as the best you see on this forum, no matter how good my data set is, but the fun is in the trying!

I can relate to that!  Many many hours of dedication and experience.  Hats off to the big guns from me for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tomato said:

I admire the skills and dedication  of anybody who puts effort into producing an image, regardless of wherever along the path they decide to join.

Totally agree.

As long as one is not claiming to have done something one hasn't ('I got this data from my back garden', rather than 'I got this data from a remote imaging rig in the Atacama Desert' - and I am not suggesting anyone on here would do that!) then remote imaging is a perfectly legitimate way of acquiring the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2018 at 21:11, peter shah said:

There has been some very interesting points made here but I haven't really got the answers I was looking for... Everyone has there own idea of what is right and what is wrong that is very clear .... and I have my own....

 Can I bring this back on to topic please :thumbright:

I already have a high end setup here in my back garden, I even have some of the darkest skies in the UK. (Boo hiss.... I hear you all say.. :wink2:)  When the skies are clear, which isn't as often as I would like, I can get some really good quality data sets......I just need more clear skies so I see buying telescope time as a good option for me  ..... Does anyone have any experiences they can share on how user friendly these remote facilities are? has anyone had any issues using  them? How good is the data? how satisfied were you and do you think it was good value?

Sh2-171 and Sh2-170 from the DSW Rokinon widefield.
58x600secs Ha Astrodon 5nm filter.

All I did was stack in DSS, no calibration frames and STFed stretch in PI.

sh2-171.thumb.jpg.ea4857070eace8de742c4b5b561374ce.jpg

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2018 at 21:11, peter shah said:

There has been some very interesting points made here but I haven't really got the answers I was looking for... Everyone has there own idea of what is right and what is wrong that is very clear .... and I have my own....

 Can I bring this back on to topic please :thumbright:

I already have a high end setup here in my back garden, I even have some of the darkest skies in the UK. (Boo hiss.... I hear you all say.. :wink2:)  When the skies are clear, which isn't as often as I would like, I can get some really good quality data sets......I just need more clear skies so I see buying telescope time as a good option for me  ..... Does anyone have any experiences they can share on how user friendly these remote facilities are? has anyone had any issues using  them? How good is the data? how satisfied were you and do you think it was good value?

Here are a couple of Ha from ITU in SW Spain, my processing leaves a lot to be desired but it gives an idea.
This is from Gus a Officina Stellare Veloce RH 200 8" F/3 MkII.

IC 410
16x600secs Ha
ic410-pi.thumb.jpg.9280a0b167af3657f88f1fea15730a31.jpg

Rosette
20x600secs Ha
rosette-gus-pscc.thumb.jpg.0edcc3ba5b215fce9621dea559700099.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tomato said:

 

Back in the pre digital day, myself and my brother made an EQ mount from scratch, simply because it was an easier means of acquiring one, given we had the skills and facilities to do so. Second time around I purchased a mount because that was the easier route. It’s never occurred to me that first time around was a more “noble” means of acquiring the image, they definitely were not in the same league, quality wise. Are astronomers who make their own optics closer to the real thing?

In the words of John Lennon, “Whatever gets you thru the night”.

B9341E8B-9EE8-47DB-8C8D-8709080960E6.jpeg

I remember seeing an old Sky at Night episode where Patrick interviewed a chap who made a large truss scope out of an old metal frame bed....and another guy who made a mount out of an old car axle and brake parts. That was very inspiring for me.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wxsatuser said:

Here are a couple of Ha from ITU in SW Spain, my processing leaves a lot to be desired but it gives an idea.
This is from Gus a Officina Stellare Veloce RH 200 8" F/3 MkII.

IC 410
16x600secs Ha
ic410-pi.thumb.jpg.9280a0b167af3657f88f1fea15730a31.jpg

Rosette
20x600secs Ha
rosette-gus-pscc.thumb.jpg.0edcc3ba5b215fce9621dea559700099.jpg

Nothing wrong with your processing......The data looks good with a strong signal, which is what you need. Do you think you get enough data in each set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.