Should Night Vision Have its own Section?

[PeterW]

I feel the opposite, being able to “pull back the veil” show people starkly what is up there that they have lost and what would be visible if we could reduce the wasted light that misses its intended target! Bring the stars to the people, rather than the people to the stars. Much easier to demonstrate than the equally appalling loss of biodiversity and invertebrate life we are also suffering from.

The current level of discussion is as we are discovering what works, exploring the new, I am sure people have been doing this sort of thing when larger, faster scopes have appeared and new eyepieces and filters. I prefer to think of NV as just another kind of eyepiece, but with special powers.
You would be most welcome at one of our observing events. Averted vision and jiggling the scope both help to make most use of the human visual system to detect faint and subtle detail. 

Peter

[estwing]

I do think NV should have it's separate section..those interested in it will read it, those who aren't will not, simple as that.

I'll be brave here and say I think the observer section is getting peperd by NV too much. Video has it's own section why not this?

 

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, estwing said:

I do think NV should have it's separate section..those interested in it will read it, those who aren't will not, simple as that.

I'll be brave here and say I think the observer section is getting peperd by NV too much. Video has it's own section why not this?

 

No need to 'be brave' Calvin, any opinions are valid.

The danger is too much fragmentation into more niche forums which don't get attention. As NV is by definition live, it has more in common with normal observing but obviously there has to be a balance, and it needs to be clearly identified to avoid confusion. The admin/mod team will confirm back a final decision on this soon.

Obviously the more observing reportd the dob mob post, the more the balance will swing the other way

 

[Stu]

Ok, thanks for the interesting debate. Admin decision is as follows:

Please post NV kit discussions and reviews in the Discussions - scopes/whole setups section

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/124-discussions-scopes-whole-setups/

Observing reports should go in the Observing - Deep Sky section

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/33-observing-deep-sky/

In both cases, but especially in the observing section, please make sure you clearly mark your post as using NV in the title and be clear in the post text too so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps starting each title with Night Vision would be the easiest but I don't want to be too prescriptive!

I do think there is plenty of mutually beneficial info which can be exchanged between the two groups eg NV confirming observations of 'standard' observing reports, and equally 'standard' observers suggesting targets for NV etc. etc. 

Stu

PS Couldn't think of a better term than standard, you know what I mean!

[estwing]

Standard!...I prefer skilled...;)

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, estwing said:

Standard!...I prefer skilled...;)

That can apply to either camp Calvin so didn't help me! 

 

[Paul73]

6 minutes ago, estwing said:

Standard!...I prefer skilled...;)

& skint!!

As long as the poster clearly states that NV is being used, no issue.

Paul

ps. I know that if I looked through one, i’d be probably be hooked.

[alanjgreen]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Ok, thanks for the interesting debate. Admin decision is as follows:

Please post NV kit discussions and reviews in the Discussions - scopes/whole setups section

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/124-discussions-scopes-whole-setups/

Observing reports should go in the Observing - Deep Sky section

https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/33-observing-deep-sky/

In both cases, but especially in the observing section, please make sure you clearly mark your post as using NV in the title and be clear in the post text too so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps starting each title with Night Vision would be the easiest but I don't want to be too prescriptive!

I do think there is plenty of mutually beneficial info which can be exchanged between the two groups eg NV confirming observations of 'standard' observing reports, and equally 'standard' observers suggesting targets for NV etc. etc. 

Stu

PS Couldn't think of a better term than standard, you know what I mean!

I think at this stage it’s time for me to retire from SGL.

If was great while it lasted and I apologise for any upset my posts have caused.

Bye,

Alan

[Stu]

15 minutes ago, alanjgreen said:

I think at this stage it’s time for me to retire from SGL.

If was great while it lasted and I apologise for any upset my posts have caused.

Bye,

Alan

No idea where that came from Alan, seemed like a decent outcome to me.

[clarkpm4242]

On 10/03/2019 at 20:28, estwing said:

I have strong opinions on this.

(edit - have belatedly noticed the new guidance above.  Clear identification, upfront).

I wonder if I have similar.

NV is obviously a valid tool however, I would like it to be obviously differentiated from normal observing.

Ideally a separate section however, as long the title of all NV posts begins with for example 'Night Vision report -' it would enable readers to delve in or immediately pass it by.  No confusion.

Have fun!

Cheers

Paul

[Paul73]

1 hour ago, alanjgreen said:

If was great while it lasted and I apologise for any upset my posts have caused.

@alanjgreen If anyone has been upset. It is their problem. Not yours.

People may as well complain about ‘Dark Sky’ or reports where the user has invested in something larger than 8”. Or, has invested in exotic eyepieces.

SGL should be home to anyone with a passion for Astro in all its guises. Retiring gracefully would be a victory for the sour grapes brigade.

SGL would be the poorer without you.

Paul

[scarp15]

3 hours ago, GavStar said:

Iain, I am as keen as anyone to address the increasing plight of light pollution. I love using night vision from dark sites - it’s such an improvement than using it from LP sites like my back garden. 

But I don’t think it would be appropriate to restrict its usage. Use of night vision at eg outreach events, would if anything, inspire more people to campaign for dark skies as it would show them some of what they are missing. And from a personal perspective I get a lot of enjoyment from night vision astronomy (it has transformed my enjoyment of astronomy when I’m not able travel or just want a quick 10 mins scan of the night skies before I go to bed) and I’d like more people to experience the thrill of seeing amazing night skies...

Thanks, I think that is had become necessary to open up with our views and opinions on this subject, get everything out and clear the air on this imposing subject. Perhaps retirement should be left for Parliament. 

[Littleguy80]

The mods decision seems fair enough to me. NV is still in its infancy on SGL and perhaps does not yet warrant its own section. Rules are always open to review and change as things evolve and change. 

I would hope no one felt the need to leave SGL as a result. All the members who have commented on this thread have all contributed a great deal to SGL, either through traditional observing or NV, and are very passionate about the hobby. The key takeaway should be that no one said there was no place for NV just some debate on which section it was posted in. 

I hope we can all carry on as before, sharing our love of the cosmos, no matter how we choose to enjoy it. 

[RobertI]

5 hours ago, alanjgreen said:

I think at this stage it’s time for me to retire from SGL.

If was great while it lasted and I apologise for any upset my posts have caused.

Bye,

Alan

I don’t think anyone is upset or wants you to stop posting Alan, quite the reverse of you look at all the glowing and enthusiastic responses to your posts, including mine. I think the rule changes are a minor  beneficial tweak to support the growing interest in NV. I hope you change your mind so we can enjoy more of your experiences. 

[mapstar]

 

13 hours ago, Stu said:

Obviously the more observing reportd the dob mob post, the more the balance will swing the other way

 

Reading the above has been interesting and something I have had to ponder quite a while before replying.  Well done Lain for raising the subject.

I have contributed to the observing section (and many others) many times as others posting here have too. I've enjoyed doing so whilst using an 8" scope upto the well documented 22" scope I have and use today.

I class myself as a traditional observer and use my former observing reports ultimately as an arbiter of how the sky conditions are, how light pollution is changing the skies and how my vision is deteriorating whilst comparing like for like with other visual observers. 

Increasingly as with others I am seeing more reports from mainly the same observers using NV in the observing section which has really diminished my appetite for submitting reports to SGL. It seems worthless telling people what I can see through the eyepiece because we can now have a NV image of it in the observing section showing a (NV labelled) false view of what can be seen whilst out observing with equipment accesible to all. Yes I use a large dob but If I can say I can see the whale and hockey stick galaxies in a 2" finder then many people can relate to it as they have access to such an instrument.

I do agree that NV is a form of observing and one that I am not against as it can be used to open the world of astronomy up in light polluted skies to some that need and can afford to. This is something that is well within my reach but to most that opportunity is not there and another reason for it's own section. I created a scope to see it naturally not use technology to see a false view of it like everything else around us. Does everything we do have to be through a screen or enhanced?  Horsehead from the middle of London I'm sorry but with normal equipment like many have then this would be impossible. By the users own admission they agree. 

Coincidentally Peter Drew did touch on comparing NV use in a thread recently with high Definition Video astronomy which he had dabbled with for a while. To me Peter was spot on making a like for like comparison. 

Is it any more Niche than Video astronomy which has its own section? it probably has more contributors on here nowadays than that section? Have I read any of the posts in the video astronomy section and who else reading this thread has?? Admittedly I have read very few because it doesn't interest me.

I think Stu has missed the point with  his statement above as there are far more without night vision reading the "observing" section and not commenting than there are with. A lot choose not to post.  

Just in case no one has read this (I see all the above NV users posting in here) then I have pasted it in. 

Cloudy nights take on it 

EAA FORUM RULES   1) This forum is for the discussion of observing - and related images captured - with Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA) equipment. Also, the discussion of the EAA hardware and software, and how to use it for various applications such as outreach events.  

2) Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA) is the use of a digital image capturing device replacing or augmenting the eyepiece for live viewing at the telescope.  

3) Images of any amount of total integration time are permitted here, whether for the purposes of augmenting your descriptions of your live viewing sessions, illustrating your EAA equipment's capabilities, or getting assistance with technical issues. However, post-processing of these images is not allowed under any circumstances.  

4) Posts with images must include total integration time and the software/process used for the “live” capture in their text. Those that do not conform will be removed without notice. Additional information to illustrate your techniques and equipment used, to assist other members, is encouraged and appreciated.  

5) Tell the viewers the name or catalog number of the object(s) of interest in each image.

I love the night sky and showing it to others, but my days of discussing what I see here are fading as fast as the non light polluted skies of the world. But wait here is night vision so why bother saving the dark skies as we can see through it albeit in a non natural way so throw away all that went before and embrace it like the concrete sprawl that is creating it. 

I do think AJG was right in one thing and we will have to wait to see if this is the way to go. 

[estwing]

That's what I wanted to say!.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, mapstar said:

It seems worthless telling people what I can see through the eyepiece because we can now have a NV image of it in the observing section showing a (NV labelled) false view of what can be seen whilst out observing with equipment accesible to all

Hi Damian,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and considered post. Picking up your comment above, I do find it very sad that this is how you feel; I enjoy reading reports from all observers including yourself and have been really encouraged by the number of observing reports from new starters in the hobby too. I do not see that NV reports in any way diminish the value of your posts and would hope you can reconsider this point.

1 hour ago, mapstar said:

But wait here is night vision so why bother saving the dark skies as we can see through it albeit in a non natural way so throw away all that went before and embrace it like the concrete sprawl that is creating it. 

The guys I observe with who have NV kit love properly dark skies as much as the rest of us; the technology works much better under dark skies so light pollution is as much an enemy of these guys as the dob mob. My group still try to get to darker skies despite the challenges of living in London and I think you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting those observers by saying the above. We cannot turn London back into a dark site, but this technology does allow views of some amazing objects from light polluted skies which can only encourage us to continue to observe. None of us like light pollution or do anything to encourage its expansion. I know you guys go to huge efforts to get out to the darkest skies there are in the UK. As I hope you know, I would love to do the same, but my circumstances do not allow it most of the time. I/we have a choice between giving up the hobby or adapting to ways that allow us to continue.

I'll finish by saying that seeing the Horsehead through NV has only encouraged me to try to see it without electronic assistance. I cannot afford this technology any more than you can, but I don't feel it putting me off regular observing in any way.

I can only encourage you to continue to post your valued reports Damian.

[Littleguy80]

@mapstar I very much understand where you’re coming from with your comments. I personally miss Alan’s reports of using his 20” dob with traditional eyepieces as they were more relatable and inspiring to me. His description of finding NGCs within M33 is something that really stuck with me.

However, I don’t perceive NV as a threat to traditional observing, anymore than imaging or video astronomy is. It’s just another method to observe the night sky. I think people will always seek out challenge and that can come in many forms. Seeing the Intergalactic Wanderer (NGC 2419) in my 130mm was really hard and felt like a massive achievement. I managed to get the Horsehead too in my 10” dob. These things aren’t about seeing something that’s visually spectacular but challenging yourself to see something at the edge of your abilities. Having read a lot of @GavStar and @alanjgreen reports, I believe they’ve looked for the same challenge with NV. Alan’s been trying to see Sharpless Nebula, many of which are beyond traditional methods and appear to be difficult even with NV. Gavin has pushed the limits of finding just how much light pollution NV can push through to see targets like the Horsehead. I’ve spoken to enough imagers that the desire to get better and better results is what drives them.

There are still lots of people posting traditional reports and these are the ones that inspire me the most. I would love to see more from you and Calvin. You have scopes and experience well beyond my own and that’s exciting to read about. From a personal perspective, I do enjoy Gavin’s posts with images from NV. I quite often will go after those same targets with my dob to see how much detail I can draw out. It’s inspirational but in a different way. 

For me, NV isn’t a threat to traditional observing. It has it’s limitations as has been discussed. We have some very enthusiastic and passionate NV users who enjoy sharing their experiences which is a good thing. I’d like to see more big dob owners sharing their experiences to inspire me when I’m sitting under dark skies with my trusty dob!

[RobertI]

Just to give context to the discussion, I just did a quick count and about 11 of the last 100 posts have been NV in the observing section. This will probably be less than half that if @alanjgreen really has decided to retire from SGL. When looking down the list of reports, it doesn't seem anything other than a light sprinkling of NV reports, so really doesn't seems worth getting worked up about to me at this point. And if they are clearly labelled (which Alan's always have been) people don't have to read them. Just my opinion, hope no one takes offence. ?

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, mapstar said:

This is something that is well within my reach but to most that opportunity is not there and another reason for it's own section.

In that case the imaging section should be split up too - Mesu/Tak and non-Mesu/Tak  

 

I’ve been following this thread intensely because although I’m not an observer, the night vision posts have actually persuaded me into the observing section. As a result I’ve now read both NV and traditional reports.

I have had a traditional observer come up to me in person and tell me that imaging ‘wasn’t real astronomy’.  I created a thread about it.  It was hurtful and I hope that this thread doesn’t create the same hurt for the NV users. 

[PeterW]

I apologise for starting this whole issue off all those months/years ago..... should have seen it coming.

Peter

[Stu]

26 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

I’d like to see more big dob owners sharing their experiences to inspire me when I’m sitting under dark skies with my trusty dob!

Great post Neil, particularly the above.

[SIDO]

22 minutes ago, PeterW said:

I apologise for starting this whole issue off all those months/years ago..... should have seen it coming.

Peter

SGL really is an awesome forum in that a lot of forum moderation and decisions on other forums are executed without member discussion and little opportunity for complaint or alternative recourse, I just hope no one quits over decisions being drawn in such a unity manner as I myself am at times too sensitive to change and have been on occasion known to rebel without a cause.

Likely though Peter I am too partly at fault for not posting enough in the observing section ? 

[Stu]

11 minutes ago, PeterW said:

I apologise for starting this whole issue off all those months/years ago..... should have seen it coming.

Peter

Perhaps there wasn't enough Ha in it for you to see it coming Peter! Boom boom! ????

Seriously chaps, this is about a shared love of the night sky which we happen to enjoy in different ways. There really is no need for this to cause such contention. Post up your observing reports, read and enjoy those you want to, ignore the ones you don't. Simples! ??

[GavStar]

31 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

In that case the imaging section should be split up too - Mesu/Tak and non-Mesu/Tak  

 

I’ve been following this thread intensely because although I’m not an observer, the night vision posts have actually persuaded me into the observing section. As a result I’ve now read both NV and traditional reports.

I have had a traditional observer come up to me in person and tell me that imaging ‘wasn’t real astronomy’.  I created a thread about it.  It was hurtful and I hope that this thread doesn’t create the same hurt for the NV users. 

I really liked reading this post @tooth_dr. Thank you.