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_comet_46p.thumb.jpg.9baae12eeb853c863abc6d2cf3df5968.jpg

umasscrew39

What's in a name?

Recommended Posts

Hi All

I am trying to explore the possibility of this forum becoming more  active like the electronically-assisted astronomy (EAA)/live viewing on CNs use to be.  A lot of the more experienced and most congenial posters have left and it is a real shame.  It is how I and others have learned the techniques and simply shared our thoughts and live views, in addition to the fun monthly challenges .

I had a nice email exchange with a SGL admin about this, just expressing my opinions to enhance this specific forum.  So, I'd like to challenge those interested in EAA/live viewing/realtime views or whatever name you prefer to develop a more active forum.   I'd like to start by proposing to have the name Video Astronomy revised to something like:

Live Viewing/Electronically-assisted astronomy (EAA) to help attract back more of the lost posters from CNs and add many new folks interested in the approach.  

Perhaps I am out on an island here and all feel there is no  reason to change a thing - just my 2 cents.

Bruce

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was me you were talking to - we are discussing this among the moderation team. I think I suggested: Video & Live Viewing Astronomy (EAA).

This seemed to cover most of the permutations? 

We are open to changing the name if it broadens the appeal but, we don't want to get caught in some of the infighting that seems to happen with this side of astronomy particularly when it comes down to what to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Grant

Yes- I think that covers it like I agreed in our exchange the other day and I think it would broaden the appeal.  Not sure what all of the in-fighting is about.  It was so bizarre to see this on CNs.  I just do not get it- this is suppose to be  fun hobby.  I have enough stress at work.  That is why I stopped posting on that forum on CNs.  It is just ridiculous what was going on.  I am friends with a few very nice folks who left CNs.

Anyway, if the name gets revised and helps folks engage more in a friendly way, great.  If not, I tried and I'll just be quiet and move on doing my own thing.  I am not a big social media guy to begin with.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Bruce

Edited by umasscrew39
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about a democratic method - put up the suggestions and then vote on it - mine just add (EAA) to existing title.

P.S. changing the name wont help IMHO.

Edited by stash_old
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't done any EAA yet, but I'm certainly interested in learning more and have started to aquire equipment for it. I'm not aware of what the arguments are about what is/isn't considered EAA, video astronomy, live viewing/stacking, etc. My understanding is that EAA is very broadly defined and all encompasing of all these types of observing. I had just assumed the Video Astronomy board was for anything EAA related based on the content already on the board. Not against a name change and there's certainly no reason NOT to change the name, in my opinion, just not sure it's going to have the desired effect. I seemed to have found my way here on my own just fine by looking and searching. I could be entirely wrong though.

As for CN and the arguing, I'll just say I'm from the US and there's a reason I'm here and not there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to post and have seen all the names and changes over the years personally it won't change anything. I found folks to be far too uptight about what it's called, this camera is better, strict amounts of exposure that should be allowed, what processing was allowed the list goes on.

As for EAA it's wholly inaccurate. It covers everything from a lunminated eyepiece to a driven mount. Video is also now inaccurate as it's not video unless it's a planet cam or a Watec camera. 

The rest is basically fast imaging. This includes older Mallincams onwards. They take a set exposure and stack wether it be within the camera or using software.

On the other side of the coin imagers don't see it as their sport as it's not to their standards. So it has remained in no man's land.

People usually find it due to stumbling along it in a forum.

I would think most who start to think about placing a camera on a scope logically go to the imaging section and that in my opinion is where this section should be as that's what it is only fast.

Carl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there are different points of views about the interests and intentions of people who may (or may not) post here. For what its worth, I don't consider what I do to be principally imaging. I consider it to be observing. I just happen to use a camera to get deeper more quickly, and under marginal conditions.

Coincidentally, I bumped into some birdwatchers today and saw one with a camera and the other with binoculars. I didn't think to ask them whether they were aware they were pursuing different hobbies. What we seem to leave out here is what ought to be a common love of astronomy. 

My preference would be to have two sub-fora, one on EAA/video kit (equipment/software) -- perhaps living in Imaging, and the other on EAA/video observations, in the Observing section. Actually, what I would *really* like is to have a single forum on deep sky observation where EAA types could also contribute observation, but I don't think that is going to happen. I don't really understand the tribalism though. I've often been motivated to look for certain objects by what I read from visual observers with large scopes, and serious visual observers seem to have no issues consulting books like the Night Sky Observers Guide, which is full of EAA-type photos!

Martin

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Just to keep things simple, I think Grant’s suggestion appears to be a good next step.  I think the label of just Video stuck because it was the initiator of what Carl calls fast imaging.  For a while when this started, all you had were fast video cams. Then along came Paul Shears, Nytecam, and Martin who developed a simpler one USB cable system that uses an SX Lodestar with Paul’s brilliant Lodestar Live, now Starlight Live.  Not really video, but gives similar results.  I believe CN actually went from calling the forum something like Video & Electronically Assited Astronomy to just EAA.  Video still plays a role in live viewing, and it has a clearer meaning to many.  So, I like Grant’s proposal.  Whether it helps to bring more posters, only time will tell, but it sure couldn’t hurt.

Don 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly there has been a discussion on SGL about whether Night Vision observing reports should continue to  apear in the Observing Reports section.  A simple rule clarification was made (no significant change really) and one of the key NV contributors took umbrage and left SGL. It’s a minefield! Based on that (and previous debates) I would say we have to be sure there really is a problem, and that a name change is the solution. Personally I don’t think a name change would help, perhaps we can think of other ways of addressing the problem stated by the OP?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two pennysworth, i always describe what i do to non astronomy folks as EAA, not video astronomy but i found this forum section no problem. Perhaps calling it Video ahd EAA might help folks find the forum a tad easier when searching EAA but anyone who is interested in this hobby should find it easy enough anyway. 

As a visitor to cn EAA forum sometimes i find the whole 'is it EAA' thing rather silly. I kind of understand the 'no processed pics' thing but if you state you have post processed the image a  little, what is the issue ?  it is not like false advertising :)  and as for night vision, perhaps it should have it's own sub forum under video astronomy & EAA.  Whatever is decided it will not effect me visiting and posting on occasion ( when the storms in the UK finally subside ) :D 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the CN forum has a low participation at present. Personally I have learned almost everything there from people who are no longer there, why?

I hope this idea works and can meet fans wanting to learn and share.

Yes, please, no rules that prohibit the postprocessing of the images or we will move away many people who do not resign to present their modest photographs as best as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont go to CN very often but I did notice some guy chastise someone as he was using Asrotoaster ,as I do, and posting in "EAA whatever" - he was instantly rebuked ,correctly IMO, as it doesn't matter how one does it - ONLY to the person doing it "his/her way" - asking for help or passing on info in any section is not a crime 🙂 - if you dont agree dont read it (or comment about it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This might be controversial having read the posts so far, but the question for me is given that 'Imagers' already have their own (multiple) forums where should Electronically Assisted Astronomers, hence pure 'observers' go? Why shouldn't there be an exclusive forum with emphasis on observing other than through an eyepiece? 

The CN EAA Forum has recently become overwhelmed by NV (fair enough) and because there are no integration or exposure time limits, by CCD/CMOS Astrophotographers that will argue that 20 minutes total integration time is 'near live' observing because it comprises of 80 x 15s stacked frames, hence "short" exposures. The truth is that allowing for discarded 'bad' frames it is probably nearer 30 minutes of activity.  Then they add 'darks on the fly' and other camera processing, yet post processing is prohibited. Then they post 'images' to demonstrate their prowess as astrophotographers and it's all become too competitive and critical of images with negligible discussion about 'observing'.

That forum has hence become far more about astronomy as an Art form rather than as a Science and many pure EAA observers have, as Bruce suggests, stopped contributing. I haven't because I am hoping to see future solutions. As others have commented, the rules are restrictive and counter productive as there are no winners, just confusion about forum aims and objectives. We don't want this SGL Forum to suffer similarly.

Those of us that are genuinely interested in Electronically Assisted Astronomy and rarely save our work as an image now feel reluctant to post anything other than equipment discussions. I can have a decent observation of the Horsehead on screen within 30 seconds using Hyperstar. But I might as well go and watch football if I need to wait a further 30 minutes to 'develop' it.  I don't publish my results as that has become a competition for best pictures, and I am not into photography. I use "EAA" simply to defeat light pollution. However, I respect that 'Imaging' can be a natural bi-product of observing. But why can't 'imagers' remain in the existing imaging forums? 

In summary, EAA embracing Video and NV is truly 'live' and that could embrace EAA using CCD/CMOS strictly as an 'near live' observing discipline.  But anything else is either long exposure or long integration short exposure astrophotography.

My view is that solutions lie in creating SINGLE exposure and stacked MULTIPLE (stacked) exposure sub-forums under 'Imaging'. Then create NV, Video and EAA sub-forums within "Electronically Assisted Astronomy"  with the emphasis there on observing, but stacked CCD/CMOS can feature as regards an observation tool. Equipment discussions can feature in either.  Then everybody has a suitable forum to accomodate their interests. Just my two cents.

Edited by noah4x4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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