What's EEVA?!?

[Grant 2,118]

Welcome to the new electronically enhanced visual astronomy or, EEVA section on SGL

Over the past few years, a number of new avenues of amateur astronomy have developed: video astronomy, live stacking, night vision and others. There has been lots of debate and discussion on what to call these, where they belong and how they are defined. Unfortunately this has often led to conflict, disagreements and entrenchment.

SGL wants to encourage these new forms of astronomy, we believe they are going to be hugely important areas and want to help foster and grow the techniques, methods and equipment used.

We also want to recognise that some of these techniques are 'different' to traditional visual observing and could cause confusion or unrealistic expectations for people reading topics if they weren't aware of the equipment being used to help enhance the views. They are also different to traditional imaging which is why we feel they deserve their own areas and recognition within the community.

As such, we have coined the new phrase: EEVA or EVA which stands for: electronically enhanced visual astronomy. We hope this offers a catchy acronym which can be embraced by the community and used to describe these techniques and methods and give them their own area of SGL which we hope to foster and grow to become as important as the existing observing and imaging sections.

We are open to feedback and suggestions but hope, after a pause of reflection you will see we are trying to do something good here, for the right reasons.

Thanks,

Grant on behalf of the SGL admin and mod team.

 

[GavStar 2,788]

I have to admit I’m very disappointed with this development. I’m a visual observer not a EEVA observer. 

I hope my NV posts over the past 15 months have always been very clear about the equipment I’ve been using. I also hope that they brought this new approach a far greater audience by having the posts in the normal observing sections. I think having a separate EEVA section ‘hides’ away these new techniques and makes it more difficult for general users to find out about them.

As you say, there has been a fair bit of discussion and conflict. It’s a shame that as a group we can’t embrace new approaches and change. It does make me feel unwelcome on SGL. 

I don’t think I will be posting much on SGL in the future as a result.

[Grant 2,118]

2 minutes ago, GavStar said:

I have to admit I’m very disappointed with this development. I’m a visual observer not a EEVA observer. 

I hope my NV posts over the past 15 months have always been very clear about the equipment I’ve been using. I also hope that they brought this new approach a far greater audience by having the posts in the normal observing sections. I think having a separate EEVA section ‘hides’ away these new techniques and makes it more difficult for general users to find out about them.

As you say, there has been a fair bit of discussion and conflict. It’s a shame that as a group we can’t embrace new approaches and change. It does make me feel unwelcome on SGL. 

I don’t think I will be posting much on SGL in the future as a result.

I'm sorry you feel this is an attempt to hide away these new techniques particularly as the aim is the absolute, complete opposite. We genuinely believe these sorts of techniques are a big part of the future of amateur visual astronomy so much so, they deserve their own section and, this is just the start of some of the things we hope to do on SGL to encourage these newer areas of astronomy.

I hope that after reflection you reconsider.

 

[Steve 1,292]

4 hours ago, GavStar said:

It’s a shame that as a group we can’t embrace new approaches and change. 

This new EEVA Discussion board is us embracing a new approach and change  

[Martin Meredith 1,843]

I welcome this development and hope that it will see NV and other electronically-assisted observers getting together to discuss DSO observations. And I also hope that traditional visual observers will feel welcome to chime in with their observations too! Perhaps we can set up some monthly challenge objects and compare notes.

Just for clarification: I'm assuming that the Discussion sub-forum (this one) will be the place for discussion of equipment, software, observing techniques etc, and the Reports sub-forum will be limited to observational reports (as opposed to reports on say a new bit of kit)? 

Martin

[Grant 2,118]

Just now, Martin Meredith said:

I welcome this development and hope that it will see NV and other electronically-assisted observers getting together to discuss DSO observations. And I also hope that traditional visual observers will feel welcome to chime in with their observations too! Perhaps we can set up some monthly challenge objects and compare notes.

Just for clarification: I'm assuming that the Discussion sub-forum (this one) will be the place for discussion of equipment, software, observing techniques etc, and the Reports sub-forum will be limited to observational reports (as opposed to reports on say a new bit of kit)? 

Martin

Exactly that  I was loathe to call them 'EEVA Observing Reports' for fear of confusing things.

There is also a new area to discuss EEVA specific equipment: https://stargazerslounge.com/forum/287-discussions-eeva-equipment/

This discussion area is for general EEVA discussion, tips, tricks, techniques etc.. 

As things develop we can adjust to and split out into further sections as necessary.

[alanjgreen 2,222]

1 hour ago, GavStar said:

I have to admit I’m very disappointed with this development. I’m a visual observer not a EEVA observer. 

I hope my NV posts over the past 15 months have always been very clear about the equipment I’ve been using. I also hope that they brought this new approach a far greater audience by having the posts in the normal observing sections. I think having a separate EEVA section ‘hides’ away these new techniques and makes it more difficult for general users to find out about them.

As you say, there has been a fair bit of discussion and conflict. It’s a shame that as a group we can’t embrace new approaches and change. It does make me feel unwelcome on SGL. 

I don’t think I will be posting much on SGL in the future as a result.

I agree with Gavin.

I have no intention of posting in EAVVAAA or whatever you call it. I am a visual observer too!

Alan

Edited March 28 by alanjgreen

[vlaiv 2,902]

I'm somewhat confused by all of this.

Does "traditional EAA", either in form of video astronomy (old video cams at eyepiece) or live stacking type fall under EEVA definition?

Also, @GavStar and @alanjgreen, this is a genuine question, not trying to provoke an argument or mock subject or whatever - Why do you feel that NV is more visual astronomy then for example live stacking?

If I understand things correctly, both NV and Live stacking - use light sensing device, a form of amplification of signal and light emitting device to enable observer to look at object with their own eyes. Granted, NV device is self contained / compact one, while camera / cable / laptop with screen is not as compact, but both systems in essence provide the same thing. Also, experience will differ, but does the principle of operation outlined above differ as well?

[Grant 2,118]

8 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Does "traditional EAA", either in form of video astronomy (old video cams at eyepiece) or live stacking type fall under EEVA definition?

Yes

 

[Mr Spock 6,254]

These are relatively new areas of astronomy and I think it's an exciting development to have a dedicated section on SGL.

I look forward to seeing many members, new and old, taking part. I know any kind of progress, technological or otherwise, really piques interest - it does me.

[R26 oldtimer 359]

To me there is no significant difference in calling it EAA, Videoastronomy, NV astronomy or EEVA. The significant part is the addition of the observation sub forum. It will encourage us to post more observation experiences, which were here before but more in context with the "behaviour" of specific equipment as means of comparison.

I don't think anyone should feel left out, because they're not. Now get out there and get some observations coming in!

 

[PeterW 920]

@vlaiv NV gives you a live view in an eyepiece... no wires, no stacking delays. Can appear essentially like an enhanced naked eye view, unlike what some people claim. I’ve watched over many years NV has been kicked about as a minority activity on various forums. Those of us who have tried just enjoy the views and are happy to share. 

 

Peter

[alanjgreen 2,222]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

I'm somewhat confused by all of this.

Does "traditional EAA", either in form of video astronomy (old video cams at eyepiece) or live stacking type fall under EEVA definition?

Also, @GavStar and @alanjgreen, this is a genuine question, not trying to provoke an argument or mock subject or whatever - Why do you feel that NV is more visual astronomy then for example live stacking?

If I understand things correctly, both NV and Live stacking - use light sensing device, a form of amplification of signal and light emitting device to enable observer to look at object with their own eyes. Granted, NV device is self contained / compact one, while camera / cable / laptop with screen is not as compact, but both systems in essence provide the same thing. Also, experience will differ, but does the principle of operation outlined above differ as well?

As a visual only observer, I have no idea what live stacking is! My observing does not involve the use of cameras, software or computers so I cannot answer your question!

I use an NV device attached to various Televue eyepieces directly at the telescope which I view as “visual” astronomy and I do not see it as the same as EAA at all!

I am sure the live stackers and EAAers that will post in this new forum have no interest in NV as they are into the “software” and “cameras” that I assume you use with this “live stacking”. In my view these are not at all the same as NV but I am in the minority (who seem to governed by "senior observers" on this forum who don’t like/want to read about what they cannot see (they see it as "oneupmanship" - it has already been stated by one senior observer that my observing reports posts are just my attempt to "put one over on them"). They just want the NV posts in a side forum where they can be easily avoided and it seems the mods are of the same mind. It’s all very sad really!

But back to your question, I am sure an EAA guy will come along and answer your question but that is not me  

Edited March 28 by alanjgreen

[Highburymark 1,732]

I think the Cloudy Nights NV/EAA forum has thrived because there are enough devotees to reach some form of critical mass. As night vision astronomy is only just starting in the UK (indeed, every known user in the country has already contributed to this thread!), I can't see how it's going to attract enough traffic to support conversations. 

[GavStar 2,788]

15 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

I think the Cloudy Nights NV/EAA forum has thrived because there are enough devotees to reach some form of critical mass. As night vision astronomy is only just starting in the UK (indeed, every known user in the country has already contributed to this thread!), I can't see how it's going to attract enough traffic to support conversations. 

Excellent point @Highburymark.

3 NV observers on SGL have now commented that this change would be to the detriment of NV discussion on SGL (and @PeterW was very diplomatic ). I really think SGL admin should reconsider. 

Edited March 28 by GavStar

[vlaiv 2,902]

I'm sorry to hear that some people feel that NV is somehow being brushed aside. Maybe it even is, I have no idea if that is the case and personally never had that impression, but then again I did not participate in much of NV discussion - just read couple of reviews and saw numerous images taken with smartphone - which I found to be really interesting indeed.

On the other hand, I would like to point out that EAA and NV are in essence the same thing, unless I'm again misunderstanding how NV devices work - you still need a battery to get the image out of it, right? It does not do any sort of magical amplification of light, it has to be some sort of sensor and some sort of signal amplification and some sort of projection screen.

[alanjgreen 2,222]

18 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

I think the Cloudy Nights NV/EAA forum has thrived because there are enough devotees to reach some form of critical mass. As night vision astronomy is only just starting in the UK (indeed, every known user in the country has already contributed to this thread!), I can't see how it's going to attract enough traffic to support conversations. 

It appears that we NV users are supposed to join in discussions on "live stacking" and other things that are of no interest to us whatsoever!

I wont be bothering.

Edited March 28 by alanjgreen

[Grant 2,118]

This change isn’t just about NV it’s about ‘electronically enhanced visual astronomy’. NV is just part of that.

We will not be making any changes until we see from the stats and activity levels over the next six months or so what difference these changes make.

As this section grows we will look to divide it out further but at present NV doesn’t have enough content to justify its own section.

 

[vlaiv 2,902]

Just now, alanjgreen said:

It appears that we NV users are supposed to join in the discussions on "live stacking" and other things that are of no interest to use whatsoever!

I wont be bothering.

I don't think this is necessarily so. There is a common theme to all branches of EAA, or EEVA what ever majority decides to call it.

It is after all, Electronically Assisted - Astronomy. We can share experiences of being able to see deeper than would be possible without aid of electronic devices. It is still live activity, requiring observer to be interacting with equipment in order to see objects (either at eyepiece or at computer screen), and it is visual, although photographic evidence can be taken with all of diverse activities that we call EAA - be that picture with smartphone or image processed out of live stack session, or maybe screen shot from video feed.

@PeterW Live stacking does not need be "delayed" - it can be live as well - stacking video at 30fps would certainly qualify as live feed, and it even does not need to be stacked - video astronomy just uses video cameras and feed to monitor for live view.

[Littleguy80 3,771]

There's no way of keeping all parties happy in this situation. I just hope that everyone sticks around to try all the options that the admins come up with. A suitable solution will never be found if everyone leaves. 

[RobertI 1,674]

54 minutes ago, alanjgreen said:

I am sure the live stackers and EAAers that will post in this new forum have no interest in NV as they are into the “software” and “cameras”

I can see why you would be unhappy to post in the new forum based on that assumption Alan. I am not sure it is true though. Personally I have always been visual, but I tried EAA due to light polluted skies, and it really worked for me. I have no interest in cameras or processing and if I could afford NV I would jump at it! By the way, I have no idea what ‘gain’ is!

[PeterW 920]

Live.... move the scope by hand, does the image change instantly and smoothly? If it streaks it’s not live. 

At least CN isn’t dominated by Malincammers as it used to be, more balanced now.... taken a decade for NV to become “mainstream”.

Peter

[RobertI 1,674]

8 minutes ago, Littleguy80 said:

There's no way of keeping all parties happy in this situation. I just hope that everyone sticks around to try all the options that the admins come up with. A suitable solution will never be found if everyone leaves. 

I think we should have a series of ‘meaningful votes’ on the subject.

[R26 oldtimer 359]

English not being my native language, perhaps has me confused. I can't understand what the problem is?

Do NV users feel they can't post their observations in the general deep sky observation sub-forum? I don't think there is any rule against it, if they feel like doing so.

Or do NV users feel there should have been an even more specific subforum devoted completely to NV?

15 minutes ago, alanjgreen said:

It appears that we NV users are supposed to join in discussions on "live stacking" and other things that are of no interest to us whatsoever!

Come on now, a refractor owner is not supposed to join in discussions about newtonians, if he has no interest in them, despite all of these are in the "scopes- whole setups" subforum.

[Thalestris24 2,561]

6 minutes ago, RobertI said:

I can see why you would be unhappy to post in the new forum based on that assumption Alan. I am not sure it is true though. Personally I have always been visual, but I tried EAA due to light polluted skies, and it really worked for me. I have no interest in cameras or processing and if I could afford NV I would jump at it! By the way, I have no idea what ‘gain’ is!

Yeah, live stacking to me is a branch of imaging since it uses a computer, imaging equipment, acquisition software and techniques, plus you end up with an, er, image! Other things like NV and EAA are really branches of observing since an image isn't (normally) saved and what you see is transient. Perhaps, the live stacking should be in the imaging section in its own thread? I'm not overly bothered personally.

Louise