What's EEVA?!?

[GavStar]

23 minutes ago, Grant said:

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.

 

We don’t want NV to have a separate section, just to be able to post in the ‘standard’ visual and equipment sections (with suitable title labelling as was agreed by the mods only a couple of weeks ago!). Are we ok to still do this?

We believe what we do is much more like (in terms of experience rather than technology) normal glass observing than EAA. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by GavStar

[alanjgreen]

27 minutes ago, R26 oldtimer said:

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?

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.

I am afraid that this was covered two weeks back when it all got a bit ugly in a “please make them go away” posting by a seasoned observer which resulted in  NV users being banned from posting in the general observing forums.

The last thing I want is an NV only forum, with 4 NV users in the UK we may as well just arrange to meet directly down the pub!

HTH your understanding.

Alan

Edited March 28, 2019 by alanjgreen

[Steve]

16 minutes ago, alanjgreen said:

NV users being banned from posting in the general observing forums.

Nobody was banned from posting in the general observing forums ? 

Individual discussion boards help people find and share information with like-minded people on topics that interest them. They are not rigid enclosures. They are quite open because discussions and interests often overlap. 

HTH

[estwing]

As a dedicated observer I shall be dipping into this section to read your reports with interest..

Good luck with the new section guys .

[alanjgreen]

Just now, estwing said:

As a dedicated observer I shall be dipping into this section to read your reports with interest..

Good luck with the new section guys .

Good luck, you won’t find any as I won’t be posting in this section.

Sad but true.

Alan

[Highburymark]

50 minutes ago, Grant said:

.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.

 

This was my point earlier Grant. Even as part of a wider EAA section, there are nothing like enough night vision users to support interesting threads/discussions. It will just become a backwater. I sympathise with you to the extent that no solution is going satisfy everyone. But if night vision had always been confined to a little visited corner of SGL, I might never have got into it. It was Gavin posting in the general equipment and observing forums that spiked my interest in the first place.

[estwing]

1 hour ago, alanjgreen said:

Good luck, you won’t find any as I won’t be posting in this section.

Sad but true.

Alan

Shame.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

It does not do any sort of magical amplification of light

Ahh, that's where you are wrong vlaiv. NV does indeed amplify light, that is what is magic about it. The simple principle for nebulae observing is that you filter heavily on the frequencies of light you want, then put those into the NV which amplifies what is left so you can see it. Very clever.

[domstar]

Not really my place to comment but to me the solution is simple. Ask the people with NV where they would like to be. Don't make them do anything against their will. Any other solution is pushing them out of the section where they want to be and there would have to be a strong case to do this. They could write night vision in the titles. Sometimes I want to read about it and sometimes I don't but I can't see any reason for creating a section for them if they don't want it. 

I'm sure everyone is acting in good faith. In the end it's down to everyone to identify as they would like. 

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

Ahh, that's where you are wrong vlaiv. NV does indeed amplify light, that is what is magic about it. The simple principle for nebulae observing is that you filter heavily on the frequencies of light you want, then put those into the NV which amplifies what is left so you can see it. Very clever.

No, not magic, physics!

Been a bit researching on the whole NV topic as well as trying to figure out the root of all the sore feelings about NV being moved together with EAA into EEVA.

I understand the sentiment that NV reports should be together with other observation reports, and I agree about exposure part - many more people will get in touch with this idea and technology that way. On the other hand, I do understand NV to be a part of EEVA and in my view EEVA is only to gain with such diversity. After all, I feel that anyone interested in EEVA accepts it not as alternative to "traditional" observation (if there is such a thing), but rather another tool in observation box, or in this case - bunch of tools, all relying on electronics to enhance viewing/observational experience.

Just to touch up on NV side of things, and in particular comparison to live stacking / video astronomy. Same amount of light is entering objective of the scope, and no miracle is going to make it stronger - it's just about efficiently detecting that light and presenting it to the eye of the observer. Whether it is an analogue amplifier or digital one, I really see no difference.

There is however difference to how one perceives observational experience, and in some sense NV is closer to traditional observing in this regard.

[Thalestris24]

I guess this is one sort of NV? Though is a couple of years old. I've seen some awesome enhancement systems online not so long ago. Very expensive I think!

Louise

ps at the end of the day it involves looking at a screen images in real time rather than detecting the actual photons on your retina that have travelled across time and space

Edited March 28, 2019 by Thalestris24

[R26 oldtimer]

2 hours ago, alanjgreen said:

I am afraid that this was covered two weeks back when it all got a bit ugly in a “please make them go away” posting by a seasoned observer which resulted in  NV users being banned from posting in the general observing forums. 

Found that thread and read most of it. Seems there is a purist attitude from some visual observers towards NV. But when you guys express the same purist attitude towards the rest of the eaa observators, you just make the visual purist's point even more valid.

On the other hand I' ve read some posts on planetary AP, from people like Avani, that are pure observational reports based on the images he gets, and that to my eyes is great observation report.

[Gasman]

It seems the world and his wife now live in a land dominated by acronyms, could I respectfully request that the beginning of any post that the postee give a quick run down on his or hers upcoming acronyms. 

FWIW HTH I think and WTH is NV?

 

[saac]

58 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

I guess this is one sort of NV? Though is a couple of years old. I've seen some awesome enhancement systems online not so long ago. Very expensive I think!

Louise

ps at the end of the day it involves looking at a screen images in real time rather than detecting the actual photons on your retina that have travelled across time and space

Now that is nice, I do like that; that would be really useful as well at outreach sessions. 

Jim 

[Thalestris24]

3 minutes ago, Gasman said:

It seems the world and his wife now live in a land dominated by acronyms, could I respectfully request that the beginning of any post that the postee give a quick run down on his or hers upcoming acronyms. 

FWIW HTH I think and WTH is NV?

 

NV = night vision = using image intensifiers of one sort or another

EAA = electronically assisted astronomy

Louise

[Gasman]

Cheers and thanks BTW Louise ( don’t think I know any more ?)

Steve

[cuivenion]

There's obviously a difference between EAA and NV. As an occasional EEA'er myself I have no problem describing what I do as a branch of imaging. NV seems to be geared towards to purely visual observing so maybe it would be best being discussed in the observing forums until the branch becomes more popular. This may have the effect of exposing more people to this aspect of the hobby too. I'm fine with being placed in a section alongside NV, but maybe for now that isn't the best way to go about it.

[GavStar]

1 hour ago, R26 oldtimer said:

Found that thread and read most of it. Seems there is a purist attitude from some visual observers towards NV. But when you guys express the same purist attitude towards the rest of the eaa observators, you just make the visual purist's point even more valid.

I don’t understand the point you are making.

@Highburymarkhas eloquently expressed the concerns that us (only 4) night vision (NV) users have, ie

1) half of us would never have heard of NV if it had only been discussed in the EAA/ video astronomy section, so would have missed out on getting this additional eyepiece tool in the box. Allowing night vision discussion in the main observing/equipment sections allows better communication for people who may be interested (but don’t know it yet ?)

2) there’s only 4 of us so nowhere near enough to have a separate section 

3) NV is a very different approach from a practical perspective to EAa/video astronomy. There is very little overlap in terms of what each type can learn/discuss with the other. This is clearly shown on cloudynights where NV and EAa are grouped in the same section and there is no discussion between the two groups so it may as well be two different sections. (However CN is very happy for NV posts to be made in the general observing or equipment sections if we wish). 

Edited March 28, 2019 by GavStar

[saac]

If people are interested then surely they will post and discuss wherever the post falls; I must admit I very rarely take any notice of where a particular thread is grouped. In any respect the search function at the top will search out relevant posts no matter where they are on the forum. NV definitely has my interest so Ill be keeping a watch on this section. 

Jim 

[John]

But NV is EAA isn't it ?

It involves electricity, provides an assist and, here, is used for astronomy.

It seems to me to be like racing push bikes vs powered bikes - both go around a track but the powered ones will have much faster lap times so the two forms can't be directly compared in terms of results. Both are enjoyable though

 

 

[Thalestris24]

3 minutes ago, John said:

But NV is EAA isn't it ?

It involves electricity, provides an assist and, here, is used for astronomy.

It seems to me to be like racing push bikes vs powered bikes - both go around a track but the powered ones will have much faster lap times so the two forms can't be directly compared in terms of results. Both are enjoyable though

 

 

I'd say NV is a specialised type of eaa but lots of other things can come under the eaa heading

[GavStar]

28 minutes ago, John said:

But NV is EAA isn't it ?

It involves electricity, provides an assist and, here, is used for astronomy.

It seems to me to be like racing push bikes vs powered bikes - both go around a track but the powered ones will have much faster lap times so the two forms can't be directly compared in terms of results.

 

From a purist definition, yes. But from a practical, in use, perspective, no - it’s completely different. (And from a practical ‘how it feels’ perspective NV is very very similar to viewing through normal glass eyepieces. This was shown very clearly by my recent outreach experience in Regent’s Park - the people looking through the NV eyepiece had no idea it wasn’t just a normal glass eyepiece!)

Edited March 28, 2019 by GavStar

[Paul73]

1 minute ago, John said:

But NV is EAA isn't it ?

It involves electricity, provides an assist and, here, is used for astronomy.

It seems to me to be like racing push bikes vs powered bikes - both go around a track but the powered ones will have much faster lap times so the two forms can't be directly compared in terms of results.

 

I’d hazard that NV is a lot closer to Visual than imaging. And that EAA is closer to imaging that observing (imaging for impatient people??). No processing involved in NV. Some serious processing (near real time) for EAA.

Paul

[cuivenion]

4 minutes ago, John said:

But NV is EAA isn't it ?

It involves electricity, provides an assist and, here, is used for astronomy.

It seems to me to be like racing push bikes vs powered bikes - both go around a track but the powered ones will have much faster lap times so the two forms can't be directly compared in terms of results. Both are enjoyable though

 

 

Technically yes, but theres no monitors, computers or cameras involved as far as I'm aware. At that point it's more like more traditional observing. There's not a lot of overlap between live stacking/Cam and monitor based EAA and NV. It would be great for NV to have its own section but if there's only four people posting in it it does seem a little pointless to me.

[Paul73]

Just now, GavStar said:

But from a practical, in use, perspective, no - it’s completely different. (And from a practical ‘how it feels’ perspective NV is very very similar to viewing through normal glass eyepieces)

As Stu (a dedicated visual chap) pointed out in his comprehensive NV observing report earlier this evening.

I really can’t understand why people get sniffy about NV as an observing tool. May as well cry foul that someone has got an Hbeta filter to view the, massively underwhelming, Horses Head.

Paul