What's EEVA?!?

[Altocumulus]

Pops head above the parapet. Is eeva any different to watching a live football match on a mobile phone screen whilst also being on the football ground? (Assuming both views are identical). 

 

 

[PeterW]

Sort of, if you are shortsighted, sitting at the back of the stadium and left your glasses at home.....

Peter

[SIDO]

If I look through your telescope we are making observations together, if you take a photo through your telescope and share it with me (like here on SGL) we are making observations together.

In as much as dedicated imagers like to be described as such they are really just making long period observations were results are far from instant but their intent is to reveal the maximum detail possible with their particular equipment and record their results or observations to share with others...They are indeed Observers in the purest sence, we all are weather it be nv eaa va eeva visual radio spectrometry or any other or weather we have no equipment at all and just look through someone else's or share their observations via images...Comment discussion and learning the likely results.

Since the new eeva threads have been created there has been a serious uptick in discussion regarding the new eeva forum or in finer terms eeva itself and one of the most interesting reads currently on SGL in my humble opinion, my thoughts here are that a lot of these discussions would not be taking place in other threads had it not been for the creation of the new outlet that the eeva threads provide.

I'm absolutely sure that some beginner astronomers will learn, benefit and succeed via these new forums as I have done being an eeva novice working towards beginner status, being a long time visual observer transitioning into eeva or specifically va I had some at a crossroads issues going primarily digital verses visual but now consider it just another method for observation but with specific advantages other methods do not incorporate.

For me the real kicker was observing mag 10 galaxies with a 50% waning moon and high cloud so thick the bright stars in Ursa Major were barely visible all this with a static mount to boot, not like I'm going to head out regularly and observe under skies that bad but it does speak to the awesome capabilities eeva can bring to bear.

After reading through this thread a couple times now I thought it was time for my two cents...

What's EEVA ?!?

EEVA is Awesome...

 

                        Freddie ?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by SIDO

[cuivenion]

Yeah I mean, why bother with the HST? It's not like you're looking through it with your own eyes.

(Sarcasm aside I will say that eyepiece observing is great and I've enjoyed it immensely. However it's ridiculous to claim that EAA isn't a form of observing.)

[Buzzard75]

On 01/05/2019 at 23:44, cuivenion said:

... However it's ridiculous to claim that EAA isn't a form of observing.)

It's interesting that you say that because I have read several visual observers claim exactly that. Their argument is that you're not actually looking at the object and you're just looking at an image of the object. I.e the photons aren't entering your eye and are rather being captured by an electronic sensor. I understand the point, but I personally think it's absurd because there are some observations you just can't make by only looking at an object for a fraction of a second. I say, you like what you like, I'll like what I like (which is all of it) and we should just support each other's interests as a community rather than 'poo pooing' something just because it's not what you're into. That's how you drive people away and keep them from getting interested in the field at all. We have people that come to our events that love the astrophotography work I do, some love looking at video of the planets, the sun or the moon on a computer screen, and we have some that just want to look through an eyepiece. We should be an all inclusive group and not speak poorly of or try to tear down another aspect of astronomy, as it's hard enough to get people interested in the night sky and take an active part in preserving it.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Buzzard75

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Wow, what a discussion this is.

I have only just seen this thread and just read from start to the latest post. My passion at the moment is imaging but love to read threads about any aspect of Astronomy on often read observing threads as well as loads of other aspects of Astronomy.

I am not experienced enough in any form of Astronomy to say what is right or wrong (if there is a wrong?)  but a couple of things I would like to comment on.

• Congratulations to all for having what sounds to be a fairly heated debate at times from people with a passion for their particular aspect of this hobby without verbally abusing anyone for their opinion. That is what a good Forum is about and believe me I have been on countless others (not astronomy related) where the language does get somewhat offensive. 
• But having said that it does appear a very small minority that use NV are being ostracised from where they feel they want to be included (i.e. as observers) for no other reason than the true observers (which I admire greatly and do read many observing reports despite not being my area of interest) feeling it is not really observing.
• If it was the small minority wanting to break away then I would say yes a separate section is required and fine as there is still a large section of members left in the observing section, and they can still know where to find any NV reports if they wish and minorities should be catered for. But until there are many more than 3 or 4 that would post in that section I would say it is not required.
• My thoughts are that often we create too many sub sections and try to get everyone in a defined section. We have some wonderful images in NB showing wonderful colours. But these are not true colours. So as I take images in RGB should I not really want to see NB images in this section ? and probably both would offend somebody imaging in B&W as this is probably more realistic to the true image.

Sorry for going on but I think what I am trying to say is leave the small minority in the section they feel comfortable in. They must only contribute a small percentage of the posts in that section so anyone from the majority that are true purists that accidentally opens up a NV thread will soon realise and can soon close it again and move to the next thread.

And please nobody take offence to my very simplistic view I do not mean to offend any form of this wonderful hobby / obsession.

Steve

 

[cuivenion]

1 hour ago, Buzzard75 said:

It's interesting that you say that because I have read several visual observers claim exactly that. Their argument is that you're not actually looking at the object and you're just looking at an image of the object. I.e the photons aren't entering your eye and are rather being captured by an electronic sensor. I understand the point, but I personally think it's absurd because there are some observations you just can't make by only looking at an object for a fraction of a second. I say, you like what you like, I'll like what I like (which is all of it) and we should just support each other's interests as a community rather than 'poo pooing' something just because it's not what you're into. That's how you drive people away and keep them from getting interested in the field at all. We have people that come to our events that love the astrophotography work I do, some love looking video of the planets, the sun or the moon on a computer screen, and we have some that just want to look through an eyepiece. We should be an all inclusive group and not speak poorly of or try to tear down another aspect of astronomy, as it's hard enough to get people interested in the night sky and take an active part in preserving it.

Completely agree I've had some great times eyepiece observing and it's not to be denegrated as some important discoveries have been made with it and will continue to be. I think its important to note that progress marches on though. I reckon people like Herschel would have have loved our modern mirrors, lenses, mounts and other technology. If I happen to discover a supernova or comet during an EAA session does it not count because I wasn't using an eyepiece?

[stash_old]

1 hour ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Wow, what a discussion this is.

I have only just seen this thread and just read from start to the latest post. My passion at the moment is imaging but love to read threads about any aspect of Astronomy on often read observing threads as well as loads of other aspects of Astronomy.

I am not experienced enough in any form of Astronomy to say what is right or wrong (if there is a wrong?)  but a couple of things I would like to comment on.

• Congratulations to all for having what sounds to be a fairly heated debate at times from people with a passion for their particular aspect of this hobby without verbally abusing anyone for their opinion. That is what a good Forum is about and believe me I have been on countless others (not astronomy related) where the language does get somewhat offensive. 
• But having said that it does appear a very small minority that use NV are being ostracised from where they feel they want to be included (i.e. as observers) for no other reason than the true observers (which I admire greatly and do read many observing reports despite not being my area of interest) feeling it is not really observing.
• If it was the small minority wanting to break away then I would say yes a separate section is required and fine as there is still a large section of members left in the observing section, and they can still know where to find any NV reports if they wish and minorities should be catered for. But until there are many more than 3 or 4 that would post in that section I would say it is not required.
• My thoughts are that often we create too many sub sections and try to get everyone in a defined section. We have some wonderful images in NB showing wonderful colours. But these are not true colours. So as I take images in RGB should I not really want to see NB images in this section ? and probably both would offend somebody imaging in B&W as this is probably more realistic to the true image.

Sorry for going on but I think what I am trying to say is leave the small minority in the section they feel comfortable in. They must only contribute a small percentage of the posts in that section so anyone from the majority that are true purists that accidentally opens up a NV thread will soon realise and can soon close it again and move to the next thread.

And please nobody take offence to my very simplistic view I do not mean to offend any form of this wonderful hobby / obsession.

Steve

 

I would swop the lot - for some clear skies which no matter what form you use (except Radio Astro) we all need - ?

More options/opinions the better - have a lot of spare time thanks to awful UK weather.

[Ruud]

For me, astronomical observing is seeing original photons with my own eyes.

Eeva is watching an image. That's fine, I like that too, but it's not observing. It's seeing photons that travelled mere centimetres. It's not the real thing.

[cuivenion]

On 3 May 2019 at 15:24, Ruud said:

For me, astronomical observing is seeing original photons with my own eyes.

Eeva is watching an image. That's fine, I like that too, but it's not observing. It's seeing photons that travelled mere centimetres. It's not the real thing.

Guess Nasa is wasting it's time then. Observing is making an observation, this can be done by looking at an image. The photons have hit the digital sensor instead of your eye and while the image is a representation of those photons it's no less viable a technique.

Lenses and mirrors are a type of technology too and introduce their own abberations to the photons you're seeing (CA and diffraction). To be a complete purist you'd just have to use the naked eye, of course many of us would have to take off our glasses too.  

The advantage of EAA is you can also record what you have seen, so other people can confirm the veracity of your observations. I have no problem with anyone exploring the universe in his or her own way but too say that EAA is not observing is completely inaccurate.

Edited May 9, 2019 by cuivenion

[Ruud]

28 minutes ago, cuivenion said:

Guess Nasa is wasting it's time then. Observing is making an observation, this can be done by looking at an image. The photons have hit the digital sensor instead of your eye and while the image is a representation of those photons it's no less viable a technique.

Lenses and mirrors are a type of technology too and introduce their own abberations to the photons you're seeing (CA and diffraction). To be a complete purist you'd just have to use the naked eye, of course many of use would have to take off our glasses too.  

The advantage of EAA is you can also record what you have seen, so other people can confirm the veracity of your observations. I have no problem with anyone exploring the universe in his or her own way but too say that EAA is not observing is completely inaccurate.

You missed the point. I was describing what observing means to me.

I like viewing NASA images. But that's not what observing means to me.

[Deflavio]

I think there is a terminology problem here. On one side peolple are considering observation = visual observation because that's looking directly at real photons or the other side other people thinks more along the way of observation = scientific observation, in the sense regardless of the tool (visual/NV/EEA,etc) the key point is to be able to observe something without worrying about perfect image/view either technically or artistically...just yesterday people on both CN and SGL confirmed a supernova in M100 looking back at some posted images. I'm biased here but for me this is a good and solid scientific observation that could have been done on any tool or visually... 

I think we can debate, agree or disagree on this all the time but I have the feeling we may never reach an agreement here because everyone is coming from different directions and experiences. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Maybe we should try first to see if we can find a common ground where we all agree on something.  Let me ask a couple of questions because I'm still fairly new here and I would like to understand the general feeling about EEVA: 

1) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to EAA/live stacking observations? 

2) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to Video Astronomy observations? 

 

I personally would say no.  How many people disagree on this?  Do you prefer to keep the "visual" badge also for EAA?  I'm asking this because I don't fully understand how/why the new name of this section. So we are are doing EAA/live stacking and we are calling this section of the forum Electronically Enhance Visual Astronomy? I think EAA can embrace both live stacking and video astronomy and I have no problem to admit that these observations are not "visual" in the "visual observation" sense but still genuine observations are.

Reading back at the start of the post I got the impression that probably everything was done to make things more inclusive to NV, which I think is a really cool technique. Asking the same question about "visual" and NV:

3) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to Night Vision?

I'm more likely to say, yes, but we can debate pro and cons. Nevertheless, given just the name "Night Vision" I would say, there is no doubt that NV can be considered way more visual than video or EAA, no? 

 

So if we split the concept of "visual" from "observation" I think we may have a way forward. My suggestion is to simply go more with a name like "Electronically Enhance Astronomy and Night Vision" . In this way, we are inclusive but also we keep the full identity of everyone and easy to find/search...

Also, last comment, EAA and NV have now picked up almost everywhere on the web and beyond so going with a different name like EEVA for everything may be also damaging. 

 

This is my personal view and I hope to have not offended and challenged anyone...

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Deflavio

[cuivenion]

12 minutes ago, Ruud said:

You missed the point. I was describing what observing means to me.

I like viewing NASA images. But that's not what observing means to me.

If you're saying you prefer eyepiece observing then thats fine with me, but you did say:

'I like that too, but it's not observing'.

Yes it is.

Edited May 3, 2019 by cuivenion

[Altocumulus]

If the human eyeball is involved.......natural or enhanced it's observing ?

[cuivenion]

7 minutes ago, Deflavio said:

I think there is a terminology problem here. On one side peolple are considering observation = visual observation because that's looking directly at real photons or the other side other people thinks more along the way of observation = scientific observation, in the sense regardless of the tool (visual/NV/EEA,etc) the key point is to be able observe something without worrying about perfect image/view either technically or artistically...just yesterday people on both CN and SGL confirmed a supernova in M100 looking back at some posted images. I'm biased here but for me this is a good and solid scientific observation that could have been done on any tool or visually... 

I think we can debate, agree or disagree on this all the time but I have the feeling we may never reach an agreement here because everyone is coming from a different directions and experiences. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Maybe we should try first to see if we can find a common ground where we all agree on something.  Let me ask a couple of questions because I'm still fairly new here and I would like to understand the general feeling about EEVA: 

1) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to EAA/live stacking observations? 

2) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to Video Astronomy observations? 

 

I personally would say no.  How many people disagree on this?  Do you prefer to keep the "visual" badge also for EAA?  I'm asking this because I don't fully understand how/why the new name of this section. So we are are doing EAA/live stacking and we are calling this section of the forum Electronically Enhance Visual Astronomy? I think EAA can embrace both live stacking and video astronomy and I have no problem to admit that these observations are not "visual" in the "visual observation" sense but still genuine observations are.

Reading back at the start of the post I got the impression that probably everything was done to make things more inclusive to NV, which I think is a really cool technique. Asking the same question about "visual" and NV:

3) Do you want to associate the term "visual" to Night Vision?

I'm more likely to say, yes, but we can debate pro and cons. Nevertheless, given just the name "Night Vision" I would say, there is no doubt that NV can be considered way more visual than video or EAA, no? 

 

So if we split the concept of "visual" from "observation" I think we may have a way forward. My suggestion is to simply go more with a name like "Electronically Enhance Astronomy and Night Vision" . In this way, we are inclusive but also we keep the full identity of everyone and easy to find/search...

Also, last comment, EAA and NV have now picked up almost everywhere on the web and beyond so going with a different name like EEVA for everything may be also damaging. 

 

This is my personal view and I hope to have not offended and challenged anyone...

 

 

I appreciate the post. I consider all of it to be observing using different tools. I've always taken visual observing to be using an eyepiece.

[Buzzard75]

2 hours ago, cuivenion said:

I appreciate the post. I consider all of it to be observing using different tools. I've always taken visual observing to be using an eyepiece.

That's how I've come to understand it myself. I've also always assumed that NV fell into the EEA category as there is a screen and electronics involved. I just don't see the differentiation between it and video astronomy.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Buzzard75

[GavStar]

1 hour ago, Buzzard75 said:

That's how I've come to understand it myself. I've also always assumed that NV fell into the EEA category as there is a screen and electronics involved. I just don't see the differentiation between it and video astronomy.

I think one issue in this discussion is that there are so few people (particularly in the U.K.) that have actually looked through a top quality white phosphor manual gain NV eyepiece (and it is an eyepiece!). 

Those that have looked through one are stunned at how similar the experience is to a standard glass eyepiece (apart from you can see so much more). There are no wires, no computer screens, just a glass lens with plenty of eye relief to look through. The stars, nebulae, galaxies etc are white in colour, very sharp and very natural looking. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, when I took mine to a London astro meet a couple of months ago, no one suspected it was anything other than a normal glass eyepiece until they were told. The actual experience with NV is virtually identical to just using an eyepiece. 

It is very different to video astronomy.

Edited May 3, 2019 by GavStar

[SIDO]

17 minutes ago, GavStar said:

There are no wires, no computer screens, just a glass objective lens with plenty of eye relief to look through. 

Its just a highly advanced piece of military technology powered by electricity with circuts to control power used and for photon emitting and collection, just a glass objective lens is quite an understatement ?

[GavStar]

30 minutes ago, SIDO said:

Its just a highly advanced piece of military technology powered by electricity with circuts to control power used and for photon emitting and collection, just a glass objective lens is quite an understatement ?

Yes there is some sophisticated technology within the NV monocular ?.

What matters to me are the end results and the ‘feeling’ in use of being just like an eyepiece. I guess that was what I was trying to convey (not very well ?)

Edited May 3, 2019 by GavStar

[PeterW]

The usual measure of NV effectiveness is the expletive count when you first let someone see expansive nebulae or a profusion of stars. It’s analogue tech too, just some special materials and a voltage across them.

PEter

[Deflavio]

Well, at least with video astronomy, live stacking and NV we have so much choice and that’s the nice thing of this dynamic hobby ?

I’m sure we can debate more how NV fits inside or outside the general umbrella of EAA. However, to be honest if people doing NV feel they are doing more of a “pseudo”-visual approach... (with no negative connotation intended) well at this stage, I don’t have a problem with it or better I don’t think I should decide on that but that’s just me. 

Where I think things get confused is with this new general definition of EEVA... the term visual is not fitting for me with live stacking and video astronomy techniques and opens the door for more confusion about visual observations vs the broad meaning of observation.... is it just me or is this a common impression?

Edited May 3, 2019 by Deflavio

[GavStar]

7 hours ago, Ruud said:

For me, astronomical observing is seeing original photons with my own eyes.

Eeva is watching an image. That's fine, I like that too, but it's not observing. It's seeing photons that travelled mere centimetres. It's not the real thing.

I would love to show you the views through a white phosphor NV monocular attached to, say, a 4 inch refractor. It sure feels like the real thing to me. ?

[RobertI]

This may have been said before, but it seems that that much of the appeal of NV observing is the experience; the thrill of seeing the objects spectacularly revealed live through the eyepiece. The methods may be different to someone using a 20" dob and eyeball only, but the experience sounds very similar. For 'observing' using a separate camera and a laptop or screen, the experience is very different, less immediate, more detached, but with so many additional ways to analyse and study the objects - more like imaging, but still with the primary goal of seeing the object there and then on the night. I can see how, from an experience point of view, NV observers feel more at home in the observing reports section, and somewhat out if place in the EEVA section, possibly feeling that people have 'missed the point'  regarding NV observing?

Edited May 3, 2019 by RobertI

[shirva]

On 29/03/2019 at 09:23, Grant said:

The argument in all of this that resonates with me is the timing issue - have we made this change  before there is enough NVers to warrant their own section?

My concern though is will the NVers EVER want to have their own section or is this an idealogical issue whereby you will always want to be part of the purely visual observing sections regardless of how many NVers there are posting?

Hi grant.

Feel the pain ,lol

Well done sgl making positive changes to the forum,, been about a few years now since since pre digital cameras,, seen a lot of changes since then and been involved a bit as well with my own video astronomy forum .

gotto move with the change in equipment and techniques and sgl, vaf, cloudy nights have all had problems defining,, video Astronomy,, since the days of analogue,, a lot of equipment , cameras, techniques almost bridge the gap into astrophotography and visual these days in some shape or form

NV ,,yip true live Astronomy, most others have some type of intregration. 

Cloudy nights is the most used for NV and have had there fair share of debates on the issue,, when it wasn't looking to good ( Von) set up a NV  discussion board and filled it with great info on VAF but folk persevered on cloudy nights and seems to doing better which is good news for all because they bring a uniqueness to Astronomy,, gives a different perspective for folk to look at,, back when I started video Astronomy was in the same type of position,, the poor man's astrophotography,, we've came a long way from that,, lot of folk now bridge these Gap's and do several types of astronomy with the type of kit they have,, and good on them.

Used to get a bit heated up myself year's ago,, but as you get older,, you try and get wiser,,and it's good to debate issues as ,, name of a group,, let's be honest it's been called many different names in many different forums and websites,, and a lot of us still post in them.

NV is in it's infancy in the UK with a few like Peter leading the way,, well done sir,, I had a look at doing it myself but,, just couldn't justify the budget.

But it is coming on nicely as a part of UK Astronomy , as usual UK is a bit behind the USA in matters of Astronomy,, but we get on fine regardless.

Really folks it's not worth fussing over, do your Astronomy your way and enjoy it and pass on your findings to others.

This forum and others have a hard time trying to find the right balance,, it's a hobby and should be fun,, well apart from the weather.lol. 

Davy 

[saac]

On 03/05/2019 at 22:38, GavStar said:

I would love to show you the views through a white phosphor NV monocular attached to, say, a 4 inch refractor. It sure feels like the real thing to me. ?

I would love to see that. I honestly think that NV represents  a "disrupter" technology that will shape the amateur market in the decade ahead. I can't wait until prices start to fall.  The  video of the white phosphor NV in use (posted earlier) I thought was simply amazing. I wish I had one   Gav Star, if you ever find yourself up in Fife bring your NV kit and I will give you free bed and breakfast  

Jim  

Edited May 6, 2019 by saac