What's EEVA?!?

[Vondragonnoggin]

I just read through the whole thread here and wanted to sign up to give my own take on NV astronomy. Been posting about NV Astronomy for a few years now over on CN. Since the days when it was still just the Video Astronomy forum all before the EAA letters came into it and it was a sub forum of Equipment discussions.

 

Davy a few posts up was kind enough to create a whole section on VAF for me to fill up with information on NV Astronomy. I’ve invited folks over a bunch of times but it remains pretty stagnant since 2015 when I filled up a bunch of threads with info. Davy and Ken and the rest of the guys there are more than welcoming though, so I continue discussions on scopes and observing and all that. The EAA section at CN used to be real friendly to us NV Astronimers too, but lately learned some have left because they are tired of “NV” posts. Regular observing forums have gotten more friendly and admins have no issues with posts in Deep Sky, but some members still do as well as trying to suggest NV as an option in Beginners forum being still frowned upon over traditional “get a big reflector” advice or if you are going to be viewing in red/white zones you’ll see “get to dark skies or be limited to planetary, some globs and open clusters, and lunar and only the very brightest nebula”.

 

I'm in red/white zone (Bortle 7) and particularly lazy so NV was my choice to see more without having to pack up stuff and drive to dark skies.

I don’t know what the solution is overall, but can tell you that having dedicated sections on sites with less traffic won’t get much attention to posting or attracting members or more importantly, changing minds about NV being a valid observation tool. I think CN is saturated enough to get its own forum, particularly if we are making the camera EAA guys up and leave, but on the whole and particularly after a concerted effort to organize “Best of NV” threads to make them easy to find, I would hope it went back to camera and NV EAA users coexisting peacefully and joining each other’s discussions. I jump in camera EAA discussions still and used to more because I just picked up the process being used by reading the threads and getting familiar with some of the tech. We are all just trying to see more in various ways whether live with NV or near real-time with a camera. I still use my regular eyepieces frequently too. I like planetary still and NV is no good on bright objects like lunar and planetary.

what I’ve seen though, and it’s natural to want to do this, is that members that just grab on to EAA camera or EAA NV, get pretty excited about seeing things they never thought possible previously without getting huge telescopes or requiring the darkest skies and they want to “shout it from the rooftops” to others or be able to suggest it as an alternative to “get a bigger scope and drive to darker skies” and traditional method astronomy practitioners see it as “bragging”.

It doesn’t matter if the same behavior happens when they themselves upgrade to larger scopes or dominate the Deep Sky forums because they have giant dobs. That of course is not “bragging”. It’s a double standard that persists to this day on most forums. 

I don’t know how to solve it, but I rarely post in Deep Sky anymore. I stick to EAA forum or sites like VAF where it wouldn’t matter because we call everything Video Astronomy over there pretty much, even if the term doesn’t specifically fit the tech.

I continue to make small mentions of NV equipment where I deem it appropriate and not dominating my suggestions. I mix it up with traditional equipment suggestions and NV suggestions and (because I chose to participate in camera EAA threads so much) some camera EAA suggestions. If someone has a tracking scope and limited budget that falls short of the more expensive NV offerings, I suggest EAA with a camera.

I don’t even use tracking mounts myself but I know that that is a pretty easy switch for a lot of folks that already have a tracking mount and want to start on a budget in EAA. Used NV or older, but capable devices is viable too.

I guess the point is that I’d like to see all forms start being inclusionary of each other’s observations but let’s all be aware of practicality of other posters budgets, experience, and attitudes and maybe no desire to try EAA as well. It doesn’t have to be for everyone, but if someone is interested then providing information is essential. No visibility of it because it gets relegated to subforums way down the list of visible forums when you log in a site, is not the best way to make it known that there is another method available.

 

Anyway - I’ve technically stopped lurking this forum now which I’ve done for years on occasion and wanted to put in my thoughts on your new designation and split to include an observing section. Great job on trying to include everyone. Hard to please everyone and particularly with new methods. I’ve seen a lot drop out of EAA on CN and that includes NV users. We are still only a large handful. Some don’t want to post in a special section and I just find them in Observing forums. As long as the admins there continue to enforce inclusivity, we are good.

[R26 oldtimer]

7 hours ago, Vondragonnoggin said:

We are all just trying to see more in various ways whether live with NV or near real-time with a camera. I still use my regular eyepieces frequently too.

 

7 hours ago, Vondragonnoggin said:

that members that just grab on to EAA camera or EAA NV, get pretty excited about seeing things they never thought possible previously without getting huge telescopes or requiring the darkest skies and they want to “shout it from the rooftops” to others or be able to suggest it as an alternative to “get a bigger scope and drive to darker skies” and traditional method astronomy practitioners see it as “bragging”. 

Couldn't have said it better, you 've just nailed it!

[shirva]

Yeah great post Von..

Due to wanting to understand more on NV Astronomy and to increase awareness I've purchased an old gen 1 cascade tube and with tips and pointers from Von,, I hope to try it myself.

No way can I afford the latest gear and I know the kit I will be using is old school and donkeys old,, but it's worth a go..

I'm going to 3d print bits n bods to make up a useable set up..I will be honest I want to do it with a camera and hope to use a watec 902h ,, most oldies will know this as a very sensitive camera,

Hopefully it will work it's self out,,and a bit of Vons help 😂

[Fraunhoffer]

I got back into astronomy about 6 months ago after giving up in the 70's and 80's with a wobbly scope, not knowing what to look at  and not seeing anything anyway when I did try to look..
Strangely my interest was re-awaked after taking a photo of the sky one night with a small Sony zoom  camera (HX90) and capturing a grainy image of M31 from the back garden. I couldn't see it through my old binos at the time. A few nights later I tried the double cluster In Perseus and captured that again.
After that I bought a second hand scope and an out of fashion DSLR and you can probably guess the rest.
My preference is to actually see things myself although what I have discovered is that  quite often the camera is much more sensitive than my eyes in picking up fainter objects from the garden and enables me to visualise objects that I just cant see with my eyes (other than to pack the car and drive for an hour away from west London).

Whilst I have taken a few picture sets and spent hours stacking them and then refining them in various photo editors, I would rather be out under the stars.
I was recently thrilled to 'see' the Owl Nebula on the laptop screen after a couple of minutes live stacking. Something that was just invisible in the scope.

I suppose the conclusion of my waffle here is to say the EEVA, or whatever anyone wants to call it, has helped me regain an interest in an old hobby of mine, actually  find things and be able to either see them with my eye ball or enhance my experience by developing a more detailed image there and then on the laptop.

I have a little GPcam that rides piggy back with a telephoto  lens and is available toi me should I feel the need.  Or, sometimes I just use the small screen on the back of the DSLR after  a longer single exposure.

Pleased to b here.
 

[shirva]

On 29/03/2019 at 06:05, nicoscy said:

Being an admin on CN, I can only offer my perspective here as a member of SGL. 

NV is part of the broad electronically assisted astronomy theme, but in a different sense. It is purely visual real time (not near real time) observing. The use of an additional piece of gear that enhances light is akin to adding a Hb filter to see more detail on say NGC 7000. 

NV and traditional EAA (the second using a camera to either allow one image to form over the course of a few seconds, or stack images for a period of time to observe it) are thus completely different. One is truly real time observing, the other involves a more complicated setup and is not real time observing (I do both "regular" observing with eyepieces as well as traditional EAA).

SGL has 3 observers with NV gear at present. I do understand the admins wishing to create a separate section for EAA / EEVA, but NVers consider what they do as visual observing (which it is). So, they feel right at home discussing their observations in the observing subforums of SGL. Perhaps a separate NV observing subforum under the observing forum umbrella would be an adequate compromise to all?

Admittedly, at CN we are still working on trying to find a proper balance that will keep most people happy....

Nearly up to four now, lol.

I'm an admin on video astronomy forum and an ordinary member on here and CN, and it's great to get a variety of different ways of doing the hobby,, I only recently started looking more into it due to discussion on here, Vonnoggindragon has been keeping me right

[MilwaukeeLion]

#trendsetter

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/257914-gen-1-night-vision-anyone-use-finding-faintest-of-stars/

[PeterW]

#late to the party 

I joined  the green side a few years earlier. Good to see you’ve had success.

PEter

[saac]

On 14/05/2019 at 13:24, Vondragonnoggin said:

 

what I’ve seen though, and it’s natural to want to do this, is that members that just grab on to EAA camera or EAA NV, get pretty excited about seeing things they never thought possible previously without getting huge telescopes or requiring the darkest skies and they want to “shout it from the rooftops” to others or be able to suggest it as an alternative to “get a bigger scope and drive to darker skies” and traditional method astronomy practitioners see it as “bragging”.

It doesn’t matter if the same behavior happens when they themselves upgrade to larger scopes or dominate the Deep Sky forums because they have giant dobs. That of course is not “bragging”. It’s a double standard that persists to this day on most forums. 

Without being disrespectful and I mean that sincerely but this type of stuff just makes me cringe  - I really cannot get excited about people getting emotional or defensive about their particular way of doing something. Likewise whether we should have dedicated forums or not or call it visual or assisted or whatever - for crying out loud it's a hobby. You do it because you enjoy doing it -  If somebody swears by standing buck naked with their head in a tea pot , left foot in a bowl of custard, whistling Dixie and observing through the spout afocal good for them. Do what works for you and don't feel the need to put a badge on it - life is way to short for that  folks.

For what it is worth I'd use  NV  at the drop of a hat if I could afford it , I also do visual and astrophotography have dabbled in spectroscopy and naked eye and I have on occasion (many) just stood and marvelled at the impenetrable blanket of grey cloud. Never once did I feel like putting a name to it, I did it for fun and because I wanted to. 

Jim 

[Dave Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

  If somebody swears by standing buck naked with their head in a tea pot , left foot in a bowl of custard, whistling Dixie and observing through the spout afocal good for them. 

Have you been spying on me? 

[saac]

Just now, Dave Lloyd said:

Have you been spying on me? 

Secret handshake time Dave , we are in the same club  

Jim 

[Mackem]

Well there's an hour of my life I'm never getting back. 😂

I've read it all so feel obligated to comment.  

And the glenfiddich told me too.

I came in to learn what eeva was, thinking, as being new here start from the beginning. 

Took me quite sometime to realise nv was  night vision, confirmed  a few posts later by a helpful contributor. 

Yes I waded through it all.

As an ex admin on a footy forum I have to say I was impressed with the restraint, (and lack of anglo Saxon.) 

We always had 1 or 2 posters insisting on posting in the wrong forum.

No one got banned,  but eventually they would end up on everyone else's block list and posting to each other not realising no one else could see their posts.😉

And no I'm not saying anything like that should happen on this happy site.

No matter what the hassle surely it has to be majority rule?

Visual observing is not my cup of tea, that was one of my main reasons for not continuing when I was younger. 

To be honest visual observers impress me, their patience and dedication  and only a written note or sketch to remind them of good seeing. 

Now with all the fantastic electronic equipment available and turning into a night owl as I get older, I'm back with a passion and raring to go.

As for NV surely a sub forum in eeva is the way to go?

It's electronic and I would get to it eventually as it sounds interesting. 

I wouldn't even know about it if it were only in the observer's section.

Or this extremely long thread.

No offence meant to anyone 😎

Lifes too short as it is. 

Barry 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Mackem

[GavStar]

Here's an update on the current position of Night Vision Astronomy (or NV as frequently referred to in this thread)

The biggest news is probably that earlier this year Televue launched a full night vision proposition including the night vision monoculars themselves as shown on this link

http://televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=36

This has prompted a surge in interest in NV in the USA and there are now around 100 users of NV astro gear in the States. As a result, this week CloudyNights has launched a specialist "Night Vision Astronomy" section on its forum (in the Equipment section) and therefore has separated NV completely away from the EAA section in which most NV posts were previously made. CN has recognised that NV is very different in its practical use than EAA, in particular being much more similar to traditional glass eyepiece observing in feel, and has little cross-pollination of ideas with EAA users.

Unfortunately the Televue system is not available to non-USA observers due to US law, although the various adapters can be separately purchased by UK residents which I what I did.

For European residents who wish to purchase night vision astronomy kit, the best place is probably a new French company that specialises in night vision astronomy as per the link below:

https://www.ovni-nightvision.com/en/

The UK dealer for ovni is astrograph.net. This european option is more expensive than the US products (as so often is the case), but ovni do also sell second-hand units which are considerably lower cost.

I purchased my first NV monocular in late 2017 and it has been by far the best astro purchase I have made. For an indication of what night vision astronomy is like, here are some previous posts I have made. Unfortunately, since the EEVA section was setup 15 months ago there have been very few night vision astro posts on SGL.

 

[iapa]

<Phew>

Long read, and I’ve learnt some things. Certainly about what NV (Night Vision) is, but not what it isn’t 😪, however, I’d never have found out without this forum.

The main things is everyone is “observing” in some form 😉(references below ).

This has been a very polite exchange of ideas and opinions.

Here is a summary of my understanding of what I read.

MK I eyeball (has anyone seen the MK II yet?) is a common component.

What we are working with is:

1. MK I alone
2. a lens/telescope* with MK1.
3. a lens/telescope with some electronics and a screen, MK 1.
4. a lens/telescope with a camera and recording option, plus MK 1.

• 1. & 2. do not seem to be optimised for future reference, e.g recording what is entering the telescope.
• 2. provides additional photons to reach the MK I
• 3. allows you to look back at previous observations. Although 2. Can be used with, say a mobile phone to record an image
• Using option3. Allows multiple images to be combined to provide even more detail from the observation.

I wonder if there is benefit of taking, e.g a video, from an NV device and combining the frames?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/observation

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/observation

* I include binoculars here

 

[PeterW]

NV gives you more than Mk1, though most noticeably due to the wider sensitivity and deep red sensitivity compared to Mk1. Gav has shown that you can get “eyeball” equivalent images using a phone. If you wanted to stack images then you might as well just get a CMOS camera as their sensitivity is pretty amazing and just image.

NV gives an “instant” view and removes the faff/need for a tracking mount. Some people like taking pictures; others just experiencing the view, depends what you’re looking to achieve. 
There are certainly plenty of options nowadays.

 

Peter

[iapa]

24 minutes ago, PeterW said:

NV gives you more than Mk1, though most noticeably due to the wider sensitivity and deep red sensitivity compared to Mk1. Gav has shown that you can get “eyeball” equivalent images using a phone. If you wanted to stack images then you might as well just get a CMOS camera as their sensitivity is pretty amazing and just image.

NV gives an “instant” view and removes the faff/need for a tracking mount. Some people like taking pictures; others just experiencing the view, depends what you’re looking to achieve. 
There are certainly plenty of options nowadays.

 

Peter

That’s what I was trying to say, you get more with option 3. As I say, I’m still lacking on knowledge on using Night Vision astronomy, but looking further at it. I understand the underlying principles of night vision devices, just need to look at the implementation in more details.

It can’t be that much of an expensive thing in the astronomy hobby, but, I said that when I got my first mount and telescope with eye pieces.

I generally fall into the 4th option, but also use a near real time stacking application to see the image build up over time while I am making an series of images with a CMOS.

A free there’s loads of options, and more seem to be appearing as time passed. 

There’s also the massive improvements in the relevant history technologies.

 

PS I has a quick look at some stuff Gav posted elsewhere. Impressive stuff.

Edited March 14, 2021 by iapa

[Highburymark]

21 hours ago, iapa said:

<Phew>

Long read, and I’ve learnt some things. Certainly about what NV (Night Vision) is, but not what it isn’t 😪, however, I’d never have found out without this forum.

The main things is everyone is “observing” in some form 😉(references below ).

This has been a very polite exchange of ideas and opinions.

Here is a summary of my understanding of what I read.

MK I eyeball (has anyone seen the MK II yet?) is a common component.

What we are working with is:

1. MK I alone
2. a lens/telescope* with MK1.
3. a lens/telescope with some electronics and a screen, MK 1.
4. a lens/telescope with a camera and recording option, plus MK 1.

• 1. & 2. do not seem to be optimised for future reference, e.g recording what is entering the telescope.
• 2. provides additional photons to reach the MK I
• 3. allows you to look back at previous observations. Although 2. Can be used with, say a mobile phone to record an image
• Using option3. Allows multiple images to be combined to provide even more detail 

 

Just one clarification - NV is exactly like looking through a normal eyepiece - it doesn’t record anything unless you add a camera, as Gavin has done. Wasn’t sure if that was something you were suggesting with point 3 - allowing you to look back at previous observations?

[DrMike]

On 22/10/2019 at 12:20, saac said:

Without being disrespectful and I mean that sincerely but this type of stuff just makes me cringe  - I really cannot get excited about people getting emotional or defensive about their particular way of doing something. Likewise whether we should have dedicated forums or not or call it visual or assisted or whatever - for crying out loud it's a hobby. You do it because you enjoy doing it -  If somebody swears by standing buck naked with their head in a tea pot , left foot in a bowl of custard, whistling Dixie and observing through the spout afocal good for them. Do what works for you and don't feel the need to put a badge on it - life is way to short for that  folks.

For what it is worth I'd use  NV  at the drop of a hat if I could afford it , I also do visual and astrophotography have dabbled in spectroscopy and naked eye and I have on occasion (many) just stood and marvelled at the impenetrable blanket of grey cloud. Never once did I feel like putting a name to it, I did it for fun and because I wanted to. 

Jim 

Perfectly said! My thoughts completely.

[Deadlake]

On 19/02/2022 at 14:25, DrMike said:

Perfectly said! My thoughts completely.

Well that is the point. Burying visual observations using a NV eyepiece in EEVA means no one never gets to read about it.

In the end given SGL’s approach I use CN for NV based discussions.

[saac]

Note quite , there is a search function and most people will trawl through threads opening what is of interest to them.  I seriously doubt there are many regulars on SGL who are not familiar with the concept of using NV.  A dedicated section I suspect would make little if any difference to hit rate; this has been discussed quite widely in the past.

Jim

Edited March 27, 2022 by saac

[GavStar]

On 27/03/2022 at 21:34, saac said:

Note quite , there is a search function and most people will trawl through threads opening what is of interest to them.  I seriously doubt there are many regulars on SGL who are not familiar with the concept of using NV.  A dedicated section I suspect would make little if any difference to hit rate; this has been discussed quite widely in the past.

Jim

I think the key point is that since the changes were introduced 3 years ago, night vision posts have really dried up on sgl. It seems like most Uk nv users do now solely post on cloudynights and nv astronomy Facebook groups, so there is little in the way of new nv info on sgl to search and find now.

Edited March 29, 2022 by GavStar

[Deadlake]

On 27/03/2022 at 21:34, saac said:

Note quite , there is a search function and most people will trawl through threads opening what is of interest to them.  I seriously doubt there are many regulars on SGL who are not familiar with the concept of using NV.  A dedicated section I suspect would make little if any difference to hit rate; this has been discussed quite widely in the past.

Jim

As an NV newbie I would disagree.

NVD based observations really belong in visual DSO section, not in their present location.

If you are going to move NVD to a different section out of DSO then observers using OIII filters should not be posting there...

[Stu]

36 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

As an NV newbie I would disagree.

NVD based observations really belong in visual DSO section, not in their present location.

If you are going to move NVD to a different section out of DSO then observers using OIII filters should not be posting there...

This topic has been done to death really.

Comparing an OIII filter with NV is not valid. One is a passive filter, accessible to most observers who want to push their observing skills further, still requiring the same skills of dark adaptation and averted vision.

NV is a hugely expensive, active light amplifier available to very few which, whilst it does feel like observing when you are doing it, does not require the same observing skills or patience to see objects so should be discussed in a separate section.

For me it is highly confusing seeing NV posts not clearly marked as such in amongst regular observing reports; it gives inexperienced people the wrong idea of what is and isn’t visible through standard observing techniques. 

I suspect the true reason for CN being a more relevant place to post is that NV is much more accessible in the US and so there is a far larger base of users to engage in discussions making it more likely to result is active threads. Last time I checked there were probably less than ten NV Astro users in the U.K. so finding each other in the EEVA section should be easy I think?

I’ve nothing against NV, in fact I’ve enjoyed viewing through Gavin’s kit on a number of occasions and would welcome the chance to do so again (if he will let me after this post 😉). It just gives massive improvements in object visibility particularly nebulae so should be part of a different discussion in order to be clear.

[Deadlake]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Comparing an OIII filter with NV is not valid. One is a passive filter, accessible to most observers who want to push their observing skills further, still requiring the same skills of dark adaptation and averted vision.

I think it's really to the point in that they (OIII and an NVD) are tools which allow an observer to highlight/view different frequencies of light.

The NVD allows viewing in the infra-red. Also good for use on gas planets for viewing Methane with the correct filter.

I'm not quite sure where the differences in skills is used to make a choice about visual observation, an NVD is really a contrast booster to give you a dark site in your back yard (i.e. to deal with light pollution) it is not to do with using different observation skills.

I do disagree NVD is technically difficult.

It's more on the AP side of things from an instrument point of view, e.g. astrograph type telescopes and also takes a lot of theory since you can observer into the infra red spectrum not the visible which is one of the main differences.

I can understand confusion around DSO, which is why I suggested it was H-Alpha observation. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Deadlake

[Stu]

19 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

I think it's really to the point in that they (OIII and an NVD) are tools which allow an observer to highlight/view different frequencies of light.

The NVD allows viewing in the infra-red. 

I'm not quite sure where the differences in skills is used to make a choice about visual observation, an NVD is really a contrast booster to give you a dark site in your back yard (i.e. to deal with light pollution) it is not to do with using different observation skills.

I do disagree NVD is not technically difficult.

It's more on the AP side of things from an instrument point of view, e.g. astrograph type telescopes and also takes a lot of theory since you can observer into the infra red spectrum not the visible which is one of the main differences.

I can understand confusion around DSO, which is why I suggested it was H-Alpha observation. 

You have missed the point of my post and ignored some of the relevant topics.

As said, an OIII filter is a commonly used optical filter which retains the need for normal visual observing skills so form part of the same discussion as those without an OIII filter; they enhance observations, don’t dramatically transform them.

NV does dramatically transform observations, you don’t need averted vision or dark adaptation to observe with it, objects are just visible straight away, and it brings a huge number of invisible objects into play which just aren’t visible through traditional observational techniques, including in Ha as you say. As an example of the confusion, I’ve seen references to ‘bright Supernova’ posted in the observing section when they are mag 17 or so, making a mockery of what is possible through visual observing. For these reasons it makes much more sense to discuss them separately.

Observing with NV is not technically difficult in any way. Putting together an NV setup IS technically challenging and needs plenty of research and knowledge to achieve good results.

NV is likely to remain a very niche part of the hobby for a long time to come due to the cost, so I don’t understand why it is difficult to post up reports in the EEVA section and find them. I view the most recent posts on the forum so see a wide cross section of different subjects, not just those that I look out for. That’s how I found this!

[PeterW]

….. only a tiny bit into the infrared….. you can see the moon in thermal infrared but not a lot more…. Crap resolution cameras/lenses.

As long as people understand the location, equipment, light pollution etc of an observation then they can make of it what they want/need to. Hearing how things appear in different situations is great. NV is little different from using a huge dobsonian in being “different from what the average amateur” has. I like posts from people “doing things differently”, it’s how we find out new things.

 

Peter