Sky at Night, Monday 12th

[Steve Ward]

31 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

You are a harsh lot 🤣

I thought it was pretty good. In fact the bits about Pete L were a fine tribute to the man. Loved seeing his scopes set up in his garden, especially his Tak Epsilon 130

I have great respect for Pete , but this was not supposed to be a PL tribute show  ... from as esteemed an astrophotographer as he is I expected more that's all ... 🙄

[Franklin]

Worth watching just to see Prof Chris Lintott back in the day, he looked about 10 🤣.

[saac]

40 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

You are a harsh lot 🤣

I thought it was pretty good. In fact the bits about Pete L were a fine tribute to the man. Loved seeing his scopes set up in his garden, especially his Tak Epsilon 130

I tend to agree. Not sure we are core intended target audience for the Sky at Night and especially on a topic of Astrophotography so some of the expectations here are always going to be mismatched to the program aims, to inform, educate and entertain. Overall, I personally enjoyed it. Highlights for me included the overview of the Multi Object Optical and Near Infra Red Spectrograph for the VLT (MOONS). It was a great exposition of the optical fibre positioning system, fascinating seeing the partly assembled component. I have in my possession one of the drilled metal fibre positioning plates used by the SLOAN digital sky survey. It is almost a piece of art in its own right, so it was good to see the technology in MOONS that has overtaken this to allow greater capacity and efficiency in this surveying technique. Watching the optical fibres move independently of each other looked very much like some sort of alien insect with a thousand eyes!  As always, Maggie's sense of excitement and insight, given her professional engineering background, was infectious, she is perfect for this type of interview.  I also enjoyed Pete's and Chris' reaction when confronted by their younger selves when reviewing the archive footage; priceless! The interview with Pete Lewis was also refreshing and would I believe encourage people who perhaps have never attempted any form of astrophotography to have a go.  Overall thoroughly enjoyable, more of the same please Sky At Night Team, great effort. 

Jim 

[Debo]

Good episode. 👍

[markse68]

I enjoyed it  Did Takahashi go out of their way to make a telescope so ugly it’s cool? 

Mark

[DaveS]

While accepting that we are not the intended audience I really did think that they missed an opportunity to show how people could get into AP without spending a fortune. There was far too much time spent looking at old clips and photos from the archive rather than actual AP.

Dr Becky did a much better job in less time when she showed how to do smartphone AP when she was on holiday in teh Maldives.

[russ]

As a non imager I enjoyed it. Had it been in depth how to take a photo I would have probably switched off.

[malc-c]

Just watched it on catch up.  Have to agree with the others, it was a golden opportunity to cover a lot of the questions that are asked here on the forum.  They could have covered the advances in equipment, such as the portable trackers, and demonstrated how to use it.  They covered the use of mobile phones, so why not show one set up with a suitable bracket rather than just talk about it.  They also could have shown the use of web cameras, and then moved on to dSLR cameras, eventually showing a setup with a dedicated cooled camera.   It could still have included the section on the professional equipment, but that could have been a lot shorter, as could the section where they looked back at Pete's journey with the S@N team.

Granted, it could have gone the other way and been too nerdy, causing people to turn off, especially if they included post processing of data, but it is a specialist programmed aimed at everyone from the casual interest observer to the dedicated armature interested in astronomy, most of which would / could be interested in the technical side.

 

[DaveS]

Yes, nothing like enough time given to amateur AP.

They could have started with a smartphone, then put it on a tracker, possibly also bringing in a DSLR and std lens on a tracker. This would have been the point to introduce the idea of multiple subs and stacking, while still keeping it simple.

Then move on to the cooled CMOS cameras starting with OSC, and mention (But don't elaborate) mono and LRGB or NB imaging, perhaps with examples of HST palette images, plus how and why they are made.

A dire warning should also be given that AP can be a) addictive, and b) a money pit. You start out with a smartphone on a tracker, and before you know what's happening you're drooling over big triplet apos, and mainlining Astrodon filters .

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

54 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Yes, nothing like enough time given to amateur AP.

They could have started with a smartphone, then put it on a tracker, possibly also bringing in a DSLR and std lens on a tracker. This would have been the point to introduce the idea of multiple subs and stacking, while still keeping it simple.

Then move on to the cooled CMOS cameras starting with OSC, and mention (But don't elaborate) mono and LRGB or NB imaging, perhaps with examples of HST palette images, plus how and why they are made.

A dire warning should also be given that AP can be a) addictive, and b) a money pit. You start out with a smartphone on a tracker, and before you know what's happening you're drooling over big triplet apos, and mainlining Astrodon filters .

Dave you lost me after "CMOS"...😁

Why don't you write in, tweet the producers, or whatever preferred method you wish, and request a multi episode series on ap? Who knows what they have in the pipeline. Maybe something like you suggest is already planned?

It's worth a go..?

[catburglar]

2 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Why don't you write in, tweet the producers, or whatever preferred method you wish, and request a multi episode series on ap? Who knows what they have in the pipeline. Maybe something like you suggest is already planned?

That’s not a bad suggestion…. Clearly some on this forum thought they pitched it about right and others felt it was a missed opportunity…so we should take the opportunity to give some constructive feedback…

They’ll never be able to cover all of the details, but something that’s enough to draw new people in would be a good start and like @DaveS I think a bit more explanation of what you need to do to get the image would give people somewhere useful to start from.
 

I think a star trails photo is more impressive than the planetary conjunction shots of Pete’s that they showed...and it’s not rocket science to produce one, then move on to star tracker+DSLR or alt-az scope+webcam- doesn’t need to be super detailed- just the kit that you need, how to focus and do the capture plus some pointers on how to align and stack etc…

The minute anyone starts to describe their workflow in PixInsight I’ll be a gonner too, so I’d hope they wouldn’t go that far!

PS: I don’t normally knock the show- generally I quite enjoy it, but this seemed like such a missed opportunity I couldn’t help myself but chime in here. I’ll get off my soap box now…

[Macavity]

Just watched this - "So you don't have to"? lol! Uhm "Fair enough", I thought?
For me, the idea of scientists (Amateur OR Pro) doing the talking - "Warts and
All" is great! And, if someone is REALLY interested, they can "follow it up"?  😎

Sometimes, there will be people who take up Amateur astronomy, because
"the wife tells them they need a hobby"... And, sometimes "inate geniuses"!
But such programs are also a prompt to Search the Internet... Read BOOKS?
There is ultimately (fairly so?) a bit of "Darwinian Selection" re. Astronomy! 🤡

++1 for Maggie (A-P!) regarding his "Dichroic Filters"? "Atta Girl Scientist"! 🥳
 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Macavity

[DaveS]

4 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Dave you lost me after "CMOS"...😁

Why don't you write in, tweet the producers, or whatever preferred method you wish, and request a multi episode series on ap? Who knows what they have in the pipeline. Maybe something like you suggest is already planned?

It's worth a go..?

I don't think there's any need to go as far as a series on AP, but if you have a program that is advertised as being about AP, then I would have thought that showing non imagers how they could get into AP without spending a fortune, or heading down the rabbit hole would be part of the program.

Might be nice to occasionally showcase viewers photos / images though.

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

20 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I don't think there's any need to go as far as a series on AP, but if you have a program that is advertised as being about AP, then I would have thought that showing non imagers how they could get into AP without spending a fortune, or heading down the rabbit hole would be part of the program.

Might be nice to occasionally showcase viewers photos / images though.

Dave, "a fortune" is very subjective though really? A decent Star Tracker, tripod, camera, dew prevention and laptop to process images is how much? The next step up, for instance a 130PDS, camera, filters, mount, power supply etc is how much?

Bringing on someone on with a smart phone who's produced images of night scapes and the Orion nebula is surely the first step onto the ladder? I would think showing climbing that ladder to more sophisticated kit would take more time (and likely money) per episode than the team have at their disposal?

[DaveS]

Well, I did suggest that the first step above hand holding a smartphone and hoping for the best would be to put it on a star tracker. For some people this might be as far as they want to go. Though if they already have a DSLR / Mirrorless then that would be a good step up.

Processing could be DSS and GIMP, both of which are free. I would have thought that most folks have the odd laptop kicking around for basic processing. No need to buy a powerhouse PC to run PI.

[saac]

Can't help but think there is enough content available on the likes of YouTube to satisfy a lifetime of curiosity on "how to" start astrophotography, do we really need to add to the noise? BBC's remit is a bit wider than providing instructional videos. 

Jim 

[catburglar]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

Can't help but think there is enough content available on the likes of YouTube to satisfy a lifetime of curiosity on "how to" start astrophotography, do we really need to add to the noise? BBC's remit is a bit wider than providing instructional videos. 

Jim 

True- there’s lots of content available online, so why do we have any TV programming at all? Surely part of the goal of programmes like Sky at Night  is to inform, educate & inspire?

Irrespective of what the content could have been, most of the broadcast material was barely relevant to the purported subject of the show.

Showing a photo of M31 which led to the discovery of cepheid stars which led to an appreciation of the true scale of the universe says more about astrophysics and cosmology than astrophotography.

The MOONS device is actually a tool for spectroscopy not astrophotography.

Twilight photos of a crescent moon are barely astrophotography (in much the same way that a daytime photo which includes the sun in the frame is not really astrophotography)

Clips of star parties at Sir Patrick’s house have nothing to do with astrophotography….oh no, wait a minute, somebody was taking a photograph so we can include it in the show…

Generally, I like the show and am pleased that there’s something astro related still being broadcast…but in this case I was disappointed because it wasn’t what I’d expected to see…

Sometimes it’s good to get something unexpected, but not (for me at least) in this case.

[wookie1965]

I would of liked more information on smartphone astrophotography I can take good pictures of the sun but at night I cannot get anything. 

Tried Saturn and Jupiter the other night no joy again. 

[catburglar]

1 hour ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Dave, "a fortune" is very subjective though really? A decent Star Tracker, tripod, camera, dew prevention and laptop to process images is how much? The next step up, for instance a 130PDS, camera, filters, mount, power supply etc is how much?

Pete L had a large SCT and Tak Epsilon on show in his garden, both on equatorial mounts-  a low cost entry into astrophotography?

The smartphone was a good start…but he had a telescope to take the picture of M42…we’ve got no idea what sort of scope it was, could’ve been a cheap’n’cheerful, could’ve been a questar…

The issue with this programme was not about affordability it was about useful information- and in this case there was almost nothing useful.
I suspect most people actively engaged in astronomy learned nothing about astrophotography and most people who knew little to nothing about astronomy or astrophotography learned almost nothing about that would get them started…apart from the fact that they may be able to do it with a smartphone.

[saac]

1 hour ago, catburglar said:

True- there’s lots of content available online, so why do we have any TV programming at all? Surely part of the goal of programmes like Sky at Night  is to inform, educate & inspire?

Irrespective of what the content could have been, most of the broadcast material was barely relevant to the purported subject of the show.

Showing a photo of M31 which led to the discovery of cepheid stars which led to an appreciation of the true scale of the universe says more about astrophysics and cosmology than astrophotography.

The MOONS device is actually a tool for spectroscopy not astrophotography.Twilight photos of a crescent moon are barely astrophotography (in much the same way that a daytime photo which includes the sun in the frame is not really astrophotography)

 

I think we will just have to disagree on this one catburgular. Perhaps with, exception, albeit minor modification,  of the BBC's remit: to inform, educate and entertain.  I think it certainly did that.  As for MOONs and spectroscopy, I think one does not need to stretch understanding much to accept spectroscopy as a form of astrophotography in the widest sense. In the program narrative a  distinction was made, a fairly inclusive one , explaining astrophotography output in terms of both the purely aesthetic and scientific product. Spectroscopy falls into the latter and is certainly a product of photography and hence astrophotography. The inclusion of the MOONS camera and fibre positioning system was certainly informative and educational and a welcome insight into the professional domain of astronomy.   Your own exclusion of shots of "crescent moon and  sun" from astrophotography perhaps just highlights the problem in producing a programme and managing expectations from a forum such as SGL with practitioners of 10 years plus on the subject!  The Sky at Night draws on a rich history of providing a top level overview, I can't think of any occasion where it sought to produce an in depth review of a particular topic. To inform, to educate and to entertain, yes for me anyway, it did that. 

Jim 

(https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/mission#:~:text=Our mission is "to act,inform%2C educate and entertain".)

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by saac

[DaveS]

1 hour ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Dave, "a fortune" is very subjective though really? A decent Star Tracker, tripod, camera, dew prevention and laptop to process images is how much? The next step up, for instance a 130PDS, camera, filters, mount, power supply etc is how much?

Bringing on someone on with a smart phone who's produced images of night scapes and the Orion nebula is surely the first step onto the ladder? I would think showing climbing that ladder to more sophisticated kit would take more time (and likely money) per episode than the team have at their disposal?

For some people even a smartphone with a halfway decent camera might be a "fortune".

[DaveS]

I too found the "MOONS" segment irrelevant to the program, it's something that could have been included in a program about advances in astrophysics.

[catburglar]

@saac I too was informed by the piece on MOONS…but I think it is a stretch too far to think of it as photography…In much the same way that a sketch I make at the eyepiece of my telescope is not astrophotography- yet in both cases we’ve used a device to capture photons from a distant object, processed them in some way and made some sort of pictorial representation of them on some medium that can be viewed by others and interpreted from either (or both) a scientific and aesthetic perspective.

Edited September 14, 2022 by catburglar
Typos corrected

[saac]

10 minutes ago, catburglar said:

@saac I too was informed by the piece on MOONS…but I think it is a stretch too far to think of it as photography…In much the same way that a sketch I make at the eyepiece of my telescope is not astrophotography- yet in both cases we’ve used a device to capture photons from a distant object, processed them in some way and made some sort of pictorial representation of them on some medium that can be viewed by others an interpreted from either (or both) a scientific or aesthetic perspective.

Well nobody ever claimed sketching was photography. Photography means to draw with light to render a persistent image.  I'm happy to accept spectroscopy in that category, I don't think anybody does spectroscopy now other than photographing the output. Like I said I was happy with the program.  I can't see Sky At Night ever producing a program other than to appeal to the broadest of viewers and to be honest I think that is what it excels at. 

Jim 

Edited September 14, 2022 by saac

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

43 minutes ago, DaveS said:

For some people even a smartphone with a halfway decent camera might be a "fortune".

I totally agree.

However, these days in the UK even very poor working class kids own or have access to a smart phone good enough to set a three second exposure and take a picture of the night sky.

Astronomy should be accessible to everyone, whatever their means and the segment discussed showed how easy it is to get started with an item of technology one does not need to buy for just one purpose.