3.01
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
One can go buy a 533mc pro, a quad band filter, a redcat 51, asi air pro, zwo autofocuser, a guide camera (120) and an am3 mount for a pretty affordable price and get imaging in their backyard with very minimal fuss. No balancing, no ASCOM, no drivers. Just connect everything together and open up your mobile phone and connect to the ASI AIR. are we going to start saying people embracing this plug and play astrophotography aren't real? with a little practice, they can trade up to a 533mm and some small filters and an EFW or graduate to a 2600mm and keep the same redcat and mount... it just works. day in day out, all you have to do is wheel it out, put the fork in the same spot you used last time, point towards polaris and let it rip. and its only getting easier You can get iso's for linux astro distros and NINA really simplifies things but requires a little more on the software side (with a lot more flexibility) |
5.72
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Ashraf AbuSara: Well said. |
5.61
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Byron Miller: Apparently you did not actually read and comprehend my post! How am I "gatekeeping" by stating a fact? That fact is that an "imager" is someone who takes images (and in most cases processes them). A "processor" is someone who processes images. If you just download data and process it you are clearly the latter and equally clearly not the former. You are putting words in my mouth that were never there. The simple fact is that the more of the total work involved in making a image that one does, the more credit they deserve and the less they do, they less credit they deserve. In fact, in the old days there were folks that built their own cameras (look up Richard Berry and "cookbook camera") and many do still build their own scopes and a (very) few even their own mounts. Lots do some level of software. They too deserve more credit that the average imager and sure as heck more than the "downloaders". It is a spectrum of credit from a lot to almost none. Sad to say, processor only types are not near the top of that list. I am not suggesting and never have suggested gatekeeping - just credit where credit is due and not where it is not. |
|
3.01
#...
·
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin: This is just such an absurd idea. Our world is built on the shoulders of giants and 99.9% of what you do is the work of so many other people. It's gatekeeping. You're trying to set up a goal post that says if you don't do XYZ, then you don't get the goal. When you build a computer, you're just assembling parts already made. When you built an AP system, you're just assembling parts already made. Both require knowledge to do and both can be fun, but you don't need to build the computer to say you're a real computer user just as you don't need to build the AP system to say you're a real astrophotographer. The actual taking of data and turning it into a human viewable object is the processing. It's like my Jeep friends... they say "built not bought" but the reality is for 95% of them, they just unscrewed some parts and screwed in some other parts - they didn't build it, they bought it... but gosh darnit, having to do the wrenching means it matters more. It doesn't lol. But hey, if you like wrenching, keep on wrenching! |
7.12
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Byron Miller:Bill McLaughlin: That makes sense. Bottomline is, unless you gather the sand, turn it into silicon, create the chips, write the software from scratch, including the operating system that you used to write the software (you better use Assembly or binary code), grind the glass, surface the mirror, machine the machine that will machine the parts for the telescope, extract the raw copper from the earth, create the wires that connect the adapters, and produce the photosensitive material to create your camera sensor, then you are not really an imager, you're just a processer taking the long road. It also seems from your comments that data acquisition is both very easy, so why bother, and very hard, so why suffer. I suppose unless you grow your own vegetables, raise your cows, ferment the cheese, build an oil rig to extract the oil that you will use to cook the food, you really didn't cook the meal. No different than buying a ready to cook frozen meal. |
22.75
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
Byron Miller:Bill McLaughlin: Uh... I have dozens (and maybe over 100) of CAD drawings for parts that I've designed and made for my scopes. The wide field ONAG on my big scope is a complete custom, counter balanced design. I've made a few more for folks who have approached me behind the scenes so there are maybe four of these in the world. I designed the ultra precision focuser that is currently in the Celestron RASA 14 (they may also have it in the 11). Another one of my precision focusers has been running continuously in New Mexico on a custom prototype Edge14 that I built as a part of my work for Celestron. I've built multiple large flat panels and one of them on my big scope is on a custom, remotely controlled lift stand. I've built numerous fully automated custom anti-dew systems that have worked really well. Almost all of this stuff required careful design, custom machining, new software, and a little electrical work. I've also done interferometric testing on many of the optical components in my scopes as well as on the full system using the same state of the art interferometer equipment to test the JWST. I've also written a paper with Gaston Baudat on AI wavefront analysis that we presented at SPIE comparing interferometric data with data gathered under the sky. Sure I use off the shelf components when I can but it is pretty presumptuous to assume that's what all imagers do. I think that you are forgetting about what it really takes to produce good data. John  |
11.35
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| I can hardly wait to read what comes next... |
1.43
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I can hardly wait to read what comes next... It looks like recent IOTD debate. Then I posted this Fun (Jure Menart) - AstroBin  People are sometimes taking things just too seriously... |
|
3.01
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
John Hayes:Byron Miller:Bill McLaughlin: That’s great. I helped write the software and the OS many people run. I wrote updates for GPU drivers many people use in pixinsight. that changes nothing. i know what it takes to get good data and while i admire what you have done, none of that is necessary today. You chose to engineer a build that required work. That’s all on you. I chose to build or buy scopes that didn’t require the work. That already had adapters. Already supported full flat frame. Already were known to be clean. I too suffered with bad gear and tbh that made the hobby more expensive than needed. I’m thankful we’re finally in apsc territory on consumer gear. but you know what matters most on good data? dark, remote skies.. no one needs to do what you did to become a photographer but y’all write like there is some honor in the struggle that just isn’t there. i also built my own 3d printers and printed my own flip flat and focus controller but whatever |
|
22.75
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Byron Miller: You appear to be completely missing my point and we are now talking past one another. So, I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Here's where I believe we leave it: 1) Your position is that taking high quality data is so trivial that it's no longer worth much consideration as a part of the astro-imaging process. Consequently, the only consideration in judging images for the IOTD process should be for how the data is processed. The image is the image and that's it. (That's where the ITOD stands now and it's unlikely to change.) 2) My position is that acquiring high quality data is not trivial (and never has been) and that the process of data acquisition is a big part of what it takes to produce a high quality astro-image. Consequently, the finish line isn't the only part of the race. Those who run their own equipment, acquire their own data, and process the image are doing a lot more than simply processing data and I believe that the there should be an "Imaging award" and a "Processing award". (It will probably never happen but that's my opinion.) It is clear that we aren't going to agree but that's okay. Thank you for your thoughts and the discussion. John |
|
3.01
#...
·
|
|---|
John Hayes:Byron Miller: This is just moot no matter what. I'm not missing anyone's point. I get what y'all are saying but I just can't fathom why any of it needs to be said. An imaging award doesn't have any meaning without outcomes backing it up. If you like collecting data, keep collecting data. That does not distract from what others do with the data. If you want an "imaging" award, then all of the data should be shared so it can be validated and used for scientific and artful purposes. Reward people for giving data to the world and letting it be used for scientific or artful purposes. Which ironically means more data for people to use to create beautiful images and people probably saying that's not fair because they didn't click the button (or whatever gate we putt here). But i tell ya what, if such an imaging award existed and data was shared, that sure beats almost all of this data ending up in bitbucket so i'm all for that. As i said before, good data often comes from those dark skies and remote observatories in Chile and such... Should i be awarded a good data award if i pay for the time and share it? are we gonna gate keep that?  It's an infinite goal post that has no meaning if the data is valuable, it's valuable PERIOD.
|
|
5.72
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Just a few thoughts I jotted down on Cloudy Nights on "remote imaging" 100m from my house under B1 skies. Needless to say my viewpoint changes the more i get used to imaging without being so connected to the process. But I will never get away from the fact that the acquisition is to me probably more important than manipulating data. Especially that gathered by someone else. As for the IOTD thing, I could not give any less cares about that stuff. I do it for me and my satisfaction. Over the last two years I have gone from starting with a star tracker and setting up (a short drive away) any time I wanted to image. It was a learning curve but looking back I have no fond memories other than lying on the bonnet of my Land Cruiser, once the run was going, and watching the night skies. I couldn't build acquisition time and it was an effort. After a long day (or dinner night with guests at the lodge) to set up and blunder around the skies with no goto didn't thrill me. To sit there and baby it all (mostly in case an elephant decided to investigate the tripod) was beautiful but wearing at the same time. Come the early hours it was time to tear down and head home for some sleep. In late 2022 I got an AM5 and set up a few times in the same way before finding a rock 100m from the house (with a ton of bush clearing) where I build a permanent pier. It was game changing. In every way. Early 2023 I added an EAF and later a better corrected scope. But every session I would walk down to my rock through the (short) wilderness and at times with big game around. I would set up under the dark skies and sit there running the plate solve, the EAF, get guiding running and kill all the lights - the headlamp, the tablet etc and sit there under the night sky. The first subs would roll in and I would either curse the vagaries of guiding or be happy. And after a while I would brave the walk back and sleep. Come morning I would (before work) and pull the USB drive, switch off and put on the cover and check battery levels of my solar power. Imaging required a connection with getting out under the skies. Seeing those skies and being under them for an hour or two of stillness gave me a connection and sense of awe every time. Apart from (obviously) the nights where nothing went to plan and I would go mental trying to work out what was wrong and come close to serious frustration. We all know these nights. When the mount slewed I heard it and saw it. When the EAF ran I heard it and saw it. I watched it all. I built big integration runs, but each and every time required an interaction between me and the night sky and my gear. If I had a crazy seeing night where the stars were like diamonds I would rush back and get a tripod and 28mm lens and a dslr. The minute I got to my site I would know if it was one of those rare nights and just relish the clarity. Most nights I would take binoculars and spend a little while just looking up while the first subs came in. Then, this year we got internet at the house (thanks to Starlink) and I started trying to work out if I could make it even more automated. I debated methods of links and finally last week my Ubiquity devices that I had decided on arrived. I was happy at the very competitive price, and after a lot of trial and error, yesterday we got them talking and got good signal. I was changing back from a super wide set up with a lens, so last night had to spend time at the mount and get it all running. but then came back and realised I was dealing with an old dodgy wifi router at the house. Today I ordered a new router in town, but even with that dodgy router tonight was my first "remote" session. We had a group coming in at 17:00, so I checked them in and then went to my site, took off the TG365 cover and the lens caps. Powered up the solar powered Ubiquity point and switched on the solar power to my rig. And then in broad daylight walked down to meet the guests and have dinner. A couple of hours ago I finished dinner with the guests and got home. Opened the tablet, slewed to the target, started guiding and ran an EAF sequence and let it roll. The first subs came in and looked good. All while I was sat at the kitchen counter where I can get signal from my dodgy router. With a glass of wine. While Julia (my wife) was teasing me about it all... she knows how this is so different to the past, and (rightly) stated that the next stage would be an automatic cover removal (AKA roll off roof) and a lens cap that opens by computer, but at the same time asking me if this is not all a bit ridiculous... The subs are rolling in. I am amazed I got it all to work (I am not a computer/network person), and it is in so many ways incredible to be in the Zambian wilderness controlling a remote set up from my kitchen. But in other ways the experience has left me feeling very disconnected and like I am doing something almost wrong. I just know that this image of the running chicken will never grab me the same way. I will never look at it and remember the skies that night or the calls of a nightjar (or even a leopard) that I heard that night. The connection by wifi might be strong but that same connection has made me slightly less connected to the wilderness and the thrilling pleasure of being in that wilderness under dark and amazing skies. We all get used to anything... In a few weeks I won't even question it. I will relish the ease. But right now it is all in the description - "remote" really is remote. I am not sure that I have gained anything. Just a philosophical rambling, and I would love to hear other viewpoints. I am of course totally aware that I am lucky, and that if I was in my native Scotland then the finer points of esoteric wandering thoughts on remote imaging are ridiculous - clear and dark B1 skies are not the norm, and debating how to image them is not a problem that many there would even consider. But then the "norm" is not life here. It is very different in so many ways. So I thought it would be interesting to some to just jot down my thoughts and see what others think. |
4.52
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Such an interesting discussion about this topic! I do appreciate all those comments, they show me how we all see things differently and still are united in that one hobby - astrophotography! One last remark - I already wrote about my personal viewpoint, but I would like to add something to it: Yes, I learned a lot by processing raw data from the various providers - I use(d) i-telescope, Telescope-Live and Insight-Obeservatory. But when I can grab a target with my own equipment and fight through windgusts, clouds, fog and other problems - mostly electronic and/or WLAN - and at the end get a nice and good result - that is the moment, when I do really enjoy the result - why? Because I did everything on my own. |
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I think it all comes down to this, dose the cake taste better it you bake it yourself, or if you buy it from the store. I don't think there's anything wrong with using someone else data. Some people pending on where they live can't image, so even just processing astro images could be a great hobby. |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Et modeste d'ailleurs, se dire : mon petit, Sois satisfait des fleurs, des fruits, même des feuilles, Si c'est dans ton jardin à toi que tu les cueilles ! Puis, s'il advient d'un peu triompher, par hasard, Ne pas être obligé d'en rien rendre à César, Vis-à-vis de soi-même en garder le mérite, Bref, dédaignant d'être le lierre parasite, Lors même qu'on n'est pas le chêne ou le tilleul, Ne pas monter bien haut, peut-être, mais tout seul ! Edmond Rostand : "Cyrano de Bergerac", Acte II, scène 8 Sorry, as untranslatable as Shakespeare in French... But its my modest (  !) opinion !
|
|
5.72
#...
·
|
|---|
Eric B.: Bravo! |
|
3.01
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Bob Lockwood: Most of us are still baking a cake out of a box vs scratch remote observations still require planning, sequencing, data collection, data reviews/blinking, stacking, integration, processing. it’s not much different scheduling an advanced run on remote scopes than clicking on air on my ipad once evrything is up and running it’s really all about the data. Great images combine data or use paid data to linear fit to reduce sky glow but like we’ve all said.. do what makes you happy. No need to gatekeep. That’s the problem i have. Do whatever. But don’t try and say images processed with collective data are any less worthy of whatever goal post people want to make up. just no reason to have to justify your fun by expecting everyone else to have to do what you did to have fun themselves. sure, baking your own cake is fun but let’s be real most folks are following the instructions on the back of box anyway |
0.90
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Taking your own pictures with your own telescope is indeed more poetic, even if you didn't build the telescope yourself (or the computer, or the CPU, etc.). Poetry doesn't necessarily make a good or interesting picture, though. It all depends on what you want to achieve, how you want to do it, and the pleasure it gives you. Pleasure is factor number 1, and it doesn't matter if you experience it taking pictures, processing them, or both. Just enjoy what you are doing, and let people enjoy what they are doing the way they want. |
