Scope's-R-us

[jase (Jason)]

Yes Peter, we have been over the rules territory before…BUT with little resolve, hence the reason I brought it up again. Thought it may make logical sense for others to express what they deemed as a possible solution to this so called “crisis”. Maybe influence some decisions and ensure the right people (CWAS committee) are well informed. I don’t have an issue either way. Until the rules are rewritten, it’s an open show to deliver the best images by an amateur. In essence that’s what a comp is all about, with a greater effect on public outreach. This, if anything, is the most rewarding/gratifying part. To share your view of the cosmos with all.

The “all my own work” principle appears to hold ground, be it somewhat construed as it can never be all your own work. What happened to those CCD Cookbook plans I had...darn, its now obsolete. Guess, I'll need buy one and hope it doesn't gives me that "distinct" advantage. While "all my own work" is still plausible, it is restrictive to the growth and ongoing support of such a comp considering the trends.

So let’s just recap on the current CWAS rules shall we (key items)…

Rule#2. There will be four sections of entry - amateur, semi-professional, junior (16 and under) and an open themed section. For the purposes of this competition, semi-professional astrophotographers are deemed to be people who are astronomers, professional photographers, or individuals who gain a taxable income in some way from astronomical or photographic work. Hobbyists who occasionally sell their photographs for a nominal sum, but do not gain a taxable income from their hobby, will be deemed amateurs.

OK. This is clear. Unless the entrant of the comp is making money from an activity associated with astronomy, they're deemed as an amateur – simple. The entrant who is the recipient of using a remote scope doesn’t make money from it – he’s spending it! Its no different to buying equipment.

Rule#3. There will be three categories of entry for the amateur section; Wide-field (camera shots), Deep Sky (telescope shots) and Solar System. The semi-professional and junior sections will have one open category each (can be any type instrument or subject). There is a limit of five (5) entries per category per photographer.

"Houston, we have contact"- this is quite a relevant rule – “The semi professional and junior sections will have one open category each (can be ***any*** type instrument or subject)”. Excellent. We now have our remote imaging category defined. Looking good. So, amateur users of remote scopes who are seen as having a “distinct advantage” by some can start expressing their talents with other semi-pro entrants even though they are still amateurs. Ballsy to go up against the semi pro’s but when you as an amateur are using similar gear…bring it on!

Rule#6. In the case of images with multiple authors, the instigator of the image will be considered to be the principal author and the one who "owns" the image. The principal author MUST have performed the majority of the work to produce the image. All authors MUST be identified and named in the entry form along with their contributions to the production of the image.

Sure, using a remote telescope, the person who is acquiring the data is the principal author – he/she chooses the target, framing, filters selection, exposure times – absolutely everything that can be done locally on their own equipment to acquire an data to produce an image and ultimately they also own the data they collect. No need to mention further contributions, hmm, I think its courteous. I specifically mentioned it in the description of my CWAS entry that got an honourable mention. DM even mentioned it out aloud so everyone was aware of the fact. Obviously wasn't looked down upon to pick up an award.

Rule#7. Entries which combine images from professional observatories, taken by professional astronomers for purposes other than creating the entry in question (e.g. the Digital Sky Survey) will be disqualified.

Ah, here we go…images from “professional” observatories or taken by professional astronomers. OK. So that most excellent, but flawed rework of Hubble data doesn’t cut it. Shame…it was in with a chance for a while until you read the small print. The question remains however, are remote rental scopes considered professional? Hmmm. Peter taunted the concept of “Professional” telescopes in an earlier post. What is a professional telescope? Is it something of a certain aperture or strehl ratio of 95%+ or how about only if the telescope has a cooled CCD? A professional telescope is one that is used by professionals right? So an amateur who buys time from another amateur who happened to purchase a high-end telescope magically become a professional? Professional can’t be specifically defined based on instrument. While many of the references in this thread refer to high-end 100k+ imaging rigs, I’ve also seen the other end of the scale such as two 300mm lens in side-by-side configuration used by professionals to validate astrometry calculations. All off the shelf components that the “regular Joe” has access too.

So, to put it bluntly, I don’t see an issue in entering remotely acquired images into an imaging comp. As the rules stand today - I’ll put these images into the semi pro category and give Peter and others a run for their money…At the same time, I’m still deemed an amateur – I don’t earn any revenue from astronomy… so I also have the ability to enter the amateur wide field and deepsky categories when using my own gear (despite the fact my personal rig could be questioned as not having the “amateur spirit” considering its “upload imaging plan and walk away” schematics). So, we’ve hit common ground…

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Jase

Ill keep out of this generally, but specifically:

I have a GRAS rig, I want to enter an image from my Meade in my back yard. According to the rules I must enter as a "semipro". A Meade/G11 pic, from my back yard is semipro??. What do you think Jase, is it fair?.

[jase (Jason)]

Ah yes Fred, you are the tall poppy being involved in GRAS while still using your own humble rig. You have a taxable income from astronomy, hence rules are rules - you're a semi pro.

So, as a semi pro, what the hell are you doing entering meade/G11 images for. Fight it out with the 10" RC dude, go the distance. There needs to be more contenders in the semi pro arena anyway. Its a walk in the park for some. What's a competition with only a few entrants? Time for a revolution.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Sigh, thanks Jase, yes, its a dumb reverse situation I thought I would dump in for a laugh .

16hr megadata would be hard to get away with on my GRAS rig , its the "lost" income that would be a bother, hogging it like that..

Its funny reading the threads. Most ppl here, with the modest gear they have and a bit of determination gathering megadata and skillfull processing, could get comparible results to flash rent-a-gear (with much shorter, affordable exposure times). OOps, that cant be right, shut up Fred .

[theodog (Jeff)]

Hey jase, peter and Fred,

I teach Science and Astronomy is part of the course I teach. I also use my gear as a direct resource in my teaching.

What comp do I enter?

[jase (Jason)]

You need to get creative Fred. Imaging the night sky has many possibilities. Here's one for you... You're a suburban imager hindered by light pollution. Collect your Ha data on the suburban Meade/G11 but collect the RGB on your GRAS scope. Hence you'll get the clean RGB to compliment the Ha data. Of course the end result is still semi pro, but it would make a killer image. Or you could collect the ha data on the RC, then match some OIII and SII from the Meade/G11. I could keep going and going.

There are no rules on hybrid imaging...you're judged on the finished product. In fact, the image I referenced in the previous post, I obtained data from you (with permission) to complete it. This was a hybrid image - data taken from a 12.5" RC and a 10" RC (both remote rental scopes). I was still the principle author who took the credit, but I did acknowledge you in CWAS description - assisted with additional data. Wasn't frowned upon. Collaborative work like this goes on all the time - as per rule#6.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Yes Jase, actually, I thought of Ha off the RCOS and RGB/NB at home (as you know, L is where all the detail is), I would still want megadata tho. But I get yr point, a hybrid would be fun, Im very lucky to have that choice I guess. The rest......... no comment

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by theodog

Hey jase, peter and Fred,

I teach Science and Astronomy is part of the course I teach. I also use my gear as a direct resource in my teaching.

What comp do I enter?

You earn a taxable income Jeff??... Rule#2 - you're a semi pro. For all we know, you could have recently purchased a 12.5" RC and are writing it off on tax as you're using it as a tool for teaching.

So what are your thoughts on this Jeff - as a legitimate astronomer with public outreach? What category do you truly believe you belong too? How do you think the situation should be remedied?

Thanks for joining the "proposal board" by the way. Perhaps we'll now get something done.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Jase

Ill keep out of this generally, but specifically:

I have a GRAS rig, I want to enter an image from my Meade in my back yard. According to the rules I must enter as a "semipro". A Meade/G11 pic, from my back yard is semipro??. What do you think Jase, is it fair?.

A most interesting point that you make Fred. By definition of the rules you are semi-pro, and you must enter in the semi-pro section, but someone purchasing your service can use the exact same equipment (yours) to enter as an amateur.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Andrew, eeek, thats a head spin, hadnt thought of that !!!.

In fact, if I enter with my backyard Meade, its semipro. If someone else enters with my GRAS rig, its amature.LOL

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Kal

A most interesting point that you make Fred. By definition of the rules you are semi-pro, and you must enter in the semi-pro section, but someone purchasing your service can use the exact same equipment (yours) to enter as an amateur.

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Andrew, eeek, thats a head spin, hadnt thought of that !!!.

That's the reason why I propose that in future comps - ALL rental remote scope data be placed in the semi pro category. This doesn't stop an amateur entering other categories. That will keep StrongmanMike happy, but alas make Peter duck for cover as he's got some competition now. Can't please everyone.

[theodog (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by jase

So what are your thoughts on this Jeff - as a legitimate astronomer with public outreach? What category do you truly believe you belong too? How do you think the situation should be remedied?

Thanks for joining the "proposal board" by the way. Perhaps we'll now get something done.

Firstly, make a decision.

Here's mine.

All entries process their own data.

Three main catagories;
Hobby -data from (not made) their own gear -earn no income from gear -own processing.

Semi professional/data processing- use data gained from pro & semi pro gear. The gear from where ever earns income. -entry does processing.

Professional- working in industry-professional gear -entry does processing.

Hobby category;
junior -U16 any non-professional gear -own processing
Adult -Small scope upto 12"
Adult -Large scope over 12'

Also Educational
-Any project of images that best illustrates an Astronomical concept.
Under this I would enter Semi pro category and get flogged.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by jase

Sure, using a remote telescope, the person who is acquiring the data is the principal author – he/she chooses the target, framing, filters selection, exposure times – absolutely everything that can be done locally on their own equipment to acquire an data to produce an image and ultimately they also own the data they

I though this one had been put to bed...but...

Jase, I still think you are being dismissive of the following: accurate polar alignment, PEC programming, setting up and refining a pointing model, cabling and cable snag mittigation, optimising instrument/camera spacing, optimising camera tilt errors/ mountings, dark library collection, flat library collection, guide scope flexure removal/mittigation, solving software conflict problems, etc etc.

Sure if you have a permanment Obs...much of this needs doing at least once or infrequently...but it needs doing....and if you don't have an obs' ..aye carrumba...I admire the poor buggers who set up every time!

Claiming to be the principle author simply because you chose what subject, and clicked on a few filter selections, and the how long button, leaves me nonplused. I think the web cam on Everest analogy was still a good one

[mick pinner]

put your hand up if you take astrophotos for your own enjoyment and satisfaction of what you have learnt and achieved with your own equipment.
some it seems just want to win a prize. just an amateurs observation. (no pun).

[g__day (Matthew)]

Poo - apologies all - not sure where I was trying to enter this post - but rather puzzled how it got here!

What's wrong with my thinking here.

Option 1

You get a series of high end scopes / mounts / focuser / CCD / Dark site / etc... to image the sky in extensive detail - creating a library - then you pay to download some image from it

Vs

Option 2

You get a series of high end scopes / mounts / focuser / CCD / Dark site / etc...to image the sky in extensive detail - on demand with no library - instead you provide a near real time feed - then you pay to download some image from it.

Between option 1 vs 2 is simply some caching.

Each option could have an image processing services at a cost if you desired.

If you're grabbing an image that's already been archived and processed - what satisfaction do you derive from it?

If its the signal processing you like - do a course on some professional pre-processed shots with a skilled astro imager.

If its the signal capture you desire - then either tweak your own gear or lease others.

I guess it boils down to work out where you derive your pleasure and throw your dollars around carefully!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

[quote=jase;355565]

The question remains however, are remote rental scopes considered professional? Hmmm.

Of course they are! How can a global network of multiple robotic automated telescopes specifically designed for providing a (quite costly) pay as you use service for imaging aquisition and astronomical research NOT be classed as anything other than a proffessional operation? It's a no brainer

A professional telescope is one that is used by professionals right?

Weeeeellllll.....to me a proffesional telescope is one that is used "proffessionally" ie comercially, for the purpose of gaining income from the conduction of astronomical research or astronomical imaging, both of which are performed at GRASS and LightBuckets et al

So, to put it bluntly, I don’t see an issue in entering remotely acquired images into an imaging comp. As the rules stand today

As fas as I am concerned every image downloaded from GRAS or LightBuckets etc is really a proffessionally acquired image (those facilitating it for you are indeed proffesionals - it is their proffession) so any image constructed from this data is in breach of the DM Awards rules as they stand, of course this interpretation is up for debate and only the DM Awards organisers can tackle it and it is indeed totally up to them, to do so.

It's not just about the DM awards though, the no pro/global rent-a-scope gathered data brigade () are just not in favour of the "home delivered gormet food dinner party" approach being unquestioned and openly allowed as entries, without caveats, in amateur astroimaging contests in general.

I’ll put these images into the semi pro category and give Peter and others a run for their money…At the same time, I’m still deemed an amateur – I don’t earn any revenue from astronomy… so I also have the ability to enter the amateur wide field and deepsky categories when using my own gear (despite the fact my personal rig could be questioned as not having the “amateur spirit” considering its “upload imaging plan and walk away” schematics). So, we’ve hit common ground…

Mate, it was never about you personally or your past or future entries in the DM awards, don't take it so personally

[tornado33]

Heres my 2 cents worth:
If an image was taken remotely, on equipment the imager didnt set up, then if entered into an imaging comp it should be in a separate remote imaging category.

I have only used the GRAS system thus far. The problem is, scope time isnt just imaging time, its slewing, focusing, locating guide stars and so on. Sometimes it seems to take an eternity for it to get focus and search for a guide star. You can rotate the guider but that takes even more time. With Lightbuckets, if you send in an imaging request to be done later, I wonder if youre charged for the imaging time, or everything else as well?

As for my own images, if I can get an object with more detail then I can see visually, and with round stars in good focus ,I consider it a sucess

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Originally Posted by mick pinner

put your hand up if you take astrophotos for your own enjoyment and satisfaction of what you have learnt and achieved with your own equipment.

That's me.

But I look forward to putting what I've learned so far to use on GRAS data.

[EzyStyles (Eric)]

sorry i just want to add my 2 cent here. This really is off putting. Astro comps suppose to encourage regular home imagers to enter. Seeing 24" RCOS, SBIGs really puts the cheapo owners off entering any comp. There is no way in hell i can afford top end gears with a mortage to pay, bills etc nor i can afford to rent top end gears like GRAS Light Bucket etc. This doesn't make me "im not passionate enough". I just don't have the funds to do so. Sorry Jase, i have to agree with Mike/Peter on their perspective. It takes into account the setup of the scope, the alignment, focus etc. Easiest way is do it with your own gear and your own processing skills rather than create any confusion.

[EzyStyles (Eric)]

DATA ACQUIRED. Break it down and you'll see. it involves how well you focus, the alignment, etc etc.

and as what mick said, for your own enjoyment not to win a prize, i guess certain individuals want to enter in comps to win. Like the olympics, they do enjoy swimming but winning gold is an achievement.