On another thread, it got me thinking and I posted this idea there:
How about a section in the IIS forums that has images taken through various types of scopes & apertures that actually show what you see through the scope with your eye.
For many beginners & short-timers, one of the biggest questions is "What will I see through the scope?" and later "Did I get the right scope, would I like it better with another scope" (which then goes back to 1st Q)
I know this was the most important Q I had when looking for a scope. And I did hunt for those types of images. But if there are some, they aren't info'd as such.
Most images on the Net are long/multiple exposures that try to bring out detail & colour. They are also manipulated to improve the image.
Images would need to be b&w and maybe manipulated some just so they truly represent what the eye sees at the ep.
A range of magifications could be shown from the one scope.
What do you see with filters may also be helpful.
What do others, and the administrators think about this?
I agree that this is a great idea. It is just a bit hard to do. The images on the previous post are good but not really what I would see through my 200mm scope. ie no colour and a somewhat more subdued image. Maybe some webcam images with the sky adjusted to black with the faint fuzzies discernible.?
I agree that this is a great idea. It is just a bit hard to do. The images on the previous post are good but not really what I would see through my 200mm scope. ie no colour and a somewhat more subdued image. Maybe some webcam images with the sky adjusted to black with the faint fuzzies discernible.?
Terry, hard to do images for every scope and every EP.
These images I posted are exactly what I see thru my 12" dob, but not everyone will see the same thru their scopes. And then size of the EP's change everything!
They look great. The circular images are a great idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B
The images on the previous post are good but not really what I would see through my 200mm scope. ie no colour and a somewhat more subdued image.
That's the whole point. The pics need to be what is seen through a particular size scope. So pics through a 200mm shouldn't be the same as a 12", including not having colour (if you don't happen to get colour through a 200mm).
Also the visual through different types of scopes would be different. Although the main emphasis would be on aperture.
We wouldn't need an exact representation just good enough to give an idea of what is seen through the EP. This may be where image manipulation would be useful.
In fact views vary due to seeing conditions.
Calling Iceman & Mojo What do you think? What do others think?
Is this something worthwhile starting on the site?
I bet all beginners think it would be helpful.
I haven't gotten into imaging so I won't be contrbuting there.......yet.
But I can put some thought to the features layout ie single page or categorised.
PS You can see colour!! I want a 12 incher too!
PPS : Thanks, Terry. All constructive comments welcome.
I think it's a worthwhile idea, because new people to the hobby can often be disappointed if what they see through the eyepiece isn't what they see on the side of the box or if it doesn't look like the great images they see on IIS.
However I see it more as an article, rather than a forum section. I wouldn't see it being contributed to often so I think the proper place for it would be an article, titled something like "Typical views through the eyepiece of various telescopes". The author would either take images, or take contributions of images from people who would be good at simulating an eyepiece view.
It could be done to suit various apertures, from 3" refractors up to 12 or 16" reflectors, and even various eyepieces such as plossls to widefield naglers, and at different focal lengths, showing how the FOV and magnification is different.
It's obviously quite a bit of work and would take some time to put together, but would be happy for someone to take it on. I think it would be a worthwhile article.
Due to your points (and I think you are correct in these) it probably would be more suitable as an article.
I like the title, I couldn't think of anything. But I did think of a name for these types of images - Representative Telescopes Views (RTV's). I'm not being serious here but I did like the acronym, sounds technical
Is anyone interested in doing this? Or could be a small group project.
I would encourage anyone that take's this project on to be mindful of what would be required to ensure this feature was of useful help to beginners.
I can't really contribute and I'm not confident enough to organise this feature. So I do hope somebody will get things going.
Yagon, I checked the Meade cat. and I copied this from page 111 :
The astrophotographs in this catalog do not represent actual views through a telescope.
For an explanation, see pg. 57
I have dialup and downloaded where I thought pg56 might be but I missed, so I haven't viewed what it says. I assume it may have some RTV's , correct?
My 2cents worth here would be that neither a forum section or an article would be the way to go (sorry Mike) What should be workable would be something like a "visual representation gallery". Submissions still under the direct control of Iceman and whom ever else has access. I think the article structure might not really lend itself to what would in effect be a gallery of images of all things celestial, thru a multitude of different apertures, f ratios and EP types. I don't think using images from outside sources it a good idea, because the person manipulating an image must have at his/her disposal the optical system being simulated. eg, since I do not have a 16", I can not say what the view thru one would be like to the unaided eye. Then there are other considerations such as seeing conditions, and dynamic range (m42)to combat. Living here in Sydney under light polluted skies, I could not be guided or influenced by submissions from those living in snake gully or other nice to be observing sites. All this is not to say that the job can't be done, only that it is not as straight forward as we might wish.
Then there is presentation. Is it best to show a wider field greyed over, or just a circular image with no indication of what lies outside the EP view?
The attached image has been suppressed, but even so, it shows nebulosity at a higher level than I've ever seen it naked eye. Also, a webcam chip, DSI etc. might have trouble covering the fov of all but the shortest fl EPs as well.
There is a lot of work in a project of this nature.
The attached image was a combine of 6x 5min subs through an ED80 with a Canon 350D. The original image shows the running man nebula off to the left, and the M42 core burned out.
I cannot say whether or not this should be a separate thread but I think that posting pictures that show what one actually sees is a very good idea.
From the previous comments this "simulation" will be a "tough call" but very interesting and quite a challange.
So that these results may be relied on a procedure and guidelines should be published so that those posting the pics are doing the same thing.
The guidelines may specify the altitude of the object and exposure times as a function of aperture.
The problem here is simulating the eye's response using a camera CCD. This is quite a complex subject and is being addressed in the area of HDR imagery. Perhaps a commonly available HDR processing program may be specified in the guidelines. A set number of exposures are taken and combined.
Initially one could post the results and refine the guideline parameters as time goes by.
With the points mentioned so far, it does seem to need to be a co-ordinated joint venture. And I suppose because it would cover a range of apertures, it is unlikely one person would have all equipment to do the images.
I could envisage someone co-ordinating others (including self) who wish to contribute, to collect images from their own (or borrowed scopes).
I have never done imaging and I know nothing about what is involved - I thought it would be as simple as any other imaging - perhaps I'm wrong, as I note some comments.
BUT I don't think the images have to be exact representations, just near enough so a person can view them, decide on the aperture size they want (based on the images) and then be happy because their scope performs to their expectations (again based on the posted images).
Even taking into account that seeing conditions vary (and other factors), experienced astronomers know generally what will be seen in a given aperture. I see remarks posted all the time in response to beginners Q's.
To start things moving : Is someone willing to take the part of co-ordinator.
Is there a small group within IIS members who know each other and would like to take this project on?
Style (ie forum/article/gallery), guidelines and image style would need to be worked out within the contributing group. I don't think we would get anywhere in an open forum.
Yagon, I checked the Meade cat. and I copied this from page 111 :
The astrophotographs in this catalog do not represent actual views through a telescope.
For an explanation, see pg. 57
Page 111 is their 'disclaimer' re the stunning images throughout the entire catalogue. Pages 56 & 57 show the truth, to meade's credit. I respect them for this transparent and honest approach.
This idea would be dificult to implement, since what you see at the eyepiece doesn't only depend on the telescope. What you see at the eyepiece is also severely affected by light pollution and seeing conditions. If you use the exact same telescope from a 'typical' light polluted suburb in Sydney in poor seeing conditions, and compared it to what you would see from a true dark site under ideal seeing conditions, it will not be the same, it wouldn't even be close. With seeing conditions, for every arcsecond you lose to seeing conditions, you lose 0.7 of a magnitude worth of stars that you can detect. In other words, with 1.5 arcsecond seeing you might see mag 13 stars, but with 3.5 arcsecond seeing you might only be able to detect mag 11.6 stars.
Sorry Kal, what you say is true but it doesn't have to apply for a guide to show people what can be seen through a given aperture.
And with what you say then it is just a matter of taking pics in good seeing conditions and letting beginners know about the effects of seeing conditions. Perhaps even reasonable seeing conditions may be OK - I have never done imaging so not knowledgable here.
This gives them an idea of the realistic potential of what can be seen per aperture.
A guide for what can be seen in a given aperture just needs fair to good representational images. Although good would be better than fair.
It would be up to the person(s) doing such a feature to decide on how "good" the images need to be. But quality of the feature would be a factor in getting lookies.
What do you think? What do others think?
, correct?
