Picture 1 of post 18 seems to show a reflection? of someone laughing in a frame on the back wall
Now I am not sure as to how a reflection shows up so big from a photo taken so far away, or how the reflection seems to be green? or that it sort of resembles a baby giggling.
Can anyone explain this to me who may have been there?
Is it a holographic picture which might explain the green tinge, or has something else been captured?
Anyone? My goosebumps have rocketed to new highs if its something unexplained.......
Hi Chris,
Yeah that looks weird ! Looking at picture 3, where the baby is in pic1, is actually a doorway. So it *looks* like there is a wide-screen TV on the other side and the baby was on it at the time.....I'm guessing, but it sort-of looks like the corner of a tv in another room.
Picture 1 of post 18 seems to show a reflection? of someone laughing in a frame on the back wall
Now I am not sure as to how a reflection shows up so big from a photo taken so far away, or how the reflection seems to be green? or that it sort of resembles a baby giggling.
Can anyone explain this to me who may have been there?
Is it a holographic picture which might explain the green tinge, or has something else been captured?
Anyone? My goosebumps have rocketed to new highs if its something unexplained.......
Chris
Hello it's the wide Screen TV at the entrance of the Bar You can only see half of it from where the shot was taken . Tony
It's interesting to review the results.... and possible conclusions.
Cooled CCD users + narrow field, dominated the deep sky sections.
DSLR's did very well in wide field/bright object sections.
...but above all...composition and colour were essential to winning an award...
Make of it what you will.....
A splendid time was had by all.....and on to 2009 !
Having less people in your category must be helpful too..?
Need some more semi pros to enter next year to keep you on your toes Peter
Personally I think the semi pro devision is not necessary, I mean you and Martin have almost identical equipment, and Jason Jennings used the same type of equipment remotely and paid for the data even, so what's the difference?
Yeah, thanks Gary.
Sort-of looks like the stars are pushing the trees over....except they're moving in the opposite direction, but you can't tell that without knowing
Having less people in your category must be helpful too..?
.......Personally I think the semi pro devision is not necessary.....
Ah! But it was always about quality, not quantity ...I understand there were a bit over a dozen semi-pro entrants but the division was created to avoid a swag of prizes going to just one group who were perceived to have hardware "advantage" no-one else could afford.
Clearly that situation has changed, as there are a number of amateurs in Oz now with some pretty impressive pieces of kit (eg Martin, Jase, Steve Mike, et al) I don't make the rules and have to work within them like everyone else.
What may change is the "rent-a scope" aspect. As the "all my own work" concept falls flat when you pay for data from a remote instrument. Where is the line drawn? i.e. is downloading Hubble data O.K.? 2 metre SLOOH data?
It then pretty much comes down to an image processing competition which would be silly....and not representative of essential efforts taken to set-up, accurately, polar align, get the right camera spacing etc. etc.
That said, CWAS have given Australian astro-photographers a much needed forum and boost. The standard of entries has gone from, well, pretty average, to truly world class.
If you thought 2008 was tough...I suspect we "aint seen nuthin yet" just wait until 2009!
Cooled CCD users + narrow field, dominated the deep sky sections.
DSLR's did very well in wide field/bright object sections.
...but I wonder how many DSLR deep sky entries there were?? I was amazed at the quality of all categories, certainly comparing the online versions of last years entries. The bar has certainly been raised, but I also sense this is relative. Better equipment, improved processing skills and experience etc.
Considering next year is the international year of astronomy... will CWAS step up... Perhaps we'll see fireworks (not sparklers) and cute grid girls posing behind you as your handed the award...whom later get sprayed in cheap champagne by the category winners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Personally I think the semi pro devision is not necessary, I mean you and Martin have almost identical equipment, and Jason Jennings used the same type of equipment remotely and paid for the data even, so what's the difference?
Mike, Are you confusing equipment with the category?? I do agree with you in that the semi pro section is misleading. We are ultimately all amateurs no matter which way you look at it. The level of quality on display this year would have to blur the lines between amateur deep sky and semi pro. Perhaps this needs to be revised in the future.
What may change is the "rent-a scope" aspect. As the "all my own work" concept falls flat when you pay for data from a remote instrument. Where is the line drawn? i.e. is downloading Hubble data O.K.? 2 metre SLOOH data?
It then pretty much comes down to an image processing competition which would be silly....and not representative of essential efforts taken to set-up, accurately, polar align, get the right camera spacing etc. etc.
Hmmm interesting proposition Peter. What defines "all my own work"? Do you mean to say that Rob Gendler who uses a remote 20" RC in Mayhill in NM or the 14.5" RC in Pingelly, WA as not being "all his own work", considering this two scopes are available through the lightbuckets rental telescope network? Or how about RJ Gabany who remotely uses a 20" RC at the Blackbird observatory, NM in which you can also buy time on... Or Adam Block's recent images taken with a 24" RC from the University of Arizona... I could go on and on. ACQUIRING data locally or remotely makes absolutely no difference. Note the emphasis on "acquiring", this implies you're not simply downloading hubble, slooh or other such digital sky survey data. This is where the line is clearly drawn.
The availability of high end equipment and as such premium data to the amateur is now becoming a reality...internet controlled scopes and their services are maturing at a rapid rate. Only 4-5 years ago, I wouldn't have thought an amateur would have access to a 24" RC under darks skies. Internet controlled scopes will revolutionise high end astrophotography over time. As more players enter the arena, pricing will drop and services will increase.
There is no denying that having good data to start with helps, but as you and others clearly know, having good data doesn't assure you of obtaining an award. Imaging processing is king...period.
Hmmm interesting proposition Peter. What defines "all my own work"? ..................Note the emphasis on "acquiring", this implies you're not simply downloading hubble, slooh or other such digital sky survey data. This is where the line is clearly drawn.
................Imaging processing is king...period.
Jase,
I see where you are coming from here, but disagree in that IMHO IP skills are not what the DM Awards only seem to be about.
There have been many compelling images that have won previously that were technically average , but subject/framing/composition rich. (Bridge climbers and Venus transit comes to mind....)
Getting back to remotely acquired images....I have not problem if the remote site was also set-up by the astrophotographer. Adam Block does this, as do many others. Yet I still believe the lines get blurred if you are only gathering data and are relying on external expertise to provide instrument set-up, calibration, alignment etc.
As software gets more sophisticated, end users may well have only to enter a RA/Dec and simpy pass over the credit card for 20 hours of data at that location. Where is the skill in that?
That said...I understand CWAS will very likely allow "rent-a scope" images...but are also likely to create a single category for them (much like semi-pro) in an effort to keep the playing field a bit more even.
Getting back to remotely acquired images....I have not problem if the remote site was also set-up by the astrophotographer. Adam Block does this, as do many others. Yet I still believe the lines get blurred if you are only gathering data and are relying on external expertise to provide instrument set-up, calibration, alignment etc.
…but Peter, you are talking about a minority which have been set-up by the astrophotographer. Many don’t own the equipment, so I don’t know how plausible this is as a guide or to make such a judgement. Let’s take SSRO (Star Shadows Remote Observatory) for example. A group of keen astrophotographers sharing high-end equipment in both North and Southern hemisphere skies. In the case of the Northern installation, it’s located at NMSkies, where Mike and Lynn rice would have performed the installation/setup. This is similar to Rob’s 20” RC. For their Southern installation, they utilise one of the many PROMPT 16” RC at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile, undoubtedly not set up by the SSRO group, but other professionals that are part of the PROMPT GRB service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
As software gets more sophisticated, end users may well have only to enter a RA/Dec and simpy pass over the credit card for 20 hours of data at that location. Where is the skill in that?
What type of skill are you referring too? Is setting up the equipment such a skill? Read the manual(s), spend some quality time with the scope under clear skies? Hmmm are these skills? I'd probably call it knowledge. They do provide an excellent insight into the challenges astrophotographers face. This is going to sound blunt, but when you’ve been imaging for sometime and your system is tuned, acquiring data becomes a mundane activity especially when you’ve got automation such as focusing, pointing/platesolving - as you would know. Surely watching guide star corrections on a 5+ hour imaging run isn’t a skill. Remote imaging provides incredible imaging efficiencies. You pay a premium, and as such in return you get premium data to process. The point being however, you don’t get a great image handed to you on a silver platter. You still need to work the data to bring out the best. Image processing is still the real skill (certainly for DSO work anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
That said...I understand CWAS will very likely allow "rent-a scope" images...but are also likely to create a single category for them (much like semi-pro) in an effort to keep the playing field a bit more even.
While remote imaging isn’t for everyone, it still has its place and it’s much larger than many people believe. If people think the likes of Rob Gendler monitored a guide star while acquiring data for his latest 20 panel, 60 hour mosaic, then its time for a reality check. I’m ok either way, should CWAS adopt a policy/classification in the future. Perhaps, such images should sit in the semi pro category to give you guys a run for the money, if the category was originally established for those with a hardware “advantage” as you’ve previously mentioned. This would technically allow an amateur astrophotographer who does not have a taxable income from the hobby etc, to enter all CWAS categories - I'd be happy with that. It will be an interesting exercise to police such activities as the lines becomes blurred. For example, what if I principally acquired data with the short focal length FSQ, but then added 10% luminance from a high-resolution long focal length rental scope to bring out the details thus creating a hybrid image? Tough call to make. Indeed, the years to come will provide even higher quality output. Personally, I think CWAS needs to address this to make it fair (sooner, than later). Actually, I feel it needs to also split DSLR’s to cooled CCD’s, though this margin isn’t as large.
Also, to set the scene, I’m not having a shot at you. I simply would like to ensure there is clarity around this in future at CWAS. So thought I'd voice it, despite being somewhat off topic for this thread.
Last edited by jase; 08-07-2008 at 02:01 PM.
Reason: Added links re PROMPT and SSRO to ensure people don't think I made this stuff up. ;)
A big congratulations to all the members who entered for their wins and honourable mentions.
From what I have seen so far they are all excellent images as well as being very inspiring to all imagers. I think David Malin must have had a difficult time in choosing the winner.
I'm looking forward to seeing the traveling exhibition when it comes to Canberra and I get to see them closeup.
Interesting points...but they have skirted a couple of issues I still have
I still do not agree image processing (IP) is the be all and end all...even for deep sky....that is not say I am right, it's just my point of view/experience.
I steadfastly hold to "GIGO" i.e. garbage in, garbage out. No amount of IP can save tragic data.
A competent deep-sky astrophotographer's skills are many and varied: Nailing Polar alignment, tuning the mount, correctly programming the PEC to avoid seeing noise, collimating the optics, determining the best camera back focus position, determining optimum focus and keeping it there, making sure the mechanics of the system are robust enough for the required exposure etc. and this is before the exposure has even started.
As remote telescope software gets better, a pay per view imaging session doesn't require the end user to do or know about any of the above.
It can be as simple as "slew to NGC5128" "take 10x 20 minute subs"
"download" ...hence we are back to proposition that it ends up being an image processing contest.
To totally even the field, then perhaps contestants will have to use a common raw data set....." 'ere you go lads...go process this" That would be nuts.
I do not envy the CWAS committee's deliberations on how to keep everybody happy, or at least not feel dis-advantaged, but I do know they are aware of the many issues new technology throws up, and try their best to adapt them into their contest rules.
That said, the calibre of winning and honorable mention images was at an all time high.
Once again well done to Martin, yourself and the many others who also did very well, and also those who had the courage to enter.
Congratulations to all winers and place getters, the standard really does improve every year in leaps and bounds.
Re the rent-a-gear issue. I find myself swinging to and fro on this, being involved in both sides. Everytime this comes up new aspects appear.
Peter and Jase both give very convincing arguements, but I think it is just different perspectives that seperate them. The "knowledge" vs "skill" angle is interesting. I would place "skill" as important in the "value" of an image, "knowledge" not so much.
Ironically, the knowledge/skill divide is down to gear cost. With a PME/RCOS combo, with tools such as Pempro and Tpoint, and following manuals to the letter, proper set up is assured, and it stays that way after set up. Thats what you pay for, this is applied knowledge learnt from manuals, not so much a "creative" input.
Setting up a typical Meade/Celestron/EQ6/G11 on the other hand (for a comp entry), requires "skill" and constant tweaking and attention, results vary wildly with the amount of time and intuition applied, this effort is arguably "creative" requiring "skill".
The internet automation/renting aspect is irrelivant, its a technical interface, true, horrendously difficult (that I know for a fact ), but there is no image quality or creative or gear set up or image capture skill difference between a PME/RCOS/ST11K operated locally or via the internet. If it was set up by the imager, it only requires following manuals, a purely technical endeavour.
So, I would say that with entries that involve top shelf equipment such as the PME, wether its is self/locally set up and operated or rented is irralevent, basic set up is the same and well defined, its right or wrong, no creative input.
Equipement somewhat less than this requires skill that counts in an image evaluation, so Jase and Peter are both correct, some gear requires skill others require just RTFM, in the 1st instance it counts, in the 2nd, not.
Image processing and composition IMO is the real differentiator after the above is considered, so maybe it just gets to gear level, not wether it is rented or not.
