Post by robrj on Jul 27, 2016 16:10:20 GMT
You make some valid points Ken.
I agree that long exposure NSN broadcasts can get pretty boring, especially if there's no interesting conversation. I like Don's broadcasts but he does tend to be on the longer end of exposures. Fortunately his conversation is pretty good. I'm not much of a talker myself so I'm mostly just listening in. My only point was if someone wanted to wait that long to see the image near-live, then I have no problem calling that video astronomy. I think in some of the more light polluted areas, it becomes more necessary to go with a longer exposure but I've seen plenty of nice sample images in the gallery from people that have exposures under 30-45 seconds that also live in light polluted areas (Astrojedi, for example, lives fairly close to me).
I think that CN's "EAA" choice was to include the night vision people, but I'm fairly new to it so I don't know the discussion behind it. There did seem to be confusion amongst the moderators about where things go, the example being Emil Kraaikamp's M51 image that was bounced between the imaging forums and the EAA forum. It was a confusion of video astronomy with short exposure astrophography. I thought the "Video Astronomy" term sounded odd when I first heard it but when you explained that the term referred to the action, not the camera, it makes more sense and it creates a distinction that it isn't about exposure length. And, every other forum seems to share that usage. It does immediately put one in the mind that it's something different from astrophography. I have used the term "video astronomy" at star parties both to guests and other observers.
I agree that long exposure NSN broadcasts can get pretty boring, especially if there's no interesting conversation. I like Don's broadcasts but he does tend to be on the longer end of exposures. Fortunately his conversation is pretty good. I'm not much of a talker myself so I'm mostly just listening in. My only point was if someone wanted to wait that long to see the image near-live, then I have no problem calling that video astronomy. I think in some of the more light polluted areas, it becomes more necessary to go with a longer exposure but I've seen plenty of nice sample images in the gallery from people that have exposures under 30-45 seconds that also live in light polluted areas (Astrojedi, for example, lives fairly close to me).
I think that CN's "EAA" choice was to include the night vision people, but I'm fairly new to it so I don't know the discussion behind it. There did seem to be confusion amongst the moderators about where things go, the example being Emil Kraaikamp's M51 image that was bounced between the imaging forums and the EAA forum. It was a confusion of video astronomy with short exposure astrophography. I thought the "Video Astronomy" term sounded odd when I first heard it but when you explained that the term referred to the action, not the camera, it makes more sense and it creates a distinction that it isn't about exposure length. And, every other forum seems to share that usage. It does immediately put one in the mind that it's something different from astrophography. I have used the term "video astronomy" at star parties both to guests and other observers.