I really don't want to create another war on AVF, so admins delete if required. No problems.
Yup I threw my twopence in like usual on CN. But kudo's to both admins and the posters as it was a good discussion IMO. Like every decision, some aren't too happy and still want EAA defined as total exp time less than 5 minutes, and still others aren't happy seemingly wanting live video move-the-mount-and-the-image-moves stuff is EAA and anything else is AP. I have no problem with those who desire both or either of those things, except it prohibits or affects those who do want to go longer to either find fainter stuff, or get better details in their observations of stuff.
And, in the end, having no time limit - so long as the camera is in the optics chain and gathering the photons while you are out there stretching and stacking and the image is not post processed - allows both those "camps" to discuss and push the limits at either end ... the very short live (Night Vision guys) as well as the go long and participate if you can stand watching an image build over an hour folk. Its easy to spot posts in either of those extreme camps, and if its not your bag then you really don't have to read it. Or you really dont have to watch it.
Which brings me to once again congrat the admins on AVF forum. AVF is very tolerant and friendly and had the foresight to add the forum categories as they are which allow pretty much anything in EAA goes ... just post in the right category. Thanks everyone on AVF!
A strange situation has risen its head again over in CN Howie. It also happened back when I was a moderator in there.
There seems to be this thought pattern by many (yes, the majority actually, not a minority) that whatever rules CN sets on its members is the over-riding rule for all the Astronomy world.
From the tone of many posts (and in many cases the actual words used), you will discover that many have this strange belief that whatever restrictions and guidelines CN puts on a subject, that is the worldwide rule!
Several members have complained that CN cannot dictate to them how long their exposures can be, or how long they can stack, when doing outreach or for their own pleasure.
These people miss the point entirely!
Even one moderator had to counteract this view many times in the one thread just recently when he was accused of limiting people's private doings.
He constantly kept posting the same reply that the regulations have NOTHING to do with how they do their own Live Observing for themselves. It only covers what is allowed and not allowed - 'IN THE FORUM' - , not in the whole wide world.
I have also been rudely misquoted and publicly put down by zealous members in their pursuit to have their say in the matter, by twisting my words to suit their argument. To walk over a friend to prove a point to win an argument is dispicable and that is the main reason I personally have stopped posting in CN.
As an example: I posted that I often use no stacking, but prefer no more stacks than 3, but at rare times I will use 5 stacks at the extreme most.
But a couple of members, one a good friend, decided to have a go at my methods as ludicrous and stating how nobody should flit and jump from target to target that fast, how stupid that method is, and I was actually called several names (fortunately all deleted by mods).
OK, where did I say to only stay on an object for only a few stacks? See how they jump to a conclusion to win their argument.
I actually stay on objects for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, whatever it takes for us to look at it and study detail. But because I have extremely dark sky I usually don't obtain any better data after 3 - 5 stacks, so I don't stack beyond that many.
They are also so used to using Sharpcap which does not have Stack limits, so they assume that after 3 or 5 stacks I must turn off stacking, or move to another object.
I use Miloslick and RisingSky, both of which allow me to choose the number of stacks I want to use, 'continually'.
Notice 'continually'. Not stack 3, 4 or 5 then STOP!
The first frame drops off and adds the new one continually so there is always a stack of 3, 4, or 5, continuously. (I bet if SharpCap had this feature they would use it!!!)
What is the benefit of this method?
1. There is often no need for me to stack more as it has no increasing benefit.
So, why bother limiting the stacking? Why not just leave it stacking anyway?
Because of answer number 2.
2. Limiting the number of stacks (or not stacking at all) allows asteroids and other interesting moving objects to be seen easily in motion during the observation.
If an asteroid or other bright object moves through the view with constant stacking, the line made by the object stays in the view, continuously, giving the view a line through it.
By limiting the stacking, moving objects show up as exactly that - 'Moving objects'.
I get a lot of them in my observations and broadcasts. Viewers often comment about them: "oooh, there goes a satellite, or an asteroid".
Also because of small number of stacks I can move the telescope around on the object and only have to wait 1 or 2 stacks for it to settle down. How the hell can you do that with constant stacking? You can't. You end up with a blur.
Also many people say they get movement in their objects from not using guiding (from mount errors, rotation, etc) and they have to use 'Align Frames' which usually gives a strange collection of annoying black 'cropped' edges to the frame. Limiting the number of stacks also reduces this 'cropped appearance'.
By limiting the number of stacks eliminates many problems, but nooooo, all they see is that once I have done 3 or 4 or 5 stacks I change objects, over and over, all night!
Fair enough if they misunderstand this method, which is probably used by more people than the constant stacking method in SharpCap. They only need to ask why I do this method, not attack me for it?
I grew tired of trying to explain my methods in CN as there are members who just argue for the sake of arguing, just to win.
Win? I wasn't aware this was a competition. I no longer waste my time publicly sharing my tips with CN members.
I do however get lots of Private Messages in there from members thanking me for my tips, and asking me more questions. It seems they also don't want to get attacked in the main forum, so they ask through the back door. The PM system can be handy.
CNs EAA section is renowned for it's aggressive attitude, and constant arguing about rules, and how to do VA. It has continued for more than 4 years, and it gets tiring.
Whereas:
- This Forum has not had a single argument, dispute, or complaint in its 3 year history!
- Apart from Google Bots and spammers, only 1 member has ever been removed from this Forum in all that time (he dragged a CN argument over to here and had a go at us because we wouldn't side with his view, then decided to abuse us).
- We allow all forms on Imaging. Live Video through to Astrophotography.
- We have a dedicated Night Vision section.
- etc.
'Nuff said for now