affordable, light weight. Who could ask for more?http://www.unistellaroptics.com/en/
Last edited:
Astronomy / Space Finally a great tool for home Astronomy
- Thread starter Cmdr Ssyx
- Start date
affordable, light weight. Who could ask for more?http://www.unistellaroptics.com/en/
What more could I ask for?
A production schedule. Availability. PRICE?!?!
This sounds exactly what most amateur astronomers could do with. It's one thing to get into astrophotography, where the CCD can collect all the light and give you detailed and colourful images. It's another to see it like that with your own eye.
A production schedule. Availability. PRICE?!?!
This sounds exactly what most amateur astronomers could do with. It's one thing to get into astrophotography, where the CCD can collect all the light and give you detailed and colourful images. It's another to see it like that with your own eye.
It is supposed to sell for 1000 usd. And to be available this year. I believe it is one you can see fr with your own eye and will allow for astrophotography
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-telescope-revolutionize-amateur-astronomy.amp
Last edited:
1000 USD is a good price. But you can get the same result with a normal telescope and a CANON EOS on the back.
No not really. With a DSLR you can take indefinite length exposure, stack and elaborate them in post processing and obtain the awesome deep-sky images you can find everywhere on internet. In realtime, even though the camera can partly simulate overexposition in the live-view screen and instantly apply ISO settings, it's nowhere near to be able to augment light gathering enough to show you faint deep-sky objects in colour and detail, unless you have it attached to a 200+ mm tube on top of a mountain.
I'm still a bit sceptic about the real capabilities of this crowfunded scope, I'm ok that it's main feature is the realtime light augmentation feature but it strikes me as a bit odd that neither their main project page nor the press kit spend a word on the actual telescope specifications. I've been able to get from the third party link posted that it's a 4,5" aperture, fine, but what about the rest? Focal length? F ratio? What about the mirror, I suppose it's a parabolic and not spheric for the sake of quality, but is it for sure? What about collimation, from the few images available I see three holes in the back where the collimating screws are supposed to be, but is it for sure? Where exactly the light augmentation device is placed along the light path? Is it off-axis, hence has the light bounce through a diagonal/prism and back? There has to be a ccd somewhere for the trick to work, so what about it? Size, pixel size, sensibility threshold?
Technicalities aside, it's a project that has me intrigued, even though I'm afraid that actual light augmentation capabilities will be far less impressive than advertised, unless used under more than optimal conditions.
Last edited:
If its a reflector the focuser is at the wrong end of the tube. I think what we're looking at is some sort of hybrid where the imaging unit gathers the light, and projects it at the "eyepiece". In essence, you'll just be looking at a picture.
I'll stick with the traditional methods.
I'll stick with the traditional methods.
Well, yes really. I used a Canon EOS with a tracking LX-200R, and you could take perfectly decent pictures of nebula etc. You can take time exposures in manual mode on the EOS, hence, no need for fancy CCD cameras. What's so special about this telescope anyway (other than the price)?
It uses light amplification, like night vision, for astronomy. Which is not really a new concept, but combining it with other bells and whistles in a (somewhat) affordable package just might be.
As I understand it, the telescope will track and collect incoming light and project it towards the eyepiece. The longer you look at an object, the more detailed and resolved that image will become. In essence you will be looking at a long exposure photograph being stacked up in real-time, with best images coming (according to the manufacturers) at around the 1:30 - 2 minute mark, or less, depending on the target and aperture.
Last edited:
I think some people have got the wrong end of the stick over this.
Any light-amplification device works by using incoming photons to produce a stream of electrons which are then directed to a detector / screen. So night-vision goggles etc have this screen that you look at which has the image built-up on it by the image-intensifier.
So first of all, you are not "looking at the sky with your own eyes" - you are looking at an image displayed on a screen / plate / whatever you want to call it at the focal point of the eyepiece.
Secondly, colour - most image intensifiers actually are a green-screen view - maybe modern tech can produce non-green-screen (I have been out of the tech world for some time) but the frequency of the incoming photon producing electrons a the same frequency - now that would be a neat trick so how they can claim colour I don't know.
My experience of image-intensifiers leads me to worry if they have overcome the "noise" that is produced in very low light situations.
To me it looks like a gimmick.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has actually used one at their demos.
Any light-amplification device works by using incoming photons to produce a stream of electrons which are then directed to a detector / screen. So night-vision goggles etc have this screen that you look at which has the image built-up on it by the image-intensifier.
So first of all, you are not "looking at the sky with your own eyes" - you are looking at an image displayed on a screen / plate / whatever you want to call it at the focal point of the eyepiece.
Secondly, colour - most image intensifiers actually are a green-screen view - maybe modern tech can produce non-green-screen (I have been out of the tech world for some time) but the frequency of the incoming photon producing electrons a the same frequency - now that would be a neat trick so how they can claim colour I don't know.
My experience of image-intensifiers leads me to worry if they have overcome the "noise" that is produced in very low light situations.
To me it looks like a gimmick.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has actually used one at their demos.
Do you know this for a fact? I do, I used to own an LX200R ACF 12" and I got perfectly fine photos, without doing major amounts of stacking.
Again - What's so special about this telescope, other than price?
Since you didn't get this a second time, I'll explain better (I recognize that quoting myself may not have been the most explanatory move possible).
I'm perfectly aware of what you can do with stacking and a DSLR, I've used an EOS 60D on my 4" Mak for years for planetary work. Point being, we aren't talking about obtaining images via stacking, but having a telescope that can do the work in realtime for visual use, providing an already enhanced/stacked image at the eyepiece. I'm afraid that there has been a misunderstanding going on.
I'm perfectly aware of what you can do with stacking and a DSLR, I've used an EOS 60D on my 4" Mak for years for planetary work. Point being, we aren't talking about obtaining images via stacking, but having a telescope that can do the work in realtime for visual use, providing an already enhanced/stacked image at the eyepiece. I'm afraid that there has been a misunderstanding going on.
Thargon, et-al, did you scroll down on the link provided?
Turn the Amplified Vision ON and the system will start to accumulate light from the objects you are viewing all the while projecting it directly into the eyepiece of the telescope: the image is progressively intensified and in a matter of seconds colors and shapes of galaxies and nebulae, invisible in normal telescopes, will appear. Turn Field Recognition ON and the system will recognize and name the objects in the field ! Are you really getting those results from your Celestron 4.5 or your Meade 12". It also seems to me this would evade the use of Registax as well as it's doing it in real time.
@Akenbosch +1
@Akenbosch +1
I read the Physorg link, but there weren't any specs? I scan read it, didn't see, and nowhere to buy it because it will be a crowdfunded item.
Ok, I think the problem was the physorg page was such a bad layout and hard to read, I just didn't get it.
Yes - in other words, the eyepiece focusses on a little screen where the electronics gubbins projects an image (raw or image-intensified, with or without computer graphics). - I'd still like to know how they can get an image-intensifier to do different colours.
Presumably with 3 filters and 3 different intensifiers, then combine the images. That's how I would do it.
With that tiny aperture in 1 to 3 minutes? I remain to be convinced. It is a good trick if they can do it.