The discussion revolves around how backyard astronomers decide what celestial objects to observe, considering factors such as equipment limitations, environmental conditions, and personal preferences. Participants share their experiences and methods for planning observations, including the use of software and local resources.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the best methods for planning observations, as various approaches and challenges are discussed. Multiple competing views remain regarding the use of technology versus traditional methods, as well as the impact of local conditions on observing opportunities.
Limitations include the varying levels of experience among participants, the impact of environmental factors on visibility, and the ongoing restrictions due to the Covid-19 situation affecting access to local parks and astronomical societies.
Individuals interested in backyard astronomy, particularly those facing challenges with light pollution or obstructions, as well as those looking for community support and resources for planning observations.
I’m not so sure that the reduction in luminosity is great enough with polarisers . Iirc, my ND is 12% and even that’s pretty bright.lomidrevo said:
Nick-stg said:
That was my understanding. Thank you for confirming. But what about the h-alpha, h-beta, O-III etc.. based on their descriptions these appear to do the same thing as the UHC filters. What's the difference?George Jones said:
Nick-stg said:
on the filter I got (Orion Variable Polarizing Filter), you can adjust the amount of light transmission from 1% to 40%. Very practical, as you can appreciate different transmission in case of full moon, and different one in case of observing Jupiter (I noticed that some very fine details can be enhaced by using the filter even with Jupiter).sophiecentaur said:
Narrow-band vs broad band. Those that specifically identify an emission line block everything except that emission line. UHC filters have a broad band of what they let in and/or a narrow band of what they block (sodium-sulphur lines from street lights, for example). It's all described in the product details:Nick-stg said:
I totally agree. I never bought those. Probably more expensive than an nd filter? I must admit that I was commenting on a straight photographic polarlomidrevo said:
The UHC filter idea is a compromise between cutting out what you don't want to see (visually) and letting as much in that you do want. The resulting image is not quite as bright, of course but if you exclude nearby light sources and get light adapted, you can see a lot and the contrast is improved, of course. Astrophotography uses narrow band filters, for instance H-alpha (which will show you virtually nothing visually) and you use long exposure times (tracking and possibly guiding needed). Separate exposures with each filter produce a set of images which can be mixed to taste.Nick-stg said:
Annoying innit? But think of the man-hours in quality checking and the cost of low volume sales. Then realize that 'enthusiasts' in any field are suckers. At least you can measure the results here - unlike with the snake oil that goes into most HiFi equipment.chemisttree said:
Don't get me started on that one...sophiecentaur said:
