Indoor Astronomy: Viewing Options for Cold Places

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Astronomy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around options for indoor astronomy observation in cold environments, focusing on the setup of telescopes with wireless capabilities to transmit images to indoor screens. Participants explore various technical solutions, equipment recommendations, and the implications of camera resolution in astrophotography.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks affordable methods for outdoor telescope observation viewable on an indoor computer screen, questioning the need for wired versus wireless solutions.
  • Another suggests that if the telescope is within range of a wireless router, it may not require an ethernet cable, prompting inquiries about distance from the building.
  • Concerns about signal and data rate issues with wireless setups are raised, particularly by a participant who has experienced difficulties with Remote Desktop connections.
  • Questions arise about the necessity of having a separate computer at the telescope versus using USB connections for equipment.
  • Participants discuss the need for specific brands or models of CCD/CMOS sensors and wireless transmitters, emphasizing the desire to avoid having a second computer outdoors.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the low resolution of CCD cameras designed for telescopes, comparing them to higher-resolution sensors found in consumer cameras.
  • Another participant counters that telescope CCDs are of higher quality than typical point-and-shoot cameras and explains the misleading nature of resolution in regular cameras due to their pixel color filtering.
  • There is a discussion about the adequacy of resolution for monitors and the implications for printing images, with some suggesting that high resolution may not be necessary for typical viewing purposes.
  • Participants explore the market for telescope cameras, questioning whether there is a demand for cameras designed primarily for aesthetic purposes rather than scientific research.
  • Several points are made regarding the trade-offs of image resolution, including the relationship between telescope diffraction limits and pixel resolution, as well as the benefits of lower resolution for photon detection.
  • Further clarification is sought on the relationship between pixel angular resolution and CCD resolution, indicating ongoing debate about these technical aspects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of camera resolution in astrophotography, as well as the technical requirements for wireless setups. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on these topics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific equipment capabilities, the unresolved nature of technical challenges related to wireless connections, and the varying definitions of resolution in the context of astrophotography.

jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
most good observing locations seem to be located in high-altitude, COLD, places. even though i am not at high altitude, it is still mighty cold at night here in oregon.

what would you recommend for an affordable method to do basic observation where the scope is located outdoors but viewable on an indoor computer screen? is there a wireless solution, or would it have to be tethered?

thanks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If you can get the telescope within range of a wireless router/bridge/access point, you don't need to run an ethernet cable. So you have some fairly simple options there. How far away do you want the thing to be from your building/house?
 
I have a 30' USB cable going from my couch to my deck. I've tried going wireless, using a second computer and Remote Desktop, but I'm having signal/data rate issues. Some recent upgrades may help that though...
 
Oh yah, by the way, is there a separate computer system out at your telescope that you want to access indoors (as my solution implied) or is your telescope just out by itself with equipment you can attach via USB (as russ implied)?
 
the scope will be well within range of my router. what brand/model piece of gear would i need to look at to provide a CCD/CMOS sensor for the scope and wireless transmitter to talk to the router? and no, i don't want to have a second computer outside. what software would i need? thanks.
 
Er, well that's a problem: cameras don't run third party software or have antennas. That's what computers are for. The closest you can probably get is wireless usb.
 
jnorman said:
the scope will be well within range of my router. what brand/model piece of gear would i need to look at to provide a CCD/CMOS sensor for the scope and wireless transmitter to talk to the router? and no, i don't want to have a second computer outside. what software would i need? thanks.

What's the model of the camera you have? As Russ said, you're going to need a computer or other device depending on what kind of camera you have and its functionality.
 
yow - i obviously have some reading to do on this.
one other quick question - why do all the ccd cameras made for telescopes have such low resolution? how can you do anything worthwhile with 1-2mp sensors? why don't any of them have sensors like ones found in normal P&S cameras (10-12mp)? i was hoping i could get some decent photos out of the setup...

i currently have no gear at all - i sold my old 6" Newtonian, and just sold my celestron c90. so i am starting from scratch.
 
Three things:

-Telescope CCDs are far higher quality than regular camera CCDs (heck - most point and shoots are cmos!).

-Resolutions are misleading on normal cameras: they use a matrix of filters, so each pixel is only one color and the combined image is 1/3 the resolution you think it is.

-Third, your monitor is probably about 80dpi, or the equivalent of a 0.15 megapixel standard sized print! You don't need as much resolution as you think.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
You don't need as much resolution as you think.

Unless you plan on printing up large posters of your pictures :biggrin:

Hey russ, is there a niche (or is it even the dominant market) for telescope cameras that are mainly for "pretty pictures"? That is, they aren't really made for scientific research?
 
  • #11
There are a number of cameras that use the same high res color chips of DSLR cameras, advertising "easy" (and many people use the DSLR cameras themselves), but "easy" and "pretty" are more or less inversely proportional to each other.
 
  • #12
Some reasons to compromise on image resolution.
  • Not much sense in having a greater resolution than the telescope's diffraction limit
  • Lower resolution means more photons per detector pixel
 
  • #13
lpetrich said:
Some reasons to compromise on image resolution.
  • Not much sense in having a greater resolution than the telescope's diffraction limit
  • Lower resolution means more photons per detector pixel

Aren't these more dependent on the actual pixel's angular resolution than the CCD resolution?
 
  • #14
The resolution here is indeed the detector pixels' angular resolution.
 
  • #15
Pengwuino said:
Aren't these more dependent on the actual pixel's angular resolution than the CCD resolution?
A telescope has a specific resolution and field of view, so you can't just make bigger and bigger chips -- the two go together.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K