*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9320
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2022, 07:28:45 AM »
First you claim that camera lenses are equivalent to astronomical telescopes, and have now discarded that argument in favor of a claim that camera lenses are telescopes. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just stop posting.

Quote
And so what? It's even more proof that you can use an EQ mount, if properly polar aligned, and with a $10,000 EQ mount with hyper precision motors and gears, way more precise (and expensive) than the models you reference, you can get some 4+ hours duration - Look at Rigel in the video, stays in frame the whole time. No software is going to pull something out of frame back into frame.

You keep repeating yourself. It could have just wobbled back and fourth, or he could have repeated it a number of times, adjusting the mechanisms until he got what he wanted to keep everything within a reasonable frame.

Quote
What part of the phrase in bold, "is left to track on its own and is unguided." do you not understand? What does, left to track on its own mean to you?

Software manipulation? How do you think any timelapse is made, whether based on video or photography?

I left my camera to create an exposed shot to capture on its own; that doesn't mean that I didn't try it a bunch of times, that I didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, or that I didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what I wanted.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2022, 08:27:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2669
    • View Profile
Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2022, 08:29:33 AM »
First you claim that camera lenses are equivalent to astronomical telescopes, and have now discarded that argument in favor of a claim that camera lenses are telescopes. Sometimes the best thing to do is to just stop posting.

I can attach a camera to a telescope lens and I can attach a telescope lens to a camera. How do you think someone with a telescope captures an image? Is that something that is too complex for you to understand? Not to mention, as already cited, the guy used a lens specifically designed for astrophotography and attached it to his Canon DSLR. So was his rig a telescope or a camera? Both. Why is this so difficult for you? And why are you trying to make some big distinction? It doesn't matter.

Quote
And so what? It's even more proof that you can use an EQ mount, if properly polar aligned, and with a $10,000 EQ mount with hyper precision motors and gears, way more precise (and expensive) than the models you reference, you can get some 4+ hours duration - Look at Rigel in the video, stays in frame the whole time. No software is going to pull something out of frame back into frame.

You keep repeating yourself. It could have just wobbled back and fourth or that he could have repeated it a number of times, adjusting the mechanisms until he got what he wanted to keep everything within a reasonable frame.

Quote
What part of the phrase in bold, "is left to track on its own and is unguided." do you not understand? What does, left to track on its own mean to you?

Software manipulation? How do you think any timelapse is made, whether based on video or photography?

I left my camera to create an exposed shot to capture on its own; that doesn't mean that I didn't try it a bunch of times, that I didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, or that I didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what I wanted.

He states, "is left to track on its own and is unguided." That pretty much says it all. Now you are just making up things. I could just as easily say, "It means he didn't try it a bunch of times, he didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, he didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what he wanted."

"is left to track on its own and is unguided." is just what it says. Why you're making up a whole bunch of stuff that he could have done is beyond comprehension.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2022, 09:00:42 PM »
"I've never seen a camera with an equally powerful lens as an astronomical telescope. Who knew that telescope manufacturers were unnecessarily making their telescopes so large when they could pack it down into a small package and get equal results, as indicated by someone's claim on an internet forum. ::)" - Tom Bishop

The Hale telescope at Mount Palomar has no eyepiece. It is impossible to look through it as a telescope, all you can do is take pictures. Is it a telescope or a camera?

The pictures it takes require long exposures, thus an EQ mount is necessary. A large "horseshoe mount" has a motor on ti to power it at 1 rev per day, aka 15 degrees per hour. The mount is aligned to be parallel to the earth's axis. Look it up, really fascinating 1935 tech. Still used today by CalTech, UC, Cornnell, and JPL. The FAQ says "small conspiracy", but if the earth is flat they must all be some combination of stupid and/or liars.

All major astronomical telescopes use cameras, for at least 3 reasons. 1 - permamnent record for sharing and further study, 2 - film/digital can do long exposure for dimmer objects, the human eye can't, and 3- time on these telescopes is valuable, you submit request to take pic of something, they stack them up one after the other to get the most out of the telescope. I expect there is close to zero astronomers putting their eyes to a telescope and staring. Besides, they probably use spectrographs, infrared, ultraviolet, etc, to study things that are outside the wavelengths the human eye can see.

When mars was unusually close and thus the largest it ever appears, a local astronomy club had a public meeting where they lined up their telescopes from small to large, all with EQ mounts and 1 rpd motors. We looked through the eyepieces, smallest to largest, and each one you could see mars a little better. The last one had no eyepiece, it had a CCD that connected to a laptop through usb. So that telescope, you looked at a laptop screen. It used eq mount to get exactly the same image as the eyepiece telescopes, although bigger and more detailed.

I doubt that modern telescopes use film cameras any more. Why bother with developing and cost, just get a shareable permanent image in a file. Here are a bunch of digital cameras made to screw on to telescope eyepiece mounts:

https://www.highpointscientific.com/telescope-accessories/astro-photography/ccd-cameras

Telescope/cameras that are physically larger collect more light and so can see dimmer objects. This is why owls and other night hunters have big eyes. The only part of the telescope that can't be miniaturized with adequate results is the optics. You can make a tiny telescope/camera, but it won;t see very much. Your cell phone is a telescope, just set it to magnify. It's not a good one, but you can buy an external lens and make it betterm or even better, mount your cell phone to a telescope:



A telescope is, or can be a camera. A single lens reflex camera allows the photographer to look through the same lens as the film (or CCD) will see, with a telephoto lens , it is literally both a telescope and a camera.

On FE, the surface is straight and the light is curved.
On RE, the surface is curved and the light is straight.

Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2022, 11:31:09 PM »


I left my camera to create an exposed shot to capture on its own; that doesn't mean that I didn't try it a bunch of times, that I didn't go to great lengths to create artificially good conditions, or that I didn't put it through extensive editing to unnaturally make what I wanted.
What exactly are "artificially good conditions"?  Do you mean "with precision"?   

I have a precision timepiece.  The drawback is that it only tells the correct time if I set it with precision or, perhaps in your vernacular, "artificially good conditions".