When did amateur AP become accessible to the masses?

3.10 pfile ... · view views · Share link
Bill McLaughlin: maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10? Lots of them. First was the ST4, really a guider but would work as a camera. The "real" SBIG camera at the time was the ST6. Then: ST4X, ST5, ST7 (the first self guide camera), ST8, ST9, ST10, STL 11000 and several more beyond that like the STT 8300 etc. I had the ST4, ST5, ST7 (serial number 12), ST8 (prototype for testing), ST10, STL 11000 (another prototype) and finally the STT 8300. I took some nice (for the day) images with those, including a couple of Sky and Telescope covers with the ST8 and STL 11000 back in the early 2000s. SBIG is now owned by someone else and has pretty much lost it's way. I no longer own any of their products save an old seeing monitor that keeps soldiering on. thanks. i should have known that serveral cameras predated the st-10 but i forget everything these days. sbig is owned by diffraction now, making service kind of a hassle (canada) Like

3.10

...

Bill McLaughlin:
maybe there was an SBIG camera before the ST-10?

Lots of them. First was the ST4, really a guider but would work as a camera. The "real" SBIG camera at the time was the ST6. Then:

ST4X, ST5, ST7 (the first self guide camera), ST8, ST9, ST10, STL 11000 and several more beyond that like the STT 8300 etc.

I had the ST4, ST5, ST7 (serial number 12), ST8 (prototype for testing), ST10, STL 11000 (another prototype) and finally the STT 8300.

I took some nice (for the day) images with those, including a couple of Sky and Telescope covers with the ST8 and STL 11000 back in the early 2000s.

SBIG is now owned by someone else and has pretty much lost it's way. I no longer own any of their products save an old seeing monitor that keeps soldiering on.

thanks. i should have known that serveral cameras predated the st-10 but i forget everything these days.

sbig is owned by diffraction now, making service kind of a hassle (canada)

1.51 Heather Charron ... · view views · Share link
I know a lot of people getting into AP over the last few years were first exposed to the hobby via YouTube. Being able to watch a free, detailed tutorial definitely makes it more accessible, especially for those without access to a local astronomy club or any previous experience with photography or astronomy. I got hooked when I finally got a nice telescope and realized I could attached a DSLR. Prior to that, I thought all the images on the APOD app were taken by professional astronomers and space telescopes. I had NO idea I could actually take images of nebulae and galaxies. I just went onto youtube to see how to connect my old DSLR and the rest is history. Like

1.51

Heather Charron

...

· Share link

I know a lot of people getting into AP over the last few years were first exposed to the hobby via YouTube. Being able to watch a free, detailed tutorial definitely makes it more accessible, especially for those without access to a local astronomy club or any previous experience with photography or astronomy. I got hooked when I finally got a nice telescope and realized I could attached a DSLR. Prior to that, I thought all the images on the APOD app were taken by professional astronomers and space telescopes. I had NO idea I could actually take images of nebulae and galaxies. I just went onto youtube to see how to connect my old DSLR and the rest is history.

4.79 Oskari Nikkinen ... · view views · Share link
Arun H: I can spend $100-$200K on a fancy one, but a used $20K one will get me to work and do my groceries just fine, as long as I am OK with the slower 0-60 time! I have to say it seems from this sentence that you are the kind of person that was mentioned to have the right circumstances for the hobby. Since you consider 20k a "used grocery car", which is frankly absurd in my opinion. 20k is a new, or barely used very nice car... The actual good value second hand car is like a quarter of that (speaking in € here). I somewhat agree with @Álvaro Méndez comment that we have to ask whether it really is available to the masses at the moment. I think the answer is if you are from one of the couple dozen wealthier nations and make a decent living, then yes it is and has been for a while (since DSLRs). If not, then i would say it really is not available to the masses. The cheapest possible setup consists entirely of compromises and second hand deals and still probably costs at least a few hundred (€/$) which is a lot of money for an average joe. I dont mean to be a snob and say this kind of kit cant take a good image, because it absolutely can like was already shown above, but the average setup that can do more than wide field is still several thousand € easily which i would personally not consider "available to the masses". Edited ... Like

4.79

Oskari Nikkinen

...

· Share link

Arun H:
I can spend $100-$200K on a fancy one, but a used $20K one will get me to work and do my groceries just fine, as long as I am OK with the slower 0-60 time!

I have to say it seems from this sentence that you are the kind of person that was mentioned to have the right circumstances for the hobby. Since you consider 20k a "used grocery car", which is frankly absurd in my opinion. 20k is a new, or barely used very nice car... The actual good value second hand car is like a quarter of that (speaking in € here).

I somewhat agree with @Álvaro Méndez comment that we have to ask whether it really is available to the masses at the moment. I think the answer is if you are from one of the couple dozen wealthier nations and make a decent living, then yes it is and has been for a while (since DSLRs). If not, then i would say it really is not available to the masses. The cheapest possible setup consists entirely of compromises and second hand deals and still probably costs at least a few hundred (€/$) which is a lot of money for an average joe. I dont mean to be a snob and say this kind of kit cant take a good image, because it absolutely can like was already shown above, but the average setup that can do more than wide field is still several thousand € easily which i would personally not consider "available to the masses".

Edited ...

14.24 Arun H ... · view views · Share link
Oskari Nikkinen: I have to say it seems from this sentence that you are the kind of person that was mentioned to have the right circumstances for the hobby. Since you consider 20k a "used grocery car", which is frankly absurd in my opinion. 20k is a new, or barely used very nice car... The actual good value second hand car is like a quarter of that (speaking in € here). Well, I live in the US, where, according to Kelly Blue Book, the average price paid for a new car is approximately $47,000. https://www.kbb.com/car-news/new-car-prices-lowest-in-almost-2-years/ The same source, KBB, says the average used car price is $27,000. https://www.kbb.com/car-news/average-used-car-price-falls-but-not-for-everyone/ At least in the US, someone paying $20,000 for a used car is buying one for below average price. Like

14.24

Arun H

...

· Share link

Oskari Nikkinen:
I have to say it seems from this sentence that you are the kind of person that was mentioned to have the right circumstances for the hobby. Since you consider 20k a "used grocery car", which is frankly absurd in my opinion. 20k is a new, or barely used very nice car... The actual good value second hand car is like a quarter of that (speaking in € here).

Well, I live in the US, where, according to Kelly Blue Book, the average price paid for a new car is approximately $47,000.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/new-car-prices-lowest-in-almost-2-years/

The same source, KBB, says the average used car price is $27,000.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/average-used-car-price-falls-but-not-for-everyone/

At least in the US, someone paying $20,000 for a used car is buying one for below average price.

1.51 churmey ... · view views · Share link
I guess masses could be defined in different ways. But the biggest mass I saw was after the release of the ASI1600 Like

12.25 Alex Nicholas ... · view views · Share link
When it went digital…. Manually guiding through an eyepiece while exposing a 35mm frame of Illford HP4 for 30~40 minutes is not a pleasant time, nor are the results spectacular. Fast forward to digital SLR's and autoguiding, you can set your camera on an intervalometer, tell the computer to guide for you and come back in 3 hrs to do a meridian flip, then go again… The next big jump was quality, affordable CMOS sensors… Like

12.25

Alex Nicholas

...

· Share link

When it went digital….

Manually guiding through an eyepiece while exposing a 35mm frame of Illford HP4 for 30~40 minutes is not a pleasant time, nor are the results spectacular.

Fast forward to digital SLR's and autoguiding, you can set your camera on an intervalometer, tell the computer to guide for you and come back in 3 hrs to do a meridian flip, then go again…

The next big jump was quality, affordable CMOS sensors…

1.20 MaksPower ... · view views · Share link
It always was accessible - amateur astrophography began way back in the film era. Even in the earliest editions of Sky & Telescope and the Sci Am ATM books from the 1950s you'll find black & white prints taken by amateurs of the sky through anything from cameras of the day, to telescopes. You'd be surprised what was possible with quite basic gear in the hands of a knowledgeable (skilled) amateur. In practical terms the major jumps since the 1990's technology have been: 1. CNC manufactured mounts capable of precision tracking at a consumer price; 2. Optics (and OTA assemblies) fit for the purpose at a consumer price, notably the small triplet APO's that are still selling like hotcakes; 3. Microprocessor control of the mount, 4. Autoguiding that actually works, superceding visual guiding; 5. CCD and now CMOS cameras. The next revolution will be SPAD camera sensors. What is startling is that its now possible with consumer-grade gear to produce an image from a suburban backyard which is comparable to those from observatories 30 years ago. Edited ... Like

1.20

MaksPower

...

· Share link

It always was accessible - amateur astrophography began way back in the film era.

Even in the earliest editions of Sky & Telescope and the Sci Am ATM books from the 1950s you'll find black & white prints taken by amateurs of the sky through anything from cameras of the day, to telescopes.

You'd be surprised what was possible with quite basic gear in the hands of a knowledgeable (skilled) amateur.

In practical terms the major jumps since the 1990's technology have been:

1. CNC manufactured mounts capable of precision tracking at a consumer price;
2. Optics (and OTA assemblies) fit for the purpose at a consumer price, notably the small triplet APO's that are still selling like hotcakes;
3. Microprocessor control of the mount,
4. Autoguiding that actually works, superceding visual guiding;
5. CCD and now CMOS cameras.

The next revolution will be SPAD camera sensors.

What is startling is that its now possible with consumer-grade gear to produce an image from a suburban backyard which is comparable to those from observatories 30 years ago.

Edited ...

12.25 Alex Nicholas ... · view views · Share link
MaksPower: What is startling is that its now possible with consumer-grade gear to produce an image from a suburban backyard which is comparable to those from observatories 30 years ago. Moreover, the fact that amateurs are discovering things that have until now been unknown. Despite space telescopes, and massive professional observatories imaging the skies for decades, amateurs look at things differently, and can afford to have their scope trained on a specific target for tens if not hundreds of hours, teasing out details that have gone unnoticed. Look at the OIII jets that were recently discovered near M31 as a prime example. Like

12.25

Alex Nicholas

...

· Share link

MaksPower:
What is startling is that its now possible with consumer-grade gear to produce an image from a suburban backyard which is comparable to those from observatories 30 years ago.

Moreover, the fact that amateurs are discovering things that have until now been unknown.

Despite space telescopes, and massive professional observatories imaging the skies for decades, amateurs look at things differently, and can afford to have their scope trained on a specific target for tens if not hundreds of hours, teasing out details that have gone unnoticed. Look at the OIII jets that were recently discovered near M31 as a prime example.

15.16 Wei-Hao Wang ... · view views · Share link
It's not possible to pinpoint the dates before you can quantitatively define terms like masses, affordable, high quality, routinely, etc. For example, what's affordable? Many regular people like you and me can afford amateur class equipments 40 years ago. What's high quality images that we routinely see today? Using today's whatever standard, only 10% of the photo 10 years ago can quality, no matter what that standard is. And this fact won't change 10 years later because the standard then will be higher. With the constantly shifting standard, there will never be an answer to the original question because the answer would keep changing. Despite the very non-scientific, very poorly framed question posted by the OP, I think the advents of the following things clearly contributed to today's popularity of astrophotography: 1. Internet. This significantly speeds up information exchange, which attracts more people, and helps more people to learn quicker. 2. DSLRs that are capable for astrophotography. Many already mentioned this. The first DSLR that's astro-capable, in my memory, is Fujifilm Finepix S2 pro, which appeared in 2002. Then followed by Canon CMOS generation cameras. DeepSkyStacker appeared in roughly the same period. Such free stacking program helped, but I am not sure if we can consider them the driving force. 3. Cheap astro cameras, scopes, and mounts from China. This probably started by QHY from about 2010, and then ZWO, iOptron, Sharpstar/ASKAR etc into 2020. 4. Imaging automation program that integrated with mini/micro PC and equipments? I put a question mark here like DeepSkyStacker. They help to keep people in this hobby and reduce frustration. But I am not sure if they are the driving force of the expansion of astrophotography. Among the above four, I would say #1 is the most important one. Without it, not just astrophotography, many things today would have been very different. My 2 cents. Cheers, Wei-Hao Like

15.16

Wei-Hao Wang

...

· Share link

It's not possible to pinpoint the dates before you can quantitatively define terms like masses, affordable, high quality, routinely, etc. For example, what's affordable? Many regular people like you and me can afford amateur class equipments 40 years ago. What's high quality images that we routinely see today? Using today's whatever standard, only 10% of the photo 10 years ago can quality, no matter what that standard is. And this fact won't change 10 years later because the standard then will be higher. With the constantly shifting standard, there will never be an answer to the original question because the answer would keep changing.

Despite the very non-scientific, very poorly framed question posted by the OP, I think the advents of the following things clearly contributed to today's popularity of astrophotography:

1. Internet. This significantly speeds up information exchange, which attracts more people, and helps more people to learn quicker.

2. DSLRs that are capable for astrophotography. Many already mentioned this. The first DSLR that's astro-capable, in my memory, is Fujifilm Finepix S2 pro, which appeared in 2002. Then followed by Canon CMOS generation cameras. DeepSkyStacker appeared in roughly the same period. Such free stacking program helped, but I am not sure if we can consider them the driving force.

3. Cheap astro cameras, scopes, and mounts from China. This probably started by QHY from about 2010, and then ZWO, iOptron, Sharpstar/ASKAR etc into 2020.

4. Imaging automation program that integrated with mini/micro PC and equipments? I put a question mark here like DeepSkyStacker. They help to keep people in this hobby and reduce frustration. But I am not sure if they are the driving force of the expansion of astrophotography.

Among the above four, I would say #1 is the most important one. Without it, not just astrophotography, many things today would have been very different.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao

7.94 Frank Alvaro Topic starter ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
Wei-Hao Wang: Despite the very non-scientific, very poorly framed question posted by the OP, Well, the question must have been clear enough to most in light of the numerous responses. And how a simple, qualitative question such as it was, for the simple purpose stated, is supposed to be "scientific" beats me. Anyhow, thanks to all the other people who responded to my question, as it has given me more than enough facts and experiences for me to include in my presentation. Frank Like

7.94

Frank Alvaro

Topic starter

...

· 1 like

· Share link

Wei-Hao Wang:
Despite the very non-scientific, very poorly framed question posted by the OP,

Well, the question must have been clear enough to most in light of the numerous responses. And how a simple, qualitative question such as it was, for the simple purpose stated, is supposed to be "scientific" beats me.

Anyhow, thanks to all the other people who responded to my question, as it has given me more than enough facts and experiences for me to include in my presentation.

Frank

1.20 MaksPower ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
...Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time! This alludes to one of the big limitations with emulsion photography (ie film and plates) - there is an exposure duration at which it suffers "reciprocity failure", ie doubling the duration does not capture twice as much information. Worse, if you push the exposure much longer than this limit, the emulsion fogs and goes black. And there was no way to stack multiple photographs sufficiently precisely to be any practical use. With digital reciprocity failure is eliminated - and with stacking software, there is no hard limit to the integration time. However the mathematics of signal theory applies - the integration time must be doubled to achieve a 3dB improvement in the signal. This ultimately imposes a practical limit. And there's a huge practical benefit too - since emulsion photography is a single exposure, if anything goes wrong the entire time is wasted. Many were the times I came home and processed the film only to find the results were mediocre to poor. Whereas with digital we can cull the poorest frames and stack the best ones. This is a huge improvement in productivity. Edited ... Like

1.20

MaksPower

...

· 1 like

· Share link

...Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time!

This alludes to one of the big limitations with emulsion photography (ie film and plates) - there is an exposure duration at which it suffers "reciprocity failure", ie doubling the duration does not capture twice as much information. Worse, if you push the exposure much longer than this limit, the emulsion fogs and goes black. And there was no way to stack multiple photographs sufficiently precisely to be any practical use.

With digital reciprocity failure is eliminated - and with stacking software, there is no hard limit to the integration time. However the mathematics of signal theory applies - the integration time must be doubled to achieve a 3dB improvement in the signal. This ultimately imposes a practical limit.

And there's a huge practical benefit too - since emulsion photography is a single exposure, if anything goes wrong the entire time is wasted. Many were the times I came home and processed the film only to find the results were mediocre to poor.

Whereas with digital we can cull the poorest frames and stack the best ones. This is a huge improvement in productivity.

Edited ...

15.16 Wei-Hao Wang ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
MaksPower: ...Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time! This alludes to one of the big limitations with emulsion photography (ie film and plates) - there is an exposure duration at which it suffers "reciprocity failure", ie doubling the duration does not capture twice as much information. Worse, if you push the exposure much longer than this limit, the emulsion fogs and goes black. And there was no way to stack multiple photographs sufficiently precisely to be any practical use. This is a very common misconception in the film era. What reciprocity failure really is is degraded sensitivity (lower ISO) under very low light. The lower the incident light intensity, lower the sensitivity. The reason this is connected to long integration is the light meters in cameras. When the light intensity is low, the meter gives a long exposure time. So the rule of thumb in the film era is that when your camera's light meter tells you an exposure time longer than 1 second, you are in the regime where reciprocity failure would kick in. But long exposure time isn't the fundamental reason. You can intentionally apply a long exposure while light intensity is sufficient (for example, the meter tells you 1/4 sec, but you still use 1 sec), and you won't suffer from reciprocity failure. In astrophotography, there is not a light meter telling us what the exposure time should be. So we should go back to the fundamental reason of reciprocity failure: low light intensity, not exposure time. A key consequence of this concept is that when you shoot the same thing with the same optics (so same light intensity on the film), a longer exposure time always lead to a denser silver halide condensation on the film. You get what you are supposed to get according to the characteristic curve and there is no wasted effort (compared to same light intensity and shorter exposure). As for stacking, it can be done in wet dark room. Harder, but doable and possible to master. One of the master of this in the amateur world (Tony Hallas) is an active member on this site. And of course, it becomes easier in the digital dark room: you scan multiple long exposure film and stack the digital images to get the square-root N improvement. Like

15.16

Wei-Hao Wang

...

· 1 like

· Share link

MaksPower:
...Funny too that the best and most effective upgrade you can make, at least in deep sky imaging is to simply to increase your integration time!

This alludes to one of the big limitations with emulsion photography (ie film and plates) - there is an exposure duration at which it suffers "reciprocity failure", ie doubling the duration does not capture twice as much information. Worse, if you push the exposure much longer than this limit, the emulsion fogs and goes black. And there was no way to stack multiple photographs sufficiently precisely to be any practical use.

This is a very common misconception in the film era. What reciprocity failure really is is degraded sensitivity (lower ISO) under very low light. The lower the incident light intensity, lower the sensitivity.

The reason this is connected to long integration is the light meters in cameras. When the light intensity is low, the meter gives a long exposure time. So the rule of thumb in the film era is that when your camera's light meter tells you an exposure time longer than 1 second, you are in the regime where reciprocity failure would kick in. But long exposure time isn't the fundamental reason. You can intentionally apply a long exposure while light intensity is sufficient (for example, the meter tells you 1/4 sec, but you still use 1 sec), and you won't suffer from reciprocity failure.

In astrophotography, there is not a light meter telling us what the exposure time should be. So we should go back to the fundamental reason of reciprocity failure: low light intensity, not exposure time. A key consequence of this concept is that when you shoot the same thing with the same optics (so same light intensity on the film), a longer exposure time always lead to a denser silver halide condensation on the film. You get what you are supposed to get according to the characteristic curve and there is no wasted effort (compared to same light intensity and shorter exposure).

As for stacking, it can be done in wet dark room. Harder, but doable and possible to master. One of the master of this in the amateur world (Tony Hallas) is an active member on this site. And of course, it becomes easier in the digital dark room: you scan multiple long exposure film and stack the digital images to get the square-root N improvement.

14.24 Arun H ... · view views · Share link
Wei-Hao Wang: What reciprocity failure really is is degraded sensitivity (lower ISO) under very low light. The lower the incident light intensity, lower the sensitivity. This is probably one key advantage of CMOS and CCD sensors is that they, for the most part, have a linear response over the entire range. Were it not so, flat field correction would not work very well, since the light intensity used in flats is usually higher than typical light intensity for our light frames. Like

14.24

Arun H

...

· Share link

Wei-Hao Wang:
What reciprocity failure really is is degraded sensitivity (lower ISO) under very low light. The lower the incident light intensity, lower the sensitivity.

This is probably one key advantage of CMOS and CCD sensors is that they, for the most part, have a linear response over the entire range. Were it not so, flat field correction would not work very well, since the light intensity used in flats is usually higher than typical light intensity for our light frames.

15.16 Wei-Hao Wang ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
Arun H: This is probably one key advantage of CMOS and CCD sensors is that they, for the most part, have a linear response over the entire range. Were it not so, flat field correction would not work very well, since the light intensity used in flats is usually higher than typical light intensity for our light frames. The most significant advantage of silicon detectors over silver halide is the high quantum efficiency. The difference can be almost factor of 10. And reciprocity failure makes it worse. Linearity is an issue, but not a game stopper. (In the past two decades, many DSLRs have nonlinear behavior, and we more or less know how to overcome it.) A simple gamma curve can approximately bring scanned photographic data to linear. A further modeling of the illumination pattern of the optics can lead to very good flat fielding. This is not more complicated than nowadays' gradient modeling for those who know how to do it. This is for flattening the sky background. For good photometry of celestial objects, this is not enough, but professional astronomers have ways to handle this. Edited ... Like

15.16

Wei-Hao Wang

...

· 1 like

· Share link

Arun H:
This is probably one key advantage of CMOS and CCD sensors is that they, for the most part, have a linear response over the entire range. Were it not so, flat field correction would not work very well, since the light intensity used in flats is usually higher than typical light intensity for our light frames.

The most significant advantage of silicon detectors over silver halide is the high quantum efficiency. The difference can be almost factor of 10. And reciprocity failure makes it worse.

Linearity is an issue, but not a game stopper. (In the past two decades, many DSLRs have nonlinear behavior, and we more or less know how to overcome it.) A simple gamma curve can approximately bring scanned photographic data to linear. A further modeling of the illumination pattern of the optics can lead to very good flat fielding. This is not more complicated than nowadays' gradient modeling for those who know how to do it. This is for flattening the sky background. For good photometry of celestial objects, this is not enough, but professional astronomers have ways to handle this.

Edited ...

	Distinct awarded users	Total awarded images
Image of the day
Top picks
Top pick nominations

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Deep sky
Solar system
Extremely wide field
Star trails
Northern lights
Noctilucent clouds
Landscape
Artificial satellite

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Backyard
Traveller
Own remote observatory
Amateur hosting facility
Public amaeteur data
Professional, scientific grade data
Mix of multiple sources
Other
Unknown

AstroBin

AstroBin

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

When did amateur AP become accessible to the masses? Other · Frank Alvaro · ... · 38 · 1311 · 4

AstroBin

AstroBin

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

When did amateur AP become accessible to the masses? Other · Frank Alvaro · ... · 38 · 1311 · 4

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(