Voilà! 😊 kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4LMhqyla7ulq8k

Je sais qu'il y a des personnes qui l'ont fait avec deux SCT de 8". 11" me semble difficile parce que les télescopes sont trop gros et faut des tubes trop longs pour arriver au point d'observation ("vignetting"... perte de lumière).

@@astronomydrawings Merci. J'espère y parvenir aussi, sans toutefois être sûr d'obtenir une image deux fois plus lumineuse et précise.

Les producteurs professionnels ne construisent pas des binoscopes parce que c'est trop compliqué et ils ne réalisent pas de profit. Mais je peux t'assurer, tous qui ont essayé mon binoscope ne pouvaient plus lâcher les oculaires.

Un peu mieux? Tu devrais venir ici une fois et tu verras... 😊

go ahead then, get a run off the mill 6 or 8 inch dob and then compare to 25 inch dob or this 18 inch bino. Now, no aperture on this planet can change your mind if you dont understand how light works and how your eyes work. One thing is for sure tho: You HEAVILY underestimate 18 inches of light collecting aperture, let alone 18 inch bino's. What he saw visually and showed us through his sketches is more nebulosity in higher detail than 99% of all other amateur astronomers/telescope owners have ever seen visually. For many people, a 16 inch dob is considered the largest aperture that is still relatively easy to use. Having gotten the opportunities to use 16, 24 and 32 inchers, the views i get in my own 8 inch dob are comparable to finderscope views tbh. I can attest for the accuracy of some of drawings (couldnt use the 24 incher long enough).

Yes, though nebulae with a high surface brightness do show a very vivid blue-green colour. Once I though I saw a hint of yellow as well on the brightest rim of the Orion Nebula.

The eternal photographer-visual observer debate. 🤣 Few as those photons may be that I manage to capture with my inadequate eyes, the emotion of having captured the very same photons that travelled for millions of years to reach me is priceless to me.

Because I've lost interest. Maintaining this channel takes a lot of work and it doesn't seem to go anywhere for the moment. I'm sorry...

@@astronomydrawings Ohh, Sad to see you go :(

A Barlow does reduce coma because it reduces field curvature as the focal ratio of the total optical system is increased. If what you're saying were true, an SCT would be an f/2 scope instead of f/10 with all the coma that such a mirror would exhibit. Instead, the hyperbolic secondary mirror increases the focal ratio, flattens the field curvature and coma is greatly reduced. For the same reason, "Barlowed Newtonians" are sold as f/10 systems instead of f/5 and they exhibit less coma than a standard f/5. The Barlow is also an essential internal element of high-quality eyepieces as it reduces not only astigmatism but also coma. The difference between a Nagler and a classic Erfle is not just lens quality but most of all that a Nagler has an internal Barlow.

Same

Thank you very much!!! 😊

It was the same for me when I visited Mr. Otte's website and even more so when he eventually delivered it. It was also the feeling I got when I wanted to move it to a nearby star party and realised that I needed an extra large trailer... 😅

Hahaha... Thank you, though I'm far from a native speaker. 😉

I paid €3,300 per mirror from Nichol Optics UK, but that was in 2016...

Thank you very much, I'm glad you appreciate it. 😊

No, I'm afraid not. It would probably be impossible with any visual scope as red is the colour our eyes are least sensitive for. The only colour, apart from blue-green, I've ever seen in any nebula was a very slight yellow in the brightest rim of the Orion Nebula.

@@astronomydrawings Weirdly enough, both girlfriend and I noticed the red easily in Trifid from Chile in Obsession 25 inch, in 30 and 24mm ES eyepieces, unfiltered. She has even better color detection (she can see bluish in m57 in the 12 inch where I cant) and let out a wow! when I told her to climb the ladder and take a look at the trifid. I was stunned...along with the Homunculus it was our favourite object. Splendor with details! Later we also observed trifid with my 12 inch scope from Atacama, and the red was also there! Although not as apparent as with the 25 inch (again, according to her it was more prominent than to my eyes). The lagoon was turqoise blue in both the 25 and the 12 inch. We never saw any color from our home in Europe in either trifid or lagoon with the 12 inch, so my guess is it had much more to do with the nebula's position near zenith and excellent skies we enjoyed there. The guy who owns an observatory, an experienced astronomer, also confirmed that those colors are visible.

@@f4ucorsair153 Colour perception is personal and some see them easier than others. I also suspect that your sky in Chile was of better quality than my SQM 20.9, plus you would have seen the Trifid high in the sky and not at merely 20° above the horizon like in my case. That being said, I remain sceptical about claims of seeing colours in nebulae other than green-blue because that would be - theoretically - almost impossible, especially in objects with such a low surface brightness as the Trifid. I never saw anything more than a faint blue/grey in it, even though my binoscope would - theoretically - have the advantage over a 25" Obsession, not just because of aperture but also because of lower exit pupil. Scientific tests have in fact shown that most colour perception with low surface brightness objects are optical illusions, either induced by foreknowledge (you "know" it has to be red) but by contrast with the background hue. With this I don't want to say that what you perceived as red was wrong, but that it would be extremely difficult.

@@astronomydrawings Typical SQM would at least be 21.9 at that place (when the center of the milky way is not directly above, then it is probably lower as it is so bright). Not only that, but the transparency is second to none. The air is very dry. The colors were there, for sure. Like I said, my girlfriend, who isn't all that into astronomy and wasnt looking at tons of photograph of various dso's could see them. One simple confirmation for me (aside from her and the owner of the observatory agreeing) was the use of higher magnifications and filters. Whenever I used higher powered EP on Trifid, the red and blue disappeared .Also the only filter that didnt kill the red was Astronomik UHC, but it also made some of the reddish area white. In my 12 inch that I used from Atacama, same colors were visible (reddish and bluish in Trifid, turqoise blue in Lagoon, green in Eta Carina and orange in the Homunculus, although Homunculus wasnt easy in the 12, its small). Lagoon was really, REALLY vivid turqoise blue, unmistakeable. Both 12 and 25 inch showed the same colors, just that the 12 inch showed them with slightly less intensity. I will say that my 12 inch has enhanced 97% coatings on both primary and secondary, not sure how much that plays, but felt it needed to be said. Even through 15x70s, the lagoon was greenish, something I never was able to catch from home. Only on the nights of the best of transparency, from the southernmost island in my country was I able to glimpse greenish tints in the lagoon and trifid, but obviously nothing like from Chile. The Orion also didnt show that much more color in the 25 than it did in the 12. A LOT more detail, especially in the trapezium, with the E and F resolved at pretty low magnifications. But colors were pretty similar. Now, whether 18 inch bino has the advantage over 25 inch mono, i would say it depends on the object. I would say, IF the object has sufficient angular size at the large enough exit pupil in the 18 that color perception is not hindered by the object being too small, then I would say that yes, the bino has the advantage, as the 2 eyed view is noticeably brighter. What is that object angular size/color detection threshold, i cant say. If were talking about the lagoon, i would for sure say the bino has the advantage. The cats eye, its the other way around. All in all I was pretty exhilirated to see those same colors in my little 12 inch, even more than seeing them in the 25! It just proved that its an awesome little scope. Can be airline portable if built right, can be set up in 2 pieces in less than 2 minutes, very capable on planets, very much capable of showing even something as elusive as nebula colors (other than Orion and bright planetaries) under right conditions, something i never thought was possible in a widely available telescope size, ie. a 12 inch. I always thought one needs a monster dob. It just seems that, at least in this case, it wasn't the scope, but the sky, that was the limit 😉

⁠@@astronomydrawingsi’ve actually heard a few reports about seeing pinks and reds in the trifid before, i have not and i haven’t directly looked at it to attempt color. what i have seen color in without fail is NGC 3918, if you have never seen color in a DSO i definitely recommend it

You're absolutely right. It's actually another advantage of a binoscope, i.e. the light gathering power of a much bigger scope whilst retaining the exit pupil of a smaller scope. 😊

Thank you! Nothing beats observing them with two eyes. 😊

Yes, it's one of the biggest disadvantages of this design. I manage to observe comfortably up to 70-75°, any higher requires acrobatics. 😅 For the rest observing is very comfortable, just like any other scope.

Thank you very much! Yes, planets (on a good night with excellent seeing) are almost like photographs. Be careful with building a binoscope because there are many pitfalls, especially it has to be very stable and rigid, otherwise you'll have difficulties merging the images.

Thank you! 😊

Thank you for your kind comments! Of course, it all boils down to personal preference, portability etc. As you highlighted, a binoviewer can do wonders on the planets and bright star clusters and you can easily take it with you to your perfect observation spot. I'm sure that you love it with your C11, also because you don't actually need a corrector. Thank you once more!

Thank you very much! About money, binoscopes are expensive but I paid less than if I had bought a high-quality 25" full option, including shipping and import taxes, which would comparable in performance. Unfortunately it's getting hard nowadays to find a company that still builds binoscopes now that even JMI have stopped. Binoscopes are so tricky to make that for a commercial producer there isn't any money in it.

@@astronomydrawings Thank for the information mate 👍🏻👍🏻

Shocking? It depends. First of all, those impressive photographs have been made with many hours of exposure time or stacking multiple images and then spending hours behind the PC to get everything just right. There's no way any visual telescope could ever compete to that in terms of luminosity, colour and detail. That being said, a photo is just an image on your PC screen. Never will it give you the feeling of total immersion you get when looking through a binoscope with a couple of 100° eyepieces. And... I want to bet that no photo can ever compare to the view of the Orion Nebula through a big telescope.

@@astronomydrawings Yes, you have point. I remember having bought a 14 inch mirror and secondary and not having constructed a telescope yet, out of desperation I placed the primary at an angle on the floor and held the secondary and an eyepiece roughly where the should be pointing at M42 and being hit by a close up view of the trapezium stars shining through the nebula, unforgettable.

Pure oxygen dilates the pupils and gives a feeling of a "high", but I wouldn't recommend it to others. Yes, our eyes have been poorly made and even with a 10m telescope it wouldn't be all that impressive as such a scope would have a minimum power of 1429x for a 7mm exit pupil. Atmosphere and all... My binos are comparable to a 25" mono, but of course there's the factor of sky quality and the human eye. My sky certainly isn't perfect with an SQM of 20.9, but I don't complain. For most people telescope images are "disappointing" because all they know is the incredible, high-definition, million colour photographs. Of course, no visual telescope can ever compete to that. But when you explain that the photons that hit your retina really come from those far away places and have really travelled even for millions of light years to end up in your eye, people are generally astounded. Besides, I have yet to see a photo of the Orion Nebula, for instance, that's just as impressive as the sight through a big telescope under a dark sky. Or through a binoscope such as mine with its bewildering 3D effect and seemingly infinite FOV. 😊

In the hills of Reggio Emilia, Italy, SQM 20.9.

Thank you very much!

Thank you very much! No, I've never experimented with night goggles (yet). It would also be a costly affair because I'd have to get two of them. 😅 That being said, I prefer to see with my own eyes, not technologically enhanced ones. Call me old style... 😆

Well, even though an SCT doesn't require a corrector, the binoviewer will definitely make you lose some light, reducing your 11" to perhaps a 9".

*Cries in 4"*

Two eyes see more than one! 😊

Perhaps you should come and visit one day and then you can see for yourself? And about binoviewers vs. binoscopes, I've actually made a video about the subject which you may find interesting... kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4LMhqyla7ulq8k

someone here seems jealous and doesnt seem to understand how 3D vision and depth of field work. Nothing to see here but an idiot, moving along.

Thank you so much! 😊