Thinking about joining Telescope Live or some other service : opinions, reviews, howtos?

Hi, 

I was using itelescope.net for a year and was quite satisfied. Many things could go wrong (weather, smoke from wildfires, camera malfunction) but when that happened you would always get your money back instantly. It helped me understand a lot of things about automated astrophotography. Like, how you plan a mosaic.

And I did capture a couple of Southern targets that I can't reach from Greece.

In the end, I decided I prefer acquiring my own data because I enjoy observing in semi-real time (EAA) as well as messing up with the gear, even if my data is nowhere near as good. But the experience with itelescope was fun and educational. Definitely recommend them.

Cheers,
Dimitris



​​​​

I have a subscription to telescope.live. They have some features that I really like. You can check this image I integrated from data captured by one of their telescopes. 

https://astrob.in/t61obk/0/

I probably don't take more advantage of it, because I spend most of my hobby-time working from my own backyard and I still enjoy very much setting my equipment and taking images myself. I think it can get a bit pricey if you start to use their advanced observations service. For me, anyway. But they have a lot of data and useful learning videos that you can use with the basic subscription. I haven't tried any other remote imaging service yet.

Hi,

it's obviously not a replacement for the experience to collect and work with own data. It has already pointed out using a scope for own data collection is very expensive. On the other hand buying existing data sets appears quite reasonably priced to me - in particular if you buy the bundles. With only a hand full of clear skies in the last three months I would have been screwed without the Telescope Live service. As you pointed out yourself, access to the objects of the southern sky is a nice bonus too. I mainly buy data which is out of my own reach or not within the focal length limits of my own equipment. 
Since you can cancel membership any time and since the cheapest membership level starts at 4€ per month you don't run a huge risk to just try it out. 

Best regards
Wolfgang

Hi Rob, 

I joined Roboscopes in October, primarily to access the Northern Sky.  After reviewing a few (including the purchase of time),  I chose Roboscopes primarily on cost [a syndicate subscription model]  and available equipment [CMOS device].  The others I tried included Telescopes Live, DSW and ChileScopes. [Yes, I know two of them are in the South - but it gave me a larger sample to compare].  

First point to note is that all these facilities can and did provide me with good data, so I don't think you can go wrong with any, should you decide to choose this path.

 Chilescopes perhaps provided me with the highest quality data in terms of seeing.  I had a 25% loss rate in terms of data quality, which Chilescopes immediately credited me back.  Both Telescopes Live and DSW provided me with good data, but I didn't try them out for long enough for any statistically meaningful assessment.  

Since joining the Roboscopes Pier 5 syndicate (Tak180ED/ZWO2400MC), my experience has not really been what I expected.   I joined a syndicate to engage in lively, informative and constructive discussion around targets, processing etc.  There has been none.  Tumbleweeds metaphorically blow across the chat room. A less active community, of course, meant less competition for time and so I have been able to get a lot of objects I have proposed observed - even if I am just as happy to have access to images proposed by others. 

I also joined at a bad weather time, so much of the data taken was compromised by dew and cloud.  That's OK, since it was easy to resubmit requests.    But it involved a lot of effort in doing the initial QC and then resubmitting.  It is also hard to QC data, without the information about the conditions in which it was taken.   The slight defensive nature of the support staff wasn't really helpful either [they are remote too],  but I suspect that they were also quite stressed by the weather and the impact on the data.  

All in all, I am happy with my investment in Roboscopes (time and money).  It has allowed me to process (and own) images of targets I would not have been able to image otherwise.  In 4 months, I would have posted around 20 images to Astrobin (out of a similar number that didn't make it past the processing stage). Of those, perhaps 10 are what I would have been happy with "at home", where I have more control of what conditions I observe in.   I would note that, while the seeing at Roboscopes is "probably" better than my own site, the darkness is not.  

Overall, therefore, I expect about 30 good images, including mosaics, for my years subscription.  Your bar for good may be higher than mine!  But there are out there on Astrobin for you to judge.  

On a purely financial basis [it not really about the financials - nothing beats taking your own data], the subscription model is very good value for money.   The USD700/year translate to about USD20 per image, all of which have between 5-15 hours integration time.  Compared to my own set-up (USD30k for 180 images in almost 2 years) my breakeven point with a subscription model is still a few years away.  

Of course, a subscription model locks you into to one type of telescope - next time I would choose a mono camera - but for me a subscription model was just so much better value of money, it was hard to justify spending in excess of USD200 per image in a non-subscription model.  

Nevertheless, were to resubscribe to a different remote site next year, here are the questions I would now ask.  

1) What is the dome-open policy?  Do you adopt the "Into Thin Air" approach, i.e. plough regardless of the conditions.
2) Do what extent to you expect the user to quality control the data? And what information to you provide the help the user do this task? 
3) [For syndicate models only].  How large is the syndicate, and how active is it?  Some services are coy about answering this, but it is really important for the user experience you are paying for.

Apologies if this has mostly been about my own experience.  But hopefully it has been some helpful.  Your motivations appear very similar to mine.  Bottom line, is that you can't go wrong and you get what you pay for.    I marvel at some of the 10hour+ images taken with some of large telescopes at these facilities on this site.  But there is no way I can afford that.  However, if you can, more power to you.  

CS Brian

*Full disclosure, when I was Director of the Anglo-Australian Observatory 25 years ago, I pushed for a public observatory on Siding Spring Mountain [and was successful via philanthropic donation], which has now become Heaven's Gate.  So I have been a strong supporter of this type of activity for a number of years.  

**Into Thin Air is a great book - but one which I suspect you already know a lot about (and the events to which it refers) given your picture.   The best and worst of human leadership and courage.

I first used a remote service back in 2007 or 2008 mainly to access the southern sky and also as many have mentioned just to see how good good data really is. I still have a number of those images framed on my wall so I must have enjoyed it!

Having read this thread I signed up for the Telescope Live free trial,  I was in need of some R and G data to finish an image of mine that didn't get finished late last year. Essentially I needed some dark site data and I found it.

The site was really easy to use and I would say the Silver plan looks quite reasonable compared to what I was spending 15 years ago!

All that said there isn't really any magic in it for me. I like the gear, I like the flow of setting it up and even though my Bortle 7 data is terrible in comparison I find it more rewarding. So long story short I don't think I will be signing up, at least not until I've exhausted all the bright objects from my back yard! But if you are looking for good data to learn the ropes, don't have access to your own gear or even just to have some fun processing dark sky data it looks like a good option. 

Thanks for creating the thread I never would have finished my Witch's Head otherwise!

John

I guess I am too new to astro-photography to have a clear opinion on the topic (I am not new to photography however) , but I think I would feel a bit bad to have a photo in my portfolio which is only half mine. At least it is my own feeling and it would make it difficult to me to show the photo to my friends and tell them it is mine. Not even talking about getting an award for such a photo :/

Outside astro-photography, the data IS the photo actually and everything else is just "retouching" it. While it is true that in astro-photography retouching becomes data processing and is a huge part of the whole process,  I feel the data is still the photo.

But probably I am just biased toward more traditional photography.

From a more legal point of view, as I sometimes try to sell my photos (not very successfully), I wonder what the copyright laws would say about those photos… just curious if anyone knows the answer.

Answer to the first part: wait until you have a winter like this with 3-4 clear skies in 3 months ...

I guess it is where having a diverse portfolio helps 😋

Thank for the answer on the legal aspect: make sense to ensure the terms and condition of the service indeed.

Didier Kobi:
I guess I am too new to astro-photography to have a clear opinion on the topic (I am not new to photography however) , but I think I would feel a bit bad to have a photo in my portfolio which is only half mine. At least it is my own feeling and it would make it difficult to me to show the photo to my friends and tell them it is mine. Not even talking about getting an award for such a photo :/

Outside astro-photography, the data IS the photo actually and everything else is just "retouching" it. While it is true that in astro-photography retouching becomes data processing and is a huge part of the whole process,  I feel the data is still the photo.

But probably I am just biased toward more traditional photography.

From a more legal point of view, as I sometimes try to sell my photos (not very successfully), I wonder what the copyright laws would say about those photos... just curious if anyone knows the answer.

hi Didier,

I sympathize with your point of view. I've felt the same about an image where I didn't do the capture myself. But I think the nature of astrophotography is a bit different from, say, street photography (my other hobby). In Astrophotography, I get much more satisfaction from my captures. But when I process the data shared by Telescope.live and I see the similarities and differences, it also gives me satisfaction. In essence I am imaging using an equipment that is not mine. Or I am stacking images shared by the telescope.live service. There are limits to what I can do from my backyard and my equipment. And their service allows me to overcome of those limitations. 

On your IP topic, I did ask Telescope.Live if I could share (on IG, or like here Astrobin) the images that I create using telescope.live data, and the answer I received was that, yes, I can. I disclose the source of the image. I do not intend to sell them, so, that aspect is not relevant for me. 

A.

Hi,

for telescope live it's clearly stated here: Image Ownership – Telescope Live Help Center
Telescope live users have complete ownership of the post-processed image.

CS Wolfgang

Didier Kobi:
I guess I am too new to astro-photography to have a clear opinion on the topic (I am not new to photography however) , but I think I would feel a bit bad to have a photo in my portfolio which is only half mine. At least it is my own feeling and it would make it difficult to me to show the photo to my friends and tell them it is mine. Not even talking about getting an award for such a photo :/

Outside astro-photography, the data IS the photo actually and everything else is just "retouching" it. While it is true that in astro-photography retouching becomes data processing and is a huge part of the whole process,  I feel the data is still the photo.

But probably I am just biased toward more traditional photography.

From a more legal point of view, as I sometimes try to sell my photos (not very successfully), I wonder what the copyright laws would say about those photos... just curious if anyone knows the answer.

I also share Kobi‘s opinion. AP means for me: planing the gear, setup it up, run it, tackle the problems, acquire the data (fail or win) and process it. If you skip the acquisition part, a big portion of AP is missing in my point of view. Actually only graphical data processing remains, since others have done a big part of AP for you, who you have paid for. I consider the acquisition part as more challenging since it is unique and always individual for everyone. Also there is no “CTRL+Z” Undo. Image processing you can learn from books, YouTube and many more.

Whenever you purchase a book about AP, acquisition AND processing is described. Therefore I enjoy these images based on bought data, but for me they are an independent and different category. I have to admit I also hesitated to like these images. I feel bad about. 

BTW: For me it is important to have my hands on the scope. I would not enjoy Astronomy, if I could not play, touch and tinker with my equipment. That is at least as much satisfying as a good image. And if I have only 3 nights, I will enjoy them even more and have time pimp my gear 
CS
Ruediger

I do both remote data acquisition at SRO on a shared setup, as well as collect my own data and I have to admit that I feel a strong preference to collecting my own data and locally, and enjoy the process and the challenges and the sense of satisfaction and achievement!! I do have access to remote data in Chile and find that very educational and has taught me a lot about processing different kinds of data sets and quality of data too, and the opportunity to process Southern Hemisphere objects, so the mix works very well for me.  I think doing both backyard and local collection as well as remote as a mix is a good thing for me.

Thank you, that is a good distinction and I do agree on it.

However, I have a problem with your example. Running 200m and claiming to have run 400m is simply a lie. Processing data from another source and clearly stating so is not. I*m also not happy with your distinction between image processing and AP. To me image processing is an integral part of AP. As a beginner I currently approach everything under the aspect of learning experience. When I'm out in the field I try to learn to handle and improve my data acquisition process with my own equipment and when I'm performing image processing - with own data or with data of others - I'm training my data processing muscles. It all serves the same purpose to learn and improve. Why put it in different categories?

As I have stated in my first post, in my opinion AP consists out of data acquisition AND processing. Both are integral parts and none of them can be left out, without leaving the definition of AP. Just processing data is not AP. This definition is derived from what a "Photographer" is defined. It always implies to use and operate a device. Or simply put it the other way: No one would consider a photo-lab employee , who develops an image in chemicals, to be a photographer.

Second, coming to what what you call a "lie". I have serious problems, if you buy data and then claim this is "my image". You owned the data - yes. But that's all. Others did the much more sophisticated part for you. That's why for me, my example given above, fits perfectly.

Of course you can exercise image processing with public or bought data, but this is not AP - it is training your data processing skills.