11.99
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
The reason why backyarders tend to have poor stats compared to remote images is mostly of their own design. They don't dither. They don't take calibration frames. They don't adjust for tilt and backfocus. They don't have a proper integration time. Those are just a few of the steps they could be forgetting. Many of us who care about the work we do quickly overcome these basic blocking and tackling issues. But we also quickly realize there is a ceiling to the quality we can get from our light polluted backyards. Take today's IOTD as one example. 33 hours from a Bortle 1 site. That would be 132 hours if I so chose as to travel to a Bortle 4 site maybe 200+ hours from my backyard. Assuming I did choose to spend that time (200 hours) imaging that object, today's IOTD imager could have generated four to six such images in the same amount of time. That is the skew you are seeing in the awards. That is why applying a TPN filter is highly misleading. A remote site can generate many times the number of datasets of a given quality in the same amount of time as someone from their backyard. This is the reason why people set up remote sites (plus of course, better seeing and transparency). It is a LOT quicker and easier to generate high quality data, of course once you get past the initial cost and time hurdle of setting such a site up. |
7.67
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H:The reason why backyarders tend to have poor stats compared to remote images is mostly of their own design. They don't dither. They don't take calibration frames. They don't adjust for tilt and backfocus. They don't have a proper integration time. Those are just a few of the steps they could be forgetting. Yes, many people will quickly overcome the basic issues, but in my time as a submitter it is also clear that many do not - and these are people who willingly submitted their images to the system. To your second point, this is also why I decided to base my arguments on percentages rather than raw numbers. I do think it shows that backyard images who take the time and care in their data acquisition have nothing to fear from remote imagers. This is not to take issue with your other points about time spent on an image, because that is a valid point. |
8.04
#...
·
|
|---|
And that advantage lessens as the process goes on. All data categories have an almost equal chance of becoming Images of the Day. " ... Your data is in absolutes, ... " No, that is not true. My data is relative as i account for the percentage of images that have been submitted by "backyard" and by "own remote. Your data (that you showed in the graphs) is absolute. It shows approx same number of IOTD for "backyard" and "own remote" " ... backyard images buoyed by quality data have just as good of a chance to succeed as remote data. I am also saying that getting quality data from a backyard is readily achievable. ..." The point that has been made by Arun and others is that backyard data is not of same quality as remote. To achieve same quality data it needs multiple times the integration time to be comparable in SNR. |
9.82
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I think we can all agree... Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Brian Puhl: A remote site is a pathway to many abilities ... some consider to be unnatural  |
11.51
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
For me, maintaining a scope at a remote site has been far more difficult than shooting from my Bortle 8 back yard. There’s some very limited service at the observatory on weekends. But any significant issue either requires a plane ride, rental car, and hotel, or a 12-hour drive to lay hands on. I ask for no sympathy for any of this, nor do I make any apology for the data I get or the images I produce. It’s the culmination of a 50-year career that was anything but easy, and a year of waiting for parts to arrive here at home so I could do something I’d never done before and for which there’s no YouTube video—that is, build out and field test a rig that will go unattended 99.99% of the time in a harsh environment. A rig made of dozens of pieces and parts from more than a dozen different vendors from all over the world. A rig not quite like any other. This was all way outside my comfort zone and involved serious financial risk. I’m happy to say that it’s all done and working now. And if I can continue to improve both my capture and processing skills, someday, I might be able to make hundreds of dollars a year at this and recover my investment in just under 8 decades. I didn’t do any of this to win a daily contest with random strangers on a random website. I did it because I find it incredibly enjoyable, intellectually stimulating, and because maybe if I’m diligent and lucky, I might make some tiny contribution to a body of knowledge that will outlive me. But there have been big bonuses I didn’t anticipate. Those include educating and inspiring my family and friends to think about the universe, the world, and life in a whole new way, and meeting new people—who are no longer random strangers—with whom I share a passion and a philosophy. Any of that beats the hell out of getting a virtual badge. As to the IOTD issue, in my view, there are only three kinds of images posted to Astrobin: (1) good, (2) better, and (3) best. It’s a miracle that any of us can do this at all—whether remotely in the New Mexico desert or from a back yard in Detroit. We all stand on tall shoulders. To me, every image that shows up here has value, regardless of whether it gets official recognition and regardless of how it was captured and processed. We all have different levels of commitment and resources. To take the purity argument to its logical conclusion means that Galileo would be turning over in his grave because someone looking through a crude refractor on a balcony in Pisa while scratching out hand drawings in a notebook is frozen out of Top Pick nominations. With more resources, perhaps the recognition-reward system on Astrobin could be improved to make more people happy. But I’m pretty skeptical. |
10.79
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
The computation from @JohnHen leads to the correct mathematical result. I've taken the IOTD statistics of today (Nov. 28th 2023): Using Bayes statistics (details at the end of post), under the assumption that each image has the same prior probability of becoming IOTD, we get the following probability distribution of achieving IOTD given the source:  The numbers aren't fully resolved on this but the ratio of "own remote observatory" and "Backyard" is about 9 times. W.r.t. to the IOTD discussion, I have nothing to add to my previous posts in other threads. Björn About the statistics: P(IOTD | Source) = P(Source | IOTD) * P(IOTD) / P(Source) P(Source | IOTD) are the values found in the column "Image of the day". P(Source) are in column "Total submitted". The prior P(IOTD) is unknown but a constant and hence through normalisation of the probability distribution, we can compute P(IOTD | Source). |
|
8.04
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Björn: Bjoern, thanks for taking the time to put the correct numbers into a nice chart! CS, John |
 #...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Björn: This does not paint the full picture. @SemiPro posted another analysis here on in a different thread, that showed what are the chances of an image advancing once it's made it to Top Pick Nomination. This criterion was used because making it to TPN equalizes the field a little bit, as it requires a minumum of technical excellency. The data showed that after an image has made it to TPN, it's chances to proceed to higher award are almost the same between backyard and non-backyard. From memory, it was 70% vs 78%. Your chart fails to capture the fact that A LOT of images submitted for IOTD/TP consideration are from beginners or simply present blatant technical issues. And beginners are more likely to image from their backyard. Images acquired remotely, instead, will be less likely to present serious technical problems. This fact severely skews the data and makes you reach a conclusion that is not really painting the picture correctly. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene: It is skill skewed, though not by a factor of nine. One can use the same Bayesian statistics, but one has to now consider the population of TPNs, rather than the general population. This gives the ratio of the probabilities as: Probability of IOTD/Remote source= ~ 2.57 * probability of IOTD/Backyard Similarly, one can compute: P(TP|remote source) = ~1.84*P(TP|backyard) That is, it is nearly twice as likely for a remote sourced image to make TP and 2.5 times as likely to reach IOTD assuming the images reach TPN quality. |
|
8.04
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Björn: Your statement above makes the implicit assumption that "backyard" images don't make to TPN because they lack "minimum of technical excellency". You exclude the option that the there could be another reason, namely "backyard" images don't make it to the first promotion level because the data is of low SNR due to high light pollution. |
3.61
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
To @Salvatore's point (in part)- It's funny watching astrophotographers, who are well versed in the application of near-perfect statistical distributions, discuss a social network phenomenon. Although difficult to quantify, it is absolutely the case that an astrophotographer with a remote observatory is *typically* going to be better at the pursuit than someone who has only invested in entry or mid-level equipment. The weighting for IOTD/TP that seems to lie in the equipment has a strong correlation with, and causation by, experience and dedication. Another point have have not seen brought up here: I have earned three IOTDs and several TPs/TPNs (and a few other extremely prestigious recognitions in the broader AP world), with my modest backyard equipment. The personal value of these for me is amplified by the fact that these were in fields of images acquired with gear that cost scores of times what I have spent. I wouldn't want the value of any of these awards to be diminished by the fact that they are part of a dumbed-down selection process. I have never understood the IOTD/TP to be an "everyone gets a trophy" competition, not even really a competition at all, but rather a means to recognize images of note that are posted to the platform. This is pretty clearly explained by Salvatore in the "Manifesto". This allows for a lot of discretion by the substantial and diverse teams of submitters/reviewers/judges to highlight all sorts of images. Complicating the process beyond the current criteria will only lead to the need for even more complication, fueled by even more consternation from those who continue to not have their images selected. Note/suggestion: What is to stop anyone from creating their own daily/weekly informal contests within a Astrobin groups? That person would need to create their own offline administration process, but it seems like a reasonable possibility if this desire for categories/genre competition is that desirable. |
|
8.04
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Anthony Quintile: That is an assumption that several posters in this and other threads have (implicitly or explicitly) made. We have yet to see any evidence that supports such assumption/claims. Waiting for facts ... |
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Anthony Quintile: Isn't the IOTD/TP proof of that exactly? |
7.90
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
That is an assumption that several posters in this and other threads have (implicitly or explicitly) made. We have yet to see any evidence that supports such assumption/claims. Waiting for facts ... More IOTD per capita seems to underscore this very fact. |
|
3.61
#...
·
|
|---|
Anthony Quintile: This is easy. -There are people with the best equipment in the best locations that regularly produce less than optimal results that do not receive IOTD/TP recognition. -IOTD/TP results favor (only in a gross way) remote observatory images. This bears out the assumption that equipment alone does not produce superior images, unless one believes that there is a greater conspiracy afoot. Just to be clear, I am in the camp that those better-quality remote observatory images should receive recognition, as appropriate. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Anthony Quintile: claims about ability are hard to prove one way or another in a pursuit with so many variables contributing to the result. It would be fair to say that they are more invested personally and more able financially. |
|
8.04
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Anthony Quintile: No, its not because there is an open question: Is the 9 times higher likelihood of receiving IOTD for "remote" compared to "backyard" due to A) Backyard APs are less skilled i.e. remote APs are "better at the pursuit" or B) Remote APs have better data to work with than backyard APs because of lower light pollution The truth might be somewhere in between. We don't know. But we do know that B) is correct because remote sites are built at locations with lower light pollution (that is, after all, the entire purpose of remote sites). |
|
3.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Arun H:... I think a fundamental issue at hand here is a failure to recognize that the IOTD/TP recognitions are subjective, and there will never be a mathematical way to objectively prove the qualification of one image over another. (Maybe every image should be scored on Pixinsight SNR score? Even that may be suspect...) It is what it is, and the criteria and intent are pretty well thought out, reasonably fair, and well explained. There is no money involved in receiving or not recieving an IOTD/TP/TPN, it's Salvatore's platform, and he has done an amazing job with developing and managing this, and the rest of the site. |
|
7.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| It seems to me only fair to say that if IOTD rewards quality (more than anything else) then people having unlimited access to very high quality data have inherently an advantage in being selected for such an "award". Don't like it? Don't join the rat race. |
18.93
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Well, if I am only searching for perfect images I navigate to NASA or ESA pages or others. For that I don't need any AB IOTD. |
|
10.79
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Salvatore Iovene:Björn: Obviously, no model covers everything, by definition. To avoid guessing, I did the math and combined the data in a single chart. For comparison purposes, I've also included the distribution of sources.  The ratio "Own Remote Observatory" ORO vs. Backyard is down to about 2.5 times. If we would start with the hypothesis that ORO and backyard always produce the same quality of data, our IOTD-distribution would have to match the sources distribution. Obviously that's not the case. Assuming that OROs are more likely to produce better quality images than a randomly picked Backyard (no matter of the specific reasons) assuming and unbiased selection process, we could make the following estimation: Backyards are throwing 7,6 times the number of images at the system than OROs. Assuming that the TPN process is a quality filter and throws out bad quality, leading to a ratio of 0.39 for Backyard over ORO, would mean that an ORO image has a 20 times higher probability of being better than a Backyard image. While I agree that ORO users are more likely to produce a high quality image w.r.t. a random backyard image, a factor of 20 seems to be a bit too excessive. However, in all the discussion, there's another factor missing. People have mostly focused on gear (larger, better, more expensive, whatsoever), image quality, processing skills etc. I can tell you LIVE from Germany that the last two months, haven't provided any single opportunity to capture anything. The best I could do is to take out my Dob for an hour to do visual observation of Jupiter. The availability of clear skies is an enormous issue for pursuing this hobby. I'm not saying this w.r.t. to the whole IOTD discussion but in general. Björn |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Björn:Salvatore Iovene:Björn: agree. Access to clear dark skies is the single biggest hurdle. Either you have that access in your backyard or can pay to set up something somewhere. |
3.81
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Guess it is best to just enjoy the hobby. i like astrobin, i like taking pictures of the night sky and i like the community. Is the iotd process good? if you ask me, yes. Ap is an hobby were money makes an difference. I am with many here that it is almost boring to watch the same asa 600 and cdk 24 guys getting an iotd for almost any picture but in the end… their pictures are good, very good. |
|
7.67
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Alright so, I think now is a great time to bring up something that I deal with in the field of quantitative politics and public policy, which is while data may be correct, it does not mean it is useful. When I look into this stuff, I ask myself what I want to know from the data. What is important? When it comes to the IotD system in the context of this topic, I want to try and figure out the following:
So, I go out and collect data that I think will answer my questions. It is important to note that I have to establish some kind of control for data quality. This is why I am only going to include images that get a TPN as a baseline. I will talk more about TPNs at the end. With that in mind I got the following:  Using this, I can start answering the questions that I had. "Is the award system inherently biased against non-remote images?"
"Are backyard images competitive in the award system?"
"Are paid datasets (think TelescopeLive) the boogymen that they are made out to be? "
My final analysis would be pretty much what I have been arguing for in all my posts here; Backyarders can totally compete in the system we have set up here. I don't see any data to suggest the common narrative of the poor backyarder struggling against the might and tyranny of remote imaging oppression. But wait? What about actually getting top picks nominations? What about actually getting into the award process? For this we have to go back to before the process was made optional. We get the following:  Now at first glance it would appear that we have a problem. Backyarders only have a 4.6% chance compared to Remoters 21.4% chance! Is this some kind of conspiracy? Is the system rigged? Well, hold up. What if we tried to control for data quality? This was a time when ALL images were judged after all. I decided that a good control would be integration time. My rationale being that by the time you are putting in 10, 20, 30, or more hours into an image you kind of know what you are doing. So, what happens? We see the Backyarders catch up to, and even exceed the chance at getting a TPN compared to remote rigs. This is all to say that the idea of backyard folks struggling against remote is, to me, unfounded. I stand by my previous statements that if you wish to have a chance at an award here, it is up to you to properly acquire and process data. While I understand the sentiments against remote imagers and those who download data, at the end of the day it is you that controls the quality of your final image. |
