Astrodon Tru-Balance LRGB any good?

[Stratis]

Time to buy LRGB!

I have two basic options; buy a set of the well-regarded midrange Baaders for £200, or import a set of the Astrodon Tru-Balance from the US for ~£300.

Is there any visible difference? I do have a KAF8300 sensor which Astrodon claim the filters are explicitly designed for. 

If anyone has a set in their repertoire, I'd appreciate the advice

[Davey-T]

Do you know how much import duty and postage you'll have to pay, you can get them from Ian King Imaging for £398.00

Thinking of getting some for my QSI683.

Dave

[ChrisLX200]

I don't have a set of Astrodon LRGB but I wish I had. Definitely go for those if you have the chance.

ChrisH

[Stratis]

Ah well I have a friend in the US who is willing to send them to me so... I doubt I'll have to pay IKI prices

I have the 583wsg so they would be a perfect match in theory.... just wondering if it's really 'all that' I guess.

What do they do that Baaders don't?

[Davey-T]

I've been mulling this over for a couple of weeks and almost decided on Astrodon 31mm unmounted LRGB and 5nm NB filters, loads of money though so don't want to do anything hasty 

1.25 mounted should be OK  unless using some ridiculously short f/length.

Dave

[MarsG76]

Both brands have a great reputation... I use Baader filters and I'm very happy with the quality of images I'm getting.

Either way I don't think you can go wrong.

[Stratis]

Took the plunge

LRGB Astrodon E-series on the way

I love the QSI.... it has saved me hundreds of pounds in larger filters, are there any other cameras that allow the unvignetted use of 1.25" mounted filters with the 8300?

[Davey-T]

I think the Atik version needs unmounted filters, you may still get some vignetting with the QSI but flats should fix it, it's possible that a really steep light cone could be a problem but probably need to be well under 400mm focal length.

Dave

[swag72]

......are there any other cameras that allow the unvignetted use of 1.25" mounted filters with the 8300?

I believe that the Moravian will work with the 1.25" filters. A friend of mine has one, I am awaiting confirmation............. It will be good to know for sure. I can certainly vouch that the QSI is absolutely good with them at f3.9 and 330mm.

[Stratis]

Well a 'Baby Q' is basically my dream imaging scope . I don't really aspire to these gigantic RC setups.

If I can find an FSQ85 for sale at below £2k I'll buy it before the ink is dry

Given the reputation of the 8300 sensor I feel I made a good investment... I now have a full set of Baader narrowbands and a full set of Astrodon LRGB E-series on the way from the US.... I also slapped on a couple of the 2" DNB filters (NPB and VHC) since everyone I talk to tell me they are the very greatest photovisual nebular filters you can buy...

[Davey-T]

I've got a WO Star 71 to put it on, nice big flat field, and even Olly seems to approve of them 

Dave

[Tim]

To answer your original question, with an opinion, is that in the comparisons I have done, and in the information presented by the producers, there seems to be very little difference between any of the major filter producers these days.

I certainly could seen no improvement from an astrodon Ha over Baader Ha, no matter how closely I looked. The Astrodons seem to have garnered the reputation of being better because a) they cost more, and 2)

the americans say they are better.

Would be very interested to see someone's before Astrodon and after Astrodon results, to see if there really is any kind of tangible upgrade over other filters.

Anyone?

[Stratis]

I think the only comparison of LRGB I could find stated that the main advantage of the Astrodons was equal integration times.

In the end, all marketing gumpf aside, any hue imbalance can be fixed in post-processing, but only if the flux to the sensor for each colour band is roughly equalised. If your red is receiving 40% too much light because it's too permissive compared to the blue, all your red subs are going to be muddy and oversaturated and that's something a post process step can't fix without 'damaging' the underlying data.

There are a number of testimonials out there which seem to suggest the Astrodon LRGB simplifies your imaging plans due to equal colour flux.

Narrowbands.... honestly it all has to come down to passband. If Baader made a 3nm Ha filter, I doubt it would be any different from an Astrodon 3nm. I will say that I see a very marked difference in the sharpness and contrast when you move down the passbands, particularly in Ha. I'm just taking my baby steps at the moment in narrowband but even now I wouldn't want to image at a greater passband than the 7nm I currently use.

[Davey-T]

The main complaint about Baader NB is bloated stars in O111, which I suffered from, don't know if the new Baader NB filters are any better, they say their new LRGB ones are.

Dave

[Stratis]

Precisely why my OIII filter is an Astronomik

I am playing it a bit fast and loose with OIII, because most CCDs are less sensitive up in the blue range yet I find OIII data adds a certain beauty to deep sky images that is lost with just razor-sharp Ha nebulosity. 

As such my OIII data is at 10nm... this makes it a bit more diffuse, but allows it to 'catch up' in terms of exposure.

[ollypenrice]

To answer your original question, with an opinion, is that in the comparisons I have done, and in the information presented by the producers, there seems to be very little difference between any of the major filter producers these days.

I certainly could seen no improvement from an astrodon Ha over Baader Ha, no matter how closely I looked. The Astrodons seem to have garnered the reputation of being better because a) they cost more, and 2)

the americans say they are better.

Would be very interested to see someone's before Astrodon and after Astrodon results, to see if there really is any kind of tangible upgrade over other filters.

Anyone?

Tim, I have both AD 3Nm and Baader 7 Nm Ha side by side in the dual rig. It's very target dependant. Sometimes there is little in it, but on our recent hunt for the SN remnant near VDB152 the Astrondon was far better. The AD always gives better (much smaller) stars but the nebular contrast is sometimes similar and sometimes better but never worse. The AD is a pig to focus, though. You often have no workable star in the image frame and have to slew away, which I hate!

I think the Baader OIII is a poor filter and I've had two Astronomiks (before and after replacement) which were indifferent as well. I very much want the AD 3Nm OIII which, from what I've seen, is way ahead of the others.

I've processed two images with the AD LRGB and wasn't (to my great relief!) wowed by them. I regard colour balance as turning on a kind of pivot upon green. (Feel free to call me a loony!) I found the much-vaunted AD 'Teal Blue' a bit strange and I felt the image was somehow two, rather than three, dimensional in colour terms. I wasn't at ease. This could just be familiarity but I preferred my Baaders. Sigh of relief from the wallet.

Olly

[Stratis]

I've processed two images with the AD LRGB and wasn't (to my great relief!) wowed by them. I regard colour balance as turning on a kind of pivot upon green. (Feel free to call me a loony!) I found the much-vaunted AD 'Teal Blue' a bit strange and I felt the image was somehow two, rather than three, dimensional in colour terms. I wasn't at ease. This could just be familiarity but I preferred my Baaders. Sigh of relief from the wallet.

I respect that 100% Olly . There's definitely nothing 'wrong' with the colour balance of other brands, it will all ultimately come down to preference I suspect and anyone who has a working process from the Earth's surface has already achieved more than I

Personally I'm extremely sensitive to colour to a scientifically quantifiable level; I always rate in the 99th percentile on colour perception and hue tests (and I don't mean Facebook ones). Every equipment review I do tends to include comments about chromatic aberration because even a little bit screams out at me, I envy people who can ignore colour imbalance

My research into the AD LRGB set is best exemplified by this image, taken with the I-series;

Good old Andromeda. We've all seen hundreds of images of this object, it's more familiar to Northern observers than any other galaxy, surely.

This image shows the outcome of that shifted blue channel; a much wider and more pervasive 'blueness' that extends out from the galactic core (where it is swamped by the green channel into golden yellow) and beyond, where that extra bit of blue signal yields that 'starlight' glow around the periphery. I don't see this in 90% of the amateur photos taken of this object, Andromeda always comes out basically colour-neutral unless the imager selects a particular hue. Some people equalise in post making it pure snow-white, most people seem to go for a golden colour to match the DSS images but very few seem to retrieve a golden core with a bluish halo without obvious overprocessing artifacts. 

And when Hubble did that famous high-resolution mosaic of the Andromeda arms, what colour rendition did we see? Golden core, bluish halo. 

I may yet be eating these words when they arrive at last and I'm fighting with an out-of-control blue channel, who knows

[Stratis]

Actually on the subject of colour balance, I love this thread:

http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=2542.0

I had no idea how involved deep sky imaging could get!