Baader Neodymium Filter

[crashtestdummy]

im currently struggling to get anything resembling a dark sky near where i live (wakefield west yorks) and wondering if these light polution filters are a worthwhile investment.obviously i would rather get to some dark sky sites but its not possible all the time and as its cloudy most of the time i want to make the best of any opportunity for viewing even in the light infested locality of my home.any other recomendations if the baader filters aren't what i should be looking at?

cheers in advance

to add:i was also looking at a Baader OIII Filter for viewing nebulae,would both of these filters be necessary or just the OIII?

cheers again,in advance

[gooseholla]

I got the skywatcher LP filter recently. Cloudy skies, however... held it up to my eye at some street lights. Without it couldn't see down the road, with it, could see down the road and the trees behind the glare. I don't think you'll ever get a pitch black sky with them but they certainly do wonders!

[crashtestdummy]

yeah,not suddenly expecting pitch black or a miracle but even a 15% reduction in light polution would make local viewing much better.

anyone know how the skywatcher ones compare to the baader ones?

[gooseholla]

There is a thread on here which shows the two when used with photographic use, and there seems very little difference. I was advised to go with the skywatcher one by people, as it is about half the price and seems to do the same.

[crashtestdummy]

just done a search and found the links,i should have done a search first:rolleyes:

cheers for the replies fella:)

[cgarry]

I have both the Baader Neodymium Filter and the Skywatcher Light Pollution Filter. Yes, they are great for DSO photography, yes they block out the light from street lights if you hold them up to then. But I find them both next to useless when used with a scope for visual work. Save your money I say!

Cheers,

Chris

[crashtestdummy]

mine will be used only for visual

[nicnac]

i have one for visual and i do find the take some glare and glow off. it was a good buy in my own view

[Grunthos]

next to useless when used with a scope for visual work.

I beg to differ.

I have just bought the Baader filter.

Only briefly used it last night but found it improved my visual observations of the moon (better contrast) and of M42.

[Rob_UK_SE]

The Baader Neodymium Filter works well at reducing light pollution produced by sodium based street lights, but does not work for the new LED ones or white tint ones.

I have found it extremely useful for visual use on planets such as Mars and Jupiter. It is also useful on the moon. Depending on the colour tint of your eyepieces it can help to neautralise the colour temperature in favour of revealing greater planetary detail. Most would agree that TV eyepieces tend to have a slightly yellowish tint. The Baader Neodymium Filter helps to cool this, resulting in more visible detail... to my eyes anyway.

Rob

[rwilkey]

I have used both the Baader and the Skywatcher (and the Orion Skyglow filter) and in my opinion they both work wonders, I think the Baader has the slight edge but there's really not much between them, for price I would say the Sky Watcher is the best value for money and would choose this everytime.

[crashtestdummy]

thanks for all the replies folks

[mdstuart]

I was using the Baader one last night and it certainly enhances the view. It increases contrast on Jupiter and changes Jupiter from a cream colour to a whiter shade..

It also seems to enhance the view of the moon by taking away glare..

However I am not sure on the effect on light pollution. To me the orange glow almost always means moisture in the sky. So when I tried M42 last night the filter could not overcome the poor seeing. Perhaps on a sharp night it might take away the glow..I will have to see..

Mark

[West End Wendy]

I've never found any light pollution filter that really makes much difference for visual use. Others have very different opinions, so the type of light pollution in the local area must make quite a lot of difference.

I think most would agree the neodymium is useful on Jupiter and Mars though.

Tim

[M4lcs67]

Hi Crashtestdummy,

I live just along the M62 in Halifax and do suffer from light pollution just like everyone else. (I have the Philips Dark Sky map) and we are just on the cusp of some reasonably dark sky. In fact my back garden is shielded from alot of the yellow sodium streetlights, but there is still the this glow that covers everything. I did purchase the Skywatcher LPF to go with my scope, but never really considered the Baader Neodymium. After reading this thread I may look into it. Yes the Skywatcher one seems to work to a degree, but if there is something that does even better then it is worth considering.

[Dave]

I have been using a Neodymium filter for a few years now with my DSLR and got some very good results.

But for visual use I'm not sure any of them would make that much difference, but then I've never compared them in that way.

Have a look at my quick comparison comparing it against the IDAS LPS filter with the DSLR:

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-discussion/177482-comparing-neodimyum-idas-lps-filters.html

Dave

[johninderby]

Since getting the Baader I don't use colour filters for planetary or lunar observing. So while it does help a little bit with LP it's the improvement in visual planetary & lunar observing that makes it worthwhile.

I haven't found the SkyWatcher to be as good as the Baader for planetary observing but not much different in handling LP.

John