Which colour filters do i need?

[LukeSkywatcher]

I don't think you'll get a full aperture filter for an 8SE out of an A4 sheet, but a 90mm off-axis would be good.

Remember to remove the invisible clear film as well as the tissue paper!

I bought a round box from Hobycraft cut a hole in the bottom, taped the filter over the hole then put the lid for the box (with a second hole cut in it) ontop fixed with doublesided tape. Can't see it so well here but it was easy to make. I just stuff a few bits of foam down the sides to make sure it stays firmly in place when observing.

I am not wanting a full 8" aperture filter to be honest because my 70mm frac is my ultimate grab and go setup for solar observing.

I was just thinking i may have enough left over to do a full 8" filter but maybe not.

[Steve Ward]

I knocked up a temporary filter for my 200PDS last week just to compare it to the ST120 ( the ND3.8 Photo film comes in 500 x 1000 only . . . . . . I had a bit of an offcut . . )

Couldn't see any noticeable difference in the resulting pics to be honest . . . and that's no bad thing cos the 200 was a 'mare up a ladder on the 10 foot pier . . .

Steve.

There's another 3 foot going on it tomorrow as he's just dropping into the treetops again . . .

[swamp thing]

1353972473[/url'>' post='1719609']

That will certainly reduce the brightness but you are effectively creating a 50mm scope with that approach so you will loose a substantial amount of resolution over your full 150mm aperture.

John is right, by cutting down your aperture you will lose a considerable amount of resolution. This means a lot of fine detail could be lost this way. You can make the moon considerably darker by increasing magnification this is an easy way of darkening the image. It may help to pull out finer detail too

[Josh Wilson]

I wanted to get a glass solar filter because I thought the view would be better, but having tried a couple, I have to say that the quality of view through the Baader film is much better than through glass filters.

I've owned a glass solar filter for my late ETX-90. The quality was bad compared to the Baader film I currently own but I didn't know this because I had never seen what Baader film offered.

As for what filters you should get, I own a #80A blue, #25 red, #58 green, and #15 yellow. I use the blue and green the most, yellow is useless to me, and red is only really useful on Mars. I'd get a few but don't expect them to be the best filters you've owned, but they'll definitely be helpful from time to time in rubbish seeing.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I'd love a ready made solar filter because i am useless with cardboard and sticky tape .

Ive seen the Thousand Oak glass ones and i like what i see. I would be using it on my Celestron 70mm Travelscope refrac. You dont need much aperture to observe the sun.

Do the Thousand Oak glass solar filters come in 70mm (or slightly larger) to take into consideration the OD of scopes.

If you can point me in the right direction on this i will be a very happy bunny.

Paul

I would not go for a glass filter now. When I bought mine the alternative was a mylar film which tended to wear out, so I went for the expensive solution (440 guilders in 1998). Baader film is way better both in terms of stability and optical quality. The Thousand Oaks filter gives good result, but is much more expensive. If you do not want to make your own, you can get ready made ones for several scopes, like here:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/index.php/language/en/cat/c61_Zubehoer-----Sonnenbeobachtung.html

[northwalesparry]

Thank you all for your advice i think i will opt for the uhc filter, cheers

[Spec-Chum]

I'm dying to make a 200mm solar filter for my scope but I'm terrified it'd tear/fall off/combust/all the above

[Naemeth]

I'm dying to make a 200mm solar filter for my scope but I'm terrified it'd tear/fall off/combust/all the above

You surely don't need the full aperture? Perhaps make an off axis cover.

[Planetesimal]

That will certainly reduce the brightness but you are effectively creating a 50mm scope with that approach so you will loose a substantial amount of resolution over your full 150mm aperture.

Good point - I can see most of the larger features easily enough at 120x with the above approach (certainly "eratosthenes" size craters, Heracles promontory etc.), but I'll have to try again with the full aperture and sunglasses to see what difference it makes - I'd love to get through the lunar 100... I won't bother tonight though - last time I looked at the full moon through my 'scope it was a featureless (blinding) grey orb!

[4lefts]

for the moon, i love the neodymium. not so bothered with it for anything else, but great for the moon. it's good for imaging the moon too.

[Astro_Baby]

I use a coiple of ND filters which I stack if need be for the Moon. i also use a pale yellow for planetary detail and as a fringe killer for my achro.

I have a big range of filters but seldom use them, personally I dont think you get much from an OIII in a small scope so a UHC is better as an all rounder.

[astronomit]

Hi. For the Moon I use a variable polarizing filter - I've only used it a couple of times, but found it gives good results. And with being able to vary brightness, it can be used on planets (although I've only tried it on Jupiter so far). I've also heard the Baader Neodymium filter is pretty good too..

Tim.