Skywatcher H-beta filter

[alan potts]

Rik,

is that even though I have very dark skies, like middle of the Moors dark?

Alan.

[RikM]

Rik,

is that even though I have very dark skies, like middle of the Moors dark?

Alan.

It is 'because' you have very dark skies that the UHC may be a better choice. Oiii has a more pronounced effect, so better suited to higher LP locations. Or so says the Lumicon link, and that matches my observing experience as well.

[RikM]

I have just thought about what I wrote, but am now second guessing but I will start another thread, so as not to clutter up Shane's

[alan potts]

Rik,

Thanks for that, I can borrow a SW version from my mate the Dealer in Sofia, which is a good idea before one shells out about 160 quid, I am assuming they are all around the same price. I could do with a few other filters as well, ND filter for the moon would not go amiss.

I will look into it.

Take care,

Alan.

[Moonshane]

I welcome any comments on filters on this thread as I think it's helpful. the way I look at them is that althoug I accept a Lumicon/Astronomik/Baader will be better, producing perhaps a cleaner image or more rounded stars, it's what the filters remove more than what they show that's important to me. generally I am looking to use them on large, faint objects, at low powers on the whole and on this basis, optical quality is not a key criterion.

I think a dark, vague smudge, superimposed on a slightly luminous trail of gas will either be seen or not and I am not interested in perfect star shapes or optical quality intially at least.

I have the Castell filters which were less than £50 for the 2" UHC and Oiii and work very well indeed so I have hopes for the SW H-beta one based on the feedback thus far. E.g. they allow simply jaw dropping views of M42 even from home and reveal the Pacman Nebula, Veil and other things well enough.

[Moonshane]

ps, I think that if I were to recommend one then it would be the Oiii. The reason for this is that the Oiii makes things visible that are generally invisible without filtration. The UHC often improves the view of something you can already see to some extent. I hope that the H-beta will fall into the former category too.

[SimonfromSussex]

Have you had a chance to test the sky watcher h-beta yet Moonshane?

I've been watching your post with great interest as I'd love to know if it's any good before the horse disappears for another year.

[Moonshane]

literally been cloudy here since I bought it, other than I think two nights I could not get out. I'll report back when I do though.

[SimonfromSussex]

Brill many thanks, the weather has been bad hasnt it!?

Fingers crossed we get a good night soon.........

[mert]

I also hope to get another look at it this year before it goes.

[Mark at Beaufort]

Shane you may have picked up that I saw the HH at SGL8. I saw it through Sarah and Luke's 16mm Skywatcher with an Astronomik H-Beta and 19mm and 24mm Panoptics. I have always failed to view the HH from home (close to Lucksall - SGL site) with my 10" Dob and a thousand oaks H-Beta so I will be interested whether you succeed with the Skywatcher filter.

I have loaned John my Thousand Oaks filter to see if he gets any success with his 12" Orion.

Personally I think you need a dark sky, good transparency and at least a 12" to 16" scope. I look forward to your review.

Mark

[Stu]

Not sure if you've seen this, but it seems a fairly comprehensive assessment of which filters work in different objects

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

It doesn't cover different types of the same filter which can vary quite a lot but useful still hopefully

Stu

[cmatthew]

literally been cloudy here since I bought it, other than I think two nights I could not get out. I'll report back when I do though.

Did you ever get to give the SW filter a run? Am debating the same purchase myself.