Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

TeleVue Planetary Filter

allen g

By allen g
in Discussions - Eyepieces

Recommended Posts

John

John

Posted
Posted

I agree, but one problem with comparing with no filter is that you normally need to refocus so lose the instant comparison still

It's a funny business but when I've convinced myself that something is a little better with item X I can quite often see that "betterness"  when I look using alternative items Y and Z as well. You are then down to working out which item makes things a little easier to see or stand out just a little more. 

The other night, when I bagged all those galaxies, was great becuase I just decided to use a couple of TV plossls for the whole evening and be done with it. Having done quite a lot of comparing things it's nice to have a night off occasionally :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

I think actually we should all just crack on with observing under lovely clear skies, rather than playing with and swapping kit under the clouds [emoji20]

Having said that, it's clear out there now, but the forecast says it's cloudy so it must be cloudy.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ghostdance

ghostdance

Posted
Posted

I'm just wondering - from everyone's very helpful descriptions of the Planetary in use, is 6" aperture maybe a bit too small to benefit from with it?

I have a feeling that this may be a suck it and see!

Thanks Scarp for the heads up on the AN review. I'll make sure to get a copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave In Vermont

Dave In Vermont

Posted
Posted

I'm just wondering - from everyone's very helpful descriptions of the Planetary in use, is 6" aperture maybe a bit too small to benefit from with it?

I have a feeling that this may be a suck it and see!

Thanks Scarp for the heads up on the AN review. I'll make sure to get a copy.

Well, some so-called highly qualified people have said that 8" is a minimum aperture to benefit from narrowband filters. Others say that's bunk. I say: Try it before you buy it and try it on your own scope. Go find a local astronomy club and see what you can do to get a loaner - or bring your scope with you. I loan out gear to folks in need, and it's always come back in the same condition. But, of course, I've also got a loan out of an 12" LX200GPS - so I'm a rare bird! :grin: But it's loaned to a professor at a local university, so he can't run too far... :p

Now here's a question: I have an older Baader Moon and Skyflow Filter. It's from just before Baader played up it had neodymium in it. Does anyone know if it does and they just changed the label to cash-in on a trend/buzz-word? Or did they actually change the recipe? I scavenged their website in English and Deutsche, and they are mum on the subject.

Clear Skies,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

I don't think you can class the Televue Planetary filter as narrowband so it should in theory be useable in any sized scope. It passes enough light, probably abut less that a neodymium. I've not seen a frequency response graph for it though.

I did think it performed worse in terms of CA in my refractors, but there are a number of elements including the prism diagonal which may have contributed to that so more testing needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

As few guys asked before... can someone make a comparison between Baader Neodymium Moon&Skyglow and the TV Planetary on Jupiter/Saturn? (or evenmore, between them and the TV Mars - when watching Mars)

Thank you,

Will have a go next time I observe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

Hi Alan. I assume it is some form of broadband filter, more like a neodymium that a UHC, but probably with a narrower bandpass than the neo as it has a stronger effect.

Would be interesting to see a frequency response graph for it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

The reading I've done on the TV Planetary filter suggests that it's similar to the Baader Neodymium / Moon & Skyglow but polished to a higher standard and having more coating layers on it. So it's more of a broadband filter than a narroband or line filter like the UHC's and O-III's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

There's one thing worth mentioning TV does NOT make 2" filters so for people like me who use only 2" filters...

They do make 2" filters but those are the deep sky / line / narrowband ones. The planetary ones are just in the 1.25" format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

They do make 2" filters but those are the deep sky / line / narrowband ones. The planetary ones are just in the 1.25" format.

Yes, I wouldn't want to fork out for a 2" planetary filter which would never get used in a 2" eyepiece

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ghostdance

ghostdance

Posted
Posted

I tried the Baader Neodymium and UHC-S last night: the seeing for Jupiter was poor at first then improved...so mindful of this thread I experimented...

The Neodym did not seem to offer much (to my surprise) but the UHC-S really seemed to pop the colour of the GRS, a vivid pinky orange, making it more noticeable, and the colours of the the main belts were emphasised ( brown/tan versus grey). Could be the improvement in seeing tho, but I did swap between UHC/no filter several times and the difference was there, to my eyes. I was sitting down rather than standing so that was also a help in noting more detail. There was a colour cast using the UHC but the increase in tones as above made that of little concern.

Using a single polariser as an ND helped with brightness, but the UHC-S stole the show. Or appeared to, lol...

Now I am *really* wondering what the TV Planetary may do for Old Jove! It's just the £££ that stops me rushing to a checkout...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan potts

alan potts

Posted
Posted

There's one thing worth mentioning TV does NOT make 2" filters so for people like me who use only 2" filters...

I have to admit I like the larger sizes but most of if not all of my planetary is done with 1.25 inch eyepieces. I believe the shortest 2 inch fitting only I have seen is the 17mm Ethos/Nagler. There are a number of dual purpose fittings 8mm Ethos, 12mm Nagler and 13mm Etrhos there are others too but all of them are design to take 1.25 filters, without buy extra screw on bits. I guess if you, like me , like to put the filter onto the diagonal it causes a problem. However when the 1.25 inch filter is 113 Pounds lord knows what a 2 inch would set you back.

I however have just ordered a 1.25 inch Astronomik H Beta only because it will be used on a Newtonian and with a 24mm Panoptic for the Horses head, a very expensive nebula!

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I've just been reading the review of the TV Planetary filter by Neil English in "Astronomy Now" magazine. He seems very enthusiastic about it's benefits in scopes with an aperture larger than about 5". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted

I've just been reading the review of the TV Planetary filter by Neil English in "Astronomy Now" magazine. He seems very enthusiastic about it's benefits in scopes with an aperture larger than about 5".

Interesting John. I'll have to grab a copy.

I'm sure seeing issues are what have affected my views with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan potts

alan potts

Posted
Posted

I remember reading something posted some time back telling the reason for the fairly high cost of this filter was the very high reject rate from the glass, we all know how much attention TeleVue pay to QA and that for me is one of the things that keep them with the market leaders, people will pay for quality.

As for the magazine, if I went to the newagents shop here and asked for Astronomy Now I can't imagine what I would be offered.

Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scarp15

scarp15

Posted
Posted

Lat night I was able to get to a dark site. Initially conditions were mixed but became much clearer later. The seeing conditions though were mostly very good and so throughout  I would keep returning to Jupiter. Much later I put on the TV planetary filter and used x141 and x230. Immediately I found the image to be very satisfying, achieving remarkable detail, clarity and tone, the surface appeared to be very active last night with festoons and barges. Once again I also got that 3D impression. I later tried to increase the mag to x313, but the image not surprisingly became a little bloated. Only the third time I had really used this effectively, I now feel conclusively assured that this is a terrific asset to observing Jupiter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.