TeleVue Planetary Filter

[ghostdance]

Or.....ahem...maybe seeing was okay as while putting the scope in order and away, I found the collimation was off. Tsk. Some stargazer eh? Lol.

It was all spick n span the other night.

I suspect mice...or Gremlins...

[John]

I had another session with the TV Bandmate Planetary filter this evening. Pretty good seeing conditions with Jupiter responding well to 199x - 265x with my 12" dobsonian. Lots to look at on the giant planet tonight with a GRS transit observed in it's entirety, 6 belts, 2 polar zones, festoons in the Equatorial Zone and white ovals in the SS Temperate Belt on show.

Well I really gave the filter a go this evening. I used it with a number of different eyepieces including an 8mm TV plossl, 7mm Astro Hutech ortho, 6mm Ethos, 6mm Vixen SLV, 6mm Baader genuine and Classic orthos and a 5mm Astro Hutech ortho. With each eyepiece I compared the view with and without the filter allowing as little time to pass as possible switching between the non-filtered and filtered view.

Apart from the pinkish tint already described in previous posts, the effect of the filter tonight was:

- The brown hues in the principle 2 equatorial belts were darkened and the contrast variations enhanced.

- The Great Red Spot colouration was intensified so it stood out more. The pale rim of the hollow in the S Eq belt that the GRS sits in was brightened slightly.

- The lower contrast belts on the planets disk, to the N and S of the main belts and the polar regions were not intensified and detail within those was actually a little less distinct with the filter in place.

- Festoons eminating from the N Eq belt and traversing the pale Eq zone were not enhanced or diminished by the filter.

- A white oval in the SS Eq belt was slightly harder to see clearly with the filter in place.

In summary I'd say that, at this aperture of scope, the overall effect of the filter seems to be to make the principle features a little clearer at the cost of the pink tint and a slight diminishment of the more subtle features. The optical quality of the filter is obviously very good and the light transmission losses slight.

As the seeing conditions move towards the mediocre and / or the aperture of the scope being used drops, the beneficial effects of the filter seem to reduce as well and, for me personally, the pink tinge seems to dominate because the observing gains have reduced.

Overall I have to say that I am slightly dissapointed by the Tele Vue Bandmate Planetary filter. If it had cost less than £50 I might have felt it was useful for nights of excellent seeing conditions when I want tease more contrast from certain Jovian features with my largest aperture scope. As it is the cost is over £100 and, for me at least, the lasting memory is the pinkness rather than enhanced planetary detail.

Others may well see things differently from me though, with this filter. In some ways, I hope they do

[Qualia]

Nice one, John and thank you for your write up. Sounds like you had a cracking evening with Jupiter and a good session with the filter. Not sure if it is worth your time keeping hold of it, but it might be an idea to store the filter away until Mars is in a better position. I don't know, but maybe the pink would help

- - - - -

Astroshop advertise the TV filter but there does seem some wait.

[Dave In Vermont]

As I keep notes on all filters - even the ones I don't have - I believe I'll name the TV Planetary: Conjunctivitis-Filter. This will serve to jog my memory about it's tendency to cause Pink-Eye. By the by, I've found these offered all over the US. Often at discounted prices.

Clear & Pink Skies,

Dave

[John]

As I keep notes on all filters - even the ones I don't have - I believe I'll name the TV Planetary: Conjunctivitis-Filter. This will serve to jog my memory about it's tendency to cause Pink-Eye. By the by, I've found these offered all over the US. Often at discounted prices.

Clear & Pink Skies,

Dave

Hi Dave,

$140 looks like the going rate for the filter in many of the US dealers that I've checked out. It's $155 over here so a little more but we are used to that

[alan potts]

I think even if it were 140 USD that is rather a lot if you don't get on with it. I was wondering if type of scope has an effect as I was using my 12 inch on Jupiter on a night of very good seeing. I still find my best views where most if not all of what you mention was visible around the X170 power area. Push harder and a great deal of the contrast is flushed from the image though still stable and sharp, this could be the size of secondary obstruction though.

I have to say that if a filter offers nothing for you then there seems very little point in using or for that matter owning one. I still think there is something in eyepiece choice but I am sure John explored all alleys on that score, there is more likely going to be something in us all having different eyes and seeing conditions, really there are so many variables.

Alan.

[Mark at Beaufort]

John a very detailed and honest review of this filter. I still see a modest improvement when using a Baader Neodymium filter on Jupiter and it would be good to compare the Baader with the TeleVue Planetary. However, at over £100 I am not willing to pay that to experiment.

[ghostdance]

Thanks John for your superb and considered report

Hmm...I think in terms of cost v aperture, the Planetary sounds like it wouldn't be a sound move for me with my 6". As you say, if it were £50ish....but at £100+, that's (counts on fingers) about £17 per inch, without the benefit of additional detail of your 12"....

Think I'll put the money toward a nice orthoscopic or completing my TV plossl set

[scarp15]

Very good and (as Ghostdance has said) considered account John. The occasions that I had used this filter it had been early morning. I was using magnifications between 141x and 230x  with a 14" dobsonian. Once in focus the pinkish stain would vanish and the image became more of an earthy, kind of terracotta tint. Much of your described experience concerning visible features with your 12" is similar to my own. I do find the filter to be engaging with Jupiter as the principle target (when the seeing is good) and after reading the report, would be interesting to try briefly on other subjects. I have an 8" scope on the way, so would be great to try and compare at this aperture.

[alan potts]

John,

Maybe not what it is marketed for but did you give it a try on Venus?

Alan

[John]

John,

Maybe not what it is marketed for but did you give it a try on Venus?

Alan

No Alan, I've only tried it on Jupiter. Venus is very difficult for me to get a scope on because it's the "wrong" side of our house at the moment.

[Mark at Beaufort]

I viewed Jupiter last night and experimented with 'no filter', Baader Neodymium and a Baader UHC-S filter.

Although it was not planned the UHC-S produced very good detail of Jupiter's bands. The filter made the bands darker against the main body of the planet - if fact it was pretty impressive.

Again I felt that the Baader Neodymium gave a modest improvement over 'no filter'.

Let us hope we get some good stable skies at SGLX and undertake some more tests.

[ghostdance]

I viewed Jupiter last night and experimented with 'no filter', Baader Neodymium and a Baader UHC-S filter.

Although it was not planned the UHC-S produced very good detail of Jupiter's bands. The filter made the bands darker against the main body of the planet - if fact it was pretty impressive.

Interesting,  Mark

That was my impression the first time tried the UHC-S, and I was mightily impressed -  but it was not repeated on another night so I have been on the fence.

Once my gippy shoulder relents, I will be definitely trying the filter again ( and how frustrating is it having two crystal nights here and not being able to use em! Moan, mutter.... ) 

[John]

What was interesting about the TV Planetary Filter was that it too made the principle features, that is the NEB and SEB and GRS + hollow stand out more but this did seem to me to be slightly at the expense of the more subtle features. I was hoping that the hard to see stuff would be enhanced a bit but that did not seem to be the case, at least to my eyes.

I did try a Baader Neodymium filter on Jupiter recently but it did not seem to do anything for me. I can't recall whether it added an overall tint to the planet ?

I think I prefer the "natural" colours where possible, unless a filter can make a substantial difference to what can be discerned, in which case I'll put up with some side effects.

[jetstream]

The Baader Neo works well for me in my dob, but in the fracs no improvement? I had a great session with my 90mm last night, up to 170x mag, with a more comfortable 125x used mostly. I tried the Neo and immediately took it off! It stays on my zoom for the 10" dob all the time though, I wonder what the difference is, my eyes? lol! I will try a TV Planeatry one of these days...they sound good.

[John]

......I will try a TV Planeatry one of these days...they sound good.

Really ????

[alan potts]

I am sort of not sure whether to try one or not, I value John's opinion a great deal though he doesn't have my skies, eyes or gear, there are so many variables.

I think the thing that is putting me off at the moment is the 113 quid above all else, though all these top line filters have a sting to them, it's a bit like a diamond, you don't get much for you hard earned. I can see a point coming having followed this thread as I have from the start that I will go to the scope with more filters than eyepieces soon. It is only about 18 months ago that I didn't even own a filter and now I have two and another two on order.

Alan

[John]

Mines gone back to the supplier now - I'll get a full refund minus the postage and it was well worth that small amount to be able to spend 6 hours or so trying it out

It's a well made piece of kit and polished and coated to high standards no doubt. Just not my "cup of tea" as it turns out.

[jetstream]

Really ????

But then again maybe not  ...

[Joves]

It apparently also works very nicely on Saturn, but I'm yet to get a view of this at a reasonable hour at the moment, so haven't had a chance to test it.

I'll be keeping mine, even if it doesn't. I actually like what it does on Jupiter in my scopes. I think you chase more subtle details on the planet than I do, John, so completely understand that it might not have been what you were after in this regard.

[Dyptorden]

It would be nice from someone who has all filters to make a table with each filters on one side (horizontal) (TV-Planetary/TV-Mars/Baader-Neo/No Filter) and planets on other side (vertical), and a mark 1-5 for each planet/filter .

[paulastro]

I've tried many planetary filters over the years, the whole range of colour filters and most specialist filters over the years.  I have never been convinced that any of them have given me a noticeably better image in terms of actually seeing more detail - though contrast and visibility of features  I can see without filters are sometimes improved.  Also, any increased contrast and visibility of features is always easily bettered by removing the filter and substituting a binoviewer.  I've also used some filters in both eyepieces in a binoviewer, but the image in the binoviewer without the filters always seems better to me - and you don't get the side affect of colour shifts of course.  I must admit, I'm quite envious of those who report a noticeable  improvement using various filters. 

I haven't yet had the opportunity to try out the TV Bandmate filter however, so if some very kind person would like to lend me one to road-test I'd be happy to try it! 

[Stu]

I will bring mine to SGLX so anyone is welcome to have a look with it

[mikeDnight]

Like you Paul, I have been a planetary observer for many years and have spent a fortune over the years on the very best equipment, including top end eyepieces and of course filters of various types. And like you I have noticed very little gain by placing a planetary filter in the light path. Often I feel it detracts from the image rather than adds to it.

As you mentioned in your post, there is a much greater gain in using a bino viewer. There are a number of advantages to be had in using a binocular viewer: First they allow a more comfortable view. Second they allow the observer to use cheaper eyepieces so the cost is low. Third they appear to steady the image considerably, revealing more detail and the use of higher magnification without image break down. Fourth, they're cheap. The only drawback I see using a bino viewer is that they are not star party friendly, as the viewer is set to the observers eye separation and individual eye focus. So, instead of spending several hundreds of pounds on top end eyepieces, as ive done, it may be wiser to buy a bino viewer and a couple of sets of orthos or plossl's. However good the filter mentioned at the outset is, I doubt it will approach the binocular view.

I see you are a W. F. Denning fan. Good man!

Mike

[alan potts]

It would be nice from someone who has all filters to make a table with each filters on one side (horizontal) (TV-Planetary/TV-Mars/Baader-Neo/No Filter) and planets on other side (vertical), and a mark 1-5 for each planet/filter .

I am fast coming to the opinion that you just can't make a list of what works wonders. I really think outside the fact that an Olll filter greatly increases visibiltiy of the Veil Nebula there are far too many varibles.

Just look at what you have that can be different; eyes, types of scope, eyepieces, different makes of filter and seeing.

I was using the same scope the other night with the same two eyepieces and no filter, 15mm TV Plossl and a 14mm Delos one night one was best and the next night it was the other way around, so I guess that is only seeing, I don't think it was me imagining it.

Alan