Is the Baader Neodymium Filter worth buying for planetary and lunar imaging?

[choochoo_baloo]

Dear all,

I was told that this particular filter could be useful when imaging planets and the lunar surface, by increasing contrast above all else? I've been told that ordinary neutral density filters are pointless for imaging, since glare is a human eye phenomenon; which is corrected for by cameras by just reducing the exposure setting.

So would this Baader filter be worth it for the other benefits it claims to bring for imaging, or is it a gimmick for imaging planets and the lunar surface? By the way, if it's relevant, my gear is a high power & large aperture refractor, and QHY5L-II camera.

Thanks in advance.

[Pete Presland]

i would use one of these a Baader UV/IR Cut Filter  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/uv-ir-filters/baader-uvir-cut-filter.html

[Macavity]

i would use one of these a Baader UV/IR Cut Filter  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/uv-ir-filters/baader-uvir-cut-filter.html

Unless you can see well into the UV and IR, it won't make much difference to the contrast?

I have a Baader UV/IR permanently on my Watec Video Cam - As much to keep the dust out!

I hope it isn't (unbeknown to me) "spoiling" my images. In truth, I've never really checked...  

Idem, all one can say re. the Neodymium is: Try it? The filter is basically a Red, Green & Blue

*pass* filter, rejecting intermediate - orange & green-blue, where light pollution often resides.

The more general reasoning, this might give greater contrast, seems sound too? A red spot

would be darker than surrounding orange clouds on Jupiter? But, without any direct evidence 

(I checked recently) who is to say definitively? I'm OK with majority subjective opinion tho'.

I revisited the question recently - I plan to get one myself (in lieu of a SOLD contrast booster).

Based on image comparison evidence from ONE user, the filter slightly degraded things! But,

without criticism, one has to ask... Did the guy refocus the scope exactly? lol [teasing] Out in

the "field", we (well most of us) rarely perform rigorous and precise scientific measurements.

I am planning to do this test (so many things!) "properly"... but even then, it's just my result.

A useful project! Would one could obtain "research funding" (free money!) for such things? 

[lensman57]

Dear all,

I was told that this particular filter could be useful when imaging planets and the lunar surface, by increasing contrast above all else? I've been told that ordinary neutral density filters are pointless for imaging, since glare is a human eye phenomenon; which is corrected for by cameras by just reducing the exposure setting.

So would this Baader filter be worth it for the other benefits it claims to bring for imaging, or is it a gimmick for imaging planets and the lunar surface? By the way, if it's relevant, my gear is a high power & large aperture refractor, and QHY5L-II camera.

Thanks in advance.

The filter is UV/IR cut and a broadband light pollution filter, it is also a contrast booster and the increase in contrast is measurable. So yes you can use it for planetary and  DSO imaging. As usual with AP there is no free lunch and the downside here is more lengthy exposure times are needed. I use mine for imaging galaxies at times but as a whole I prefer the IDAS P2 or D1 LP filters but they are nearly twice as expensive. I think that the 1.25" version of the Baader is very good value compared to an IDAS. If your refractor is not either APO or ED perhaps you should also consider a Baader " Semi Apo " fringe killer filter as an alternative.

A.G

[choochoo_baloo]

The filter is UV/IR cut and a broadband light pollution filter, it is also a contrast booster and the increase in contrast is measurable. So yes you can use it for planetary and  DSO imaging. As usual with AP there is no free lunch and the downside here is more lengthy exposure times are needed. I use mine for imaging galaxies at times but as a whole I prefer the IDAS P2 or D1 LP filters but they are nearly twice as expensive. I think that the 1.25" version of the Baader is very good value compared to an IDAS. If your refractor is not either APO or ED perhaps you should also consider a Baader " Semi Apo " fringe killer filter as an alternative.

A.G

Thanks for this.

So would you recommend the Baader Neodymium over the Baader standard UV/IR cut filter?

[Macavity]

"Yes" from me too. They are not (imho. lol) intended for the same purpose.

A UV/IR cut filter is designed to remove UV & IR only, from outside the visible

spectrum. It is more usually (primarily) intended for imaging. The Neodymium 

and other *contrast* filters function within the visible spectrum - Absorbing the

regions of light (orange, green-blue) most often associated with light pollution.

- Street lights etc! Their primary (tho' not exclusive) use is in visual astronomy.

The effect of these filters is at most subtle. Chances (I'd say 100%!) there is

no perceived difference in adding a plain UV/IR filter to a scope used visually.

There is simply no absorption within the visible region  (400 - 700nm):

http://www.baader-planetarium.de/sektion/s43c/bilder_43c/l-filter_gross.gif

However the Neodymium filter would be a useful to try - But no guarantees!

The mechanism of "contrast boosting" is perhaps like I described above?!?

I believe the latest Neodymium filters now include (better) UV/IR removal too.

But again, this is rather incidental to their *primary* purpose. The absorption

pattern within the visible region (again 400-700nm) is complex / significant :

http://www.baader-planetarium.de/sektion/gemeinsame_dateien/download_filter/neodymium_e.pdf

[RT65CB-SWL]

Hi Matthew,

I use one. The only thing that you may find annoying maybe a pale blue tinge. Other than that I recommend one. I did use it on Mars duing April (2014) and it wasn't to bad. At least I managed to see some surface detail. When Mars was at its closest opposition in 2005 it was ok then too, but then I only had my TeleVue Ranger and e/p's.

[lensman57]

Thanks for this.

So would you recommend the Baader Neodymium over the Baader standard UV/IR cut filter?

If your aim is just to remove the UV/IR then go for the plain UV/IR filter as it does not increase the exposure time, the Neodymium will however remove a lot of the LP but the exposure times are longer.

A.G

[toxic]

not sure about the effects on planets but i can say that the baader uhc-s filter is much better than a standard LP filter

.

i was and am still amazed at the difference between them and the eos 1100d is not astro modified.

hope this helps.

[Pete Presland]

light pollution is not really an issue for Lunar and planetary imaging, so a standard UV/IR cut filter is going to be fine.