UHC filters and the Veil

[Caldwell14]

I currently use two filters a UHC filter and a Moon filter (I might ditch this one) My only experience of observing the Veil has been through a OIII filter and now I don't have one. So the question is... Do UHC filters work on the Veil?

[RikM]

Mine seems to work okay.

[crashtestdummy]

Uhc worked for me and iirc is th best filter for the veil.you can see it without too

[John]

Yes. I've seen the Veil with scopes as small as 80mm using a Baader UHC-S filter. The TS UHC filter and Orion Ultrablock also did a good job. My current Astronomik O-III is the most effective filter I've used on this object though.

[faulksy]

might try that tonight, thought it was only oiii that worked

[swamp thing]

An UHC filter will work on the veil, but an O-III is considerably better.

[Paul73]

I'll have a look tonight. As my new(ish) OIII arrived today, to join my much used ES UHC, I can actually do the comparison (clouds permitting).....

Paul

[Stu]

Agreed, UHC should still work on the Veil. I think which is best depends upon your scope, the skies and the brand of filter. There are significant differences between the band passes so it's worth understanding what effect they have. I found this site very useful for teaching myself about them...

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm#Lumicon%20UHC

Stu

[Paul73]

I'll have a look tonight. As my new(ish) OIII arrived today, to join my much used ES UHC, I can actually do the comparison (clouds permitting).....

Paul

Bright blue skys, clear dusk, scope out, clouds, clouds, clouds.

I'll try again tomorrow night.

Should have known.

Paul

[AlexB67]

Paul, Looking forward how you go with the ES OIII ( particularly on something like the Veil ). I was considering it myself. An OIII is the list next anyway.  Pondering over the astronomik as well though and wonder whether it is worth stretching out for and how much better it would be.  Plenty time  to do a bit of reading around since it will not be 'till next month anyway when I'll get mine.

[Paul73]

Paul, Looking forward how you go with the ES OIII ( particularly on something like the Veil ). I was considering it myself. An OIII is the list next anyway.  Pondering over the astronomik as well though and wonder whether it is worth stretching out for and how much better it would be.  Plenty time  to do a bit of reading around since it will not be 'till next month anyway when I'll get mine.

Sorry to disappoint Alex. I did too much reading and paid extra for a lightly used Lumicon OIII....

Paul

[Paul73]

I did a little test last night on the Veil. OIII (Lumicon) vs UHC (Explore Scientific) vs No Filter.

I used my 10" SW Dob, a 28mm 68° eyepiece and the above filters. I had a go at about 2am on the shortest night go the year, conditions were far from "dark sky"!!!

The OIII darkens the sky markedly with only the brighter stars easily visible. The nebula stood out very clearly as a band running across the full 1 1/4° ish FOV (and a little bit more beside). There was texture and suggestions of some detail.

The UHC showed far more of the background starscape and also clearly showed the Nebulosity. It was far less bright than the OIII but still easily visible in direct vision. The extent of the band was reduced by about a third to a half and texture & detail were only hinted at in averted vision.

No Filter = a lovely eyepiece full of starts, but no nebula.

In summary. If nobody had invented OIII filter, then this would still be a very popular UHC aided target. In fact, by seeing the more of the backgroud, the overall view was more pleasing. However, with the OIII the view is obviously improved. This is not one of those comparisons where you need to swap back and forth teasing out subtle differences, the OIII is clearly better for viewing this nebula.

Hope that this is of interest.

Paul

PS. To the original poster - if I were to choose between the UHC and the OIII as my only filter. I would choose the UHC every time due to the sheer number of targets where it beats the OIII. The Viel is the big exception

[Mike73]

I prefer the view from a good UHC filter to OIII filters even on objects like the Veil even when I know that the OIII will show the object better but thats just because I do like seeing some background stars.

I'm going to order a DGM Optics NPB filter soon (similar to a UHC) but when the wallet recovers I will get another Lumicon OIII.

[swamp thing]

I prefer the view from a good UHC filter to OIII filters even on objects like the Veil even when I know that the OIII will show the object better but thats just because I do like seeing some background stars.

I'm going to order a DGM Optics NPB filter soon (similar to a UHC) but when the wallet recovers I will get another Lumicon OIII.

TBH you should be picking up plenty of background stars in your 16" scope regardless of what filter you're using. I certainly don't see a lack of stars using an O-III with my 20"

[Paul73]

TBH you should be picking up plenty of background stars in your 16" scope regardless of what filter you're using. I certainly don't see a lack of stars using an O-III with my 20"

I guess that tis is why the general consensus is to steer clear of the OIII's unless you've got a biggish scope. Wouldn't want to go much less than 8" or 10" unless you can get to some darker sky.

Paul

[John]

I prefer the view from a good UHC filter to OIII filters even on objects like the Veil even when I know that the OIII will show the object better but thats just because I do like seeing some background stars....

Me too Mike and thats why I bought the Astronomik O-III. Really effective contrast enhancement of nebulosity and plenty of well defined background stars even with my 4" refractor. 

I was using this filter last night to view the Veil and it was fabulous with my 12" dob despite it being about the shortest night of the year. M57 and M27 looked amazing filtered as well although under darker skies I generally prefer the unfiltered view of these objects.

I really can't recommend the Astronomik O-III enough - the views of the Veil are worth the purchase price on their own 

[Mike73]

TBH you should be picking up plenty of background stars in your 16" scope regardless of what filter you're using. I certainly don't see a lack of stars using an O-III with my 20"

Yep I could pick up back ground stars with the OIII but they were faint compared to using a UHC which would show the all the background stars and nebulosity.

I use OIII filters to look for details in objects and UHC filters to enhance the view throughout the FoV, two different filters with different uses.

[jetstream]

Me too Mike and thats why I bought the Astronomik O-III. Really effective contrast enhancement of nebulosity and plenty of well defined background stars even with my 4" refractor. 

I was using this filter last night to view the Veil and it was fabulous with my 12" dob despite it being about the shortest night of the year. M57 and M27 looked amazing filtered as well although under darker skies I generally prefer the unfiltered view of these objects.

I really can't recommend the Astronomik O-III enough - the views of the Veil are worth the purchase price on their own 

Like John said ^-he told me last year the Astronomik has a slightly wider pass band than the others and that it works very well across a broad range of scopes.Not only for the Veil,I have seen the Rosette,Monkeyhead,Crescent nebs VERY well for a 10"-in addition to the brighter ones mentioned.Thanks again for that advice John

[swamp thing]

I'm not sure I see the Astronomik pass width offers any improvement or even any difference in views.

I have compared the Astronomik and Lumicon O-III filters fitted to identical eyepieces (for quick swapping) in several different scopes ranging from 4" up to 10" in aperture.

The result......no difference to my eyes. One observing buddy reckoned the Lumicon was a tad better allowing finer detail to be seen. Personally I think it was a case of, the grass is always greener, as he owned the Astronomik

To summarise, unless one has exceptional observing skill don't worry about pass width in line filters.

For me the extra contrast offered by line filters makes them a winner on nearly all nebula compared to the less aggressive UHC, but that's a personal view.

[Stu]

I guess that tis is why the general consensus is to steer clear of the OIII's unless you've got a biggish scope. Wouldn't want to go much less than 8" or 10" unless you can get to some darker sky.

Paul

I think that's right Paul, I get lovely views with my OIII in my 4" but it does need dark skies and good dark adaptation. My skies at home are just too bright really. Down in Dorset in July or August when it gets properly dark though it's wonderful to see the whole Veil complex in one field of view.

Stu

[John]

To summarise, unless one has exceptional observing skill don't worry about pass width in line filters.

For me the extra contrast offered by line filters makes them a winner on nearly all nebula compared to the less aggressive UHC, but that's a personal view.

Steve,

I don't have exceptional observing skills but I've found the band pass width differences between filters really very noticeable and it has been a critical factor in my choice of filter. Perhaps this is because generally my scopes have had less aperture than yours ?. 

As you say though, the way one like ones views served is a personal thing

[Stu]

Steve,

I don't have exceptional observing skills but I've found the band pass width differences between filters really very noticeable and it has been a critical factor in my choice of filter. Perhaps this is because generally my scopes have had less aperture than yours ?.

As you say though, the way one like ones views served is a personal thing

Ditto John. I saw definite differences (improvements) between the Lumicon OIII and the one I had previously (can't remember the brand). With smaller apertures I think conditions and dark adaptation have a bigger impact.

I do remember some time ago viewing the Veil through a UHC-S and OIII on two different nights. On the first I had not allowed my eyes to adapt properly and the UHC-S gave the better views. On the second, I was much more disciplined and with full dark adaptation the OIII gave much better views, the whole Veil including Pickering's triangle, in a 4" scope.

Stu

[swamp thing]

Steve,

I don't have exceptional observing skills but I've found the band pass width differences between filters really very noticeable and it has been a critical factor in my choice of filter. Perhaps this is because generally my scopes have had less aperture than yours ?. 

As you say though, the way one like ones views served is a personal thing

The band pass on UHC filters is an area I would agree that it's worth paying attention too. But line filters, I see little point in worrying John.

As said I compared two equally well made filters both with different pass widths and......zip difference that I could see even through a 4" frac

The pass width may have been different but the amount of detail observable didn't vary to my eyes. Was one darker TBH I don't recall seeing any difference.

[John]

There is a big difference in band pass width between the Baader O-III and the Astronomik O-III and the effects of that are clear when you look though them I've found. They do seem to be at opposite ends of the O-III range though.

[swamp thing]

Not. Tried the baader myself. Although I must admit its very aggressive pass width does make it something I'd be interested to try, and actually quite appealing to me.