UHC+LPF v Neodymium

[Dom1961]

I was originally thinking of getting a UHC filter and a LPF however the baader Neodymium filter claims to do everything that the other two do, is this true? Can I use the neodymium filter to block light pollution as well as improve contrast? Thanks!

[Cath]

Can compare the spectral filter shapes and see which suits your needs. Not sure of the spectral shape of the LPF you're interested in though.

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm

[Dom1961]

I have no clue what they mean :/

[Dom1961]

Ive got sodium vapour lamp posts if that helps??

[D4N]

Note that different UHC filters will block differently, the Baader UHC-S is much more vicious at the IR end of the spectrum than the Astronomik UHC filter.

The UHC filter is designed to give maximum contrast on emission nebulae.

This will unfortunately reduce the apparent brightness of reflection nebulae and galaxies.

The Neodymium is aimed at cutting out specific wavelengths found in light pollution to increase contrast all round without reducing brightness too much.

The UHC will be superior for emission nebulae but the neodymium may be better if you are looking at other types of faint fuzzies.

I have a UHC-S filter and always use it for imaging but only use it for visual if I am looking at emission nebulae as it dims many objects too much to be able to see them if much of their light falls outside of its bands.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Piero]

Reading your post, I think you should do some more research before buying one. 

If your area is severely light polluted, forget galaxies or extended nebulae.. there are other nice targets though! (e.g. planets, double stars).

If you want to see galaxies or nebulae you need to go to a dark place to get the best from them. No filter will give you anything as comparable as a proper dark sky can show you.

Assuming that you are in a moderately light polluted area or that you are keen to go to a dark place, I would first invest my money in a low power eyepiece (e.g. ~4mm exit pupil if you live in a LP area as I believe you do otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread), and see how it goes. 

Later, I would consider whether you can improve your views with a filter (e.g. OIII or UHC).

Piero

[John]

UHC filters only enhance the contrast of nebulae. They don't work on galaxies, clusters etc.

The Neodymium does a rather different job and some folks find it useful when viewing the moon and planets. It can darken the background sky a bit when viewing deep sky objects but it's nowhere near as effective as a UHC or O-III filter on nebulae.

As someone once said, the best thing to buy to get better views of galaxies is a few litres of fuel in your petrol tank to take you and your scope to darker skies.

Thats not to say that you cant see something of the brighter galaxies with a little light pollution around but they do look a lot better without it.

[ghostdance]

Echoing John and Piero's posts.

I have the Baader Neodym, UHC-S and Astronomik UHC-E (think it's E without looking, the 'budget' one in any case).

Neodym does not do what the UHC does, in respect of M42 or Dumbbell, for example. UHC greatly increases detail in nebulousity in M42, and enables me to make out the Dumbbell in my LP skies. Neodym helps somewhat with darkening the background, which is not the same thing at all. It has taken me some while to begin to appreciate the Neo to be honest, whereas the UHC effect was obvious. UHC does affect stars though, removing fainter ones altogether and dimming down significantly. But, horses for courses - it really makes the clouds in M42 'come alive' for me. I don't have much opportunity to get to a dark site with scope, so can only imagine the positive effect of doing so.

[Dom1961]

Whats the difference in the letter e.g. uhc-s uhc-e

[ghostdance]

With the Astronomik I thought the 'E' designation meant economy, but I could well be wrong. I have read that the UHC-S & UHC-E are so-called 'false' UHC's (see the link below).

May clear things up by having a look at this:

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/useful-filters-for-viewing-deep-sky-objects/

HTH

[John]

The Baader UHC-S has a wider band pass width than other UHC-type filters. This was deliberately done by Baader to make it work well even with small aperture scopes. One of the best lowish cost UHC type filters I've used with small and larger scopes is the Orion Ultrablock.

[ghostdance]

The Baader UHC-S has a wider band pass width than other UHC-type filters. This was deliberately done by Baader to make it work well even with small aperture scopes. One of the best lowish cost UHC type filters I've used with small and larger scopes is the Orion Ultrablock.

I've heard a fair bit about these Ultrablocks (good and not so - some comment on green cast?), to the extent that I'll keep an eye out for a used one, but do you think the U/Block could work in a 6" f5 Newt under London skies, John?

I wonder about light loss, but it may be no more than my OIII, so worth a gamble.

Thanks

Steve

[Dinosour23]

I put an Ultrablock in my 90mm frac, you can see the cloud contrast increasing but I couldnt "focus" it enough to enjoy the view.

The background went black, and so did the beauty of the image.

In return you get a little cloud which appears defocused in the eyepiece so I just gave up for that night and have yet to use it again.

What scope do you have, I would think smaller scopes won't benefit out of these much and you're better off with a broadband... But I should really go out again to make sure it wasn't a fluke

[John]

The broadband filters that I've tried made little or no difference

I use the Baader UHC-S to enable me to see the Veil Nebula with the 100mm and 80mm refractors I had back then. It was a big deep sky moment for me

The Ultrablock that I later purchased was slightly better and enhancing the nebulosity with the 100mm scope but dimmed the stars too much for my taste with the 80mm.