Meade Infinity 102

[Ray of LIght]

Just a thought; is the ES CLS Broadband filter something I should look at? For a guy in farm country my condo community is fairly light polluted, so the CLS may help me? Thanks so much Mak!

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Ray of LIght said:

You mentioned the UHC-S  and 25mm eyepiece. Reminds me I need to order that filter. Now I am not sure which one, Baader or ES. I would like to order the ES but I am wary since once I know what I am doing I may want to spend a lot of time on DSO's and want the best filter I can afford. Then again, like you pointed out, the ES are individually tested. Not a bad practice. Unsure.

Yes, filter use can be confusing and you'll usually get conflicting and contradictory advice. It's a case of 'your mileage may vary' often. Regardless of dark sites, and what people can see with a pair of opera glasses whilst observing in low Earth orbit, the best general overall nebula filter purchase for an aperture of under 150mm is a broadband ultra high contrast filter. And basically, that's exactly what the Baader UHC-S is and does. I believe Lumicon invented the original UHC filter, but, even according to Lumicon's own advice, using their UHC or OIII filters on anything less than a 6" aperture may be problematical.

The Baader Planetarium UHC-S Nebula filter excels at delivering a high-contrast and natural view of emission nebula - without excessive dimming and loss of background star fields.  The perfect filter for viewing emission nebula from light polluted skies, or for boosting the contrast of nebula from dark sky sites.  The advanced technology coatings enable the filter to achieve an outstanding transmission of over 97% across the entire passband, with total blockage of prominent light pollution lines.  This translates to maximum image brightness and contrast.  Owners of smaller, 4"-10" telescopes will especially appreciate the high efficiency, and larger scope users will love the rich star fields and detailed subtle nebular shadings that are left intact.

This is predominantly a Baader sales pitch, but it's interesting to note:

'The advanced technology coatings enable the filter to achieve an outstanding transmission of over 97% across the entire passband'

and

'Owners of smaller, 4"-10" telescopes will especially appreciate the high efficiency'

which is indicative that it isn't as aggressive as a more usual UHC filter. In which case, with a smaller aperture telescope of between around 4" or 5", it should work relatively efficiently, especially if you don't actually live on a dark site. Like you, I live on the edge of farmland and woodland, and light pollution isn't a massive problem, but the Baader works quite well even on a 102mm Mak. As long as you are getting an exit pupil of about 3mm or over I can't see a problem with the UHC-S. Although, I want to experiment more with the Bazooka and the UHC-S as I think I can get slightly better magnifications with the Baader UHC-S than with my 102mm Mak. Your refractor should be even more capable than the 102mm Mak, possibly rivalling the 130mm Bazooka.

The ES filter apparently has a very similar transmission curve to the Baader. I haven't used the ES CLS Nebula Filter, so I can't really be objective, but I'd guess it was similar to the Baader.

The sales pitch for the ES filter:

'Standing for "City Light Suppression", the Explore Scientific 1.25" or 2" CLS Nebula Filter is not just for observing nebulous objects, as it lets a broader swathe of wavelengths through to the observer than either the OIII or UHC Explore Scientific filters do. This means that observation of some galaxies and star clusters benefit from this filter, in a way that they would not when using either of the aforementioned OIII or UHC filters.'

My guess is that the Baader is a less aggressive ultra high contrast filter designed for smaller aperture scopes that also includes some light pollution filtering. Whereas, the ES filter is a city light suppression (usually designed to mask urban sodium street lights and general city glow) filter which can also be used as a nebula filter.

I don't think there's probably much between them. My personal preference would be for the Baader though.

I've included a PDF from Lumicon which you might find interesting. It's basically trying to sell you their filters, but it can be useful.

Lumicon Filters1.pdf

[Ray of LIght]

I guess I will wait until I can get the Baader. Doesn't pay to go second best on stuff like this I guess. Back in a bit.

[Mak the Night]

Without directly comparing them, I can't really say, I tend to prefer Baader filters.

[Ray of LIght]

Yeah, since I have two of them already I guess I am leaning towards them despite myself, lol!

[Mak the Night]

Apparently, Baader Filter threads are all M28-5x0-6, so tend to be pretty much universal. Which is more than can be said for Celestron, Lumicon and TeleVue filter threads. I have the Baader UHC-S, Neodymium and 0.9 Neutral Density filters.

From left to right: UHC-S, Neodymium & 0.9 Neutral Density filters. Plastic filter cases by courtesy of the incredibly useful Celestron AstroMaster Kit lol.

[Dave In Vermont]

The usual collection of filters - unless you're afflicted with the Filter-Bug like me - is a good UHC and a OIII. The Baader UHC-S is a very good UHC. For a OIII, some believe the Astronomik is better than Baader for visual use. The Baader has more cut-off than some like, making the view a bit dark, among other things. But I won't drag you away from thinking about a UHC-S. These are very nice! I've never read any reports on the ES UHC - yet. I'll go find any that may be about for my personal amusement.

Filter-Nut Ho!

Dave

 

[Mak the Night]

Astronomik actually recommend that you use their OIII filter only with telescopes above 150mm (6").

'Main use

Since enough light must be available to make use of the OIII filter it is best to use this filter with apertures of more than 6" (150mm). Smaller instruments do not gather enough light for meaningful and satisfying astronomical work.'

~ Astronomik

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Dave In Vermont said:

The usual collection of filters - unless you're afflicted with the Filter-Bug like me - is a good UHC and a OIII. The Baader UHC-S is a very good UHC. For a OIII, some believe the Astronomik is better than Baader for visual use. The Baader has more cut-off than some like, making the view a bit dark, among other things. But I won't drag you away from thinking about a UHC-S. These are very nice! I've never read any reports on the ES UHC - yet. I'll go find any that may be about for my personal amusement.

Filter-Nut Ho!

Dave

 

Interestingly, there are technically two ES 'Nebula' filters:

Explore Scientific UHC Nebula Filter

Explore Scientific CLS Nebula Filter

I don't know, but I'm guessing the UHC Nebula Filter is more like a traditional UHC filter and the CLS Nebula Filter is nearer to the Baader UHC-S.

[Dave In Vermont]

1 hour ago, Mak the Night said:

Interestingly, there are technically two ES 'Nebula' filters:

Explore Scientific UHC Nebula Filter

Explore Scientific CLS Nebula Filter

I don't know, but I'm guessing the UHC Nebula Filter is more like a traditional UHC filter and the CLS Nebula Filter is nearer to the Baader UHC-S.

Thanks for the links & explanation, I can see what my 'homework' assignment has become - which is great!

My other task will be trying to find reviews of H-Beta Filters. Which may be difficult. From what I've seen, these are used so seldom due to their (thankfully) low number of targets - such as the Horsehead-Nebula, B33, in Orion - that their aren't many who've tried to see it visually with more than one brand H-Beta Filter. But I'll try to find enough data to collate a difference in figuring out what seems to work best. Or might.

Thanks again!

Dave

 

[Dave In Vermont]

Me Back!

I've been doing some research on a bunch of things, and I've found some of interest if you've not yet 'pulled the trigger' on a UHC-Filter. I don't even know if these are available in the UK - though I'd imagine they are - but I've not seen much mention of DGM Optics. Until now. They're actually out of Vermont! And they've been getting rave-reviews in a pile of CN threads/reviews for at least to a year now. Both their UHC, which they call a NPB (Narrow Pass-Band) Filter, and their OIII-Filters.

And they're less money than Baader, Lumicon, and Astronomik. You could have knocked me over with a feather reading this stuff! Wow! And basically down the street from me..... So here's a link to their website:

http://www.npbfilters.com/home.html

And a Google-page showing a slew of CN write-ups:

https://www.google.com/search?q=NPB+UHC+Filters+Cloudy+Nights&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Back to work, say the intrepid-researcher,

Dave

[Mak the Night]

I think John's got one of the DGM Optics filters. I'm not sure if they're distributed in the UK yet. I know David Knisely rates them very highly.

[Mak the Night]

9 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

Thanks for the links & explanation, I can see what my 'homework' assignment has become - which is great!

My other task will be trying to find reviews of H-Beta Filters. Which may be difficult. From what I've seen, these are used so seldom due to their (thankfully) low number of targets - such as the Horsehead-Nebula, B33, in Orion - that their aren't many who've tried to see it visually with more than one brand H-Beta Filter. But I'll try to find enough data to collate a difference in figuring out what seems to work best. Or might.

Thanks again!

Dave

 

You're welcome Dave. I'd eventually like to try to see B33 with my 9.25" SCT. I know I'll need a H-Beta Filter, but I'm not sure whether I can get a big enough exit pupil with an f/10 scope. I've even considered a 2" diagonal with a 55mm TeleVue Plossl (for approx 43x) but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to see the obstruction! I don't know whether it would be a real problem though.

[Dave In Vermont]

I've read lately of people who wanted to see B33 so much, they refused to give up - completely, that is.....

What someone has done is take a cheap web-cam and, using simple eyepiece-projection, try to take it's picture. Much to his own shock - it worked! And a new contest was born:

Who can image B33 with the cheapest equipment?

I left it there. I was laughing to much to keep tabs on the final outcome! But I get that the lesson is: If at first you don't succeed, get a cheap camera!

I can understand why. If you go hunting for reports about people's attempts to see the HH-Nebula (B33), many have ended up  pulling their hair out in utter frustration. So beware.....

'Ta,

Dave

[Ray of LIght]

Wow, you guys have left me in the dust?! For my aperture scope we are still talking about the Baader UHC-s or the ES UHC or CLS Broadband filters, right? I can't use a OIII filter from what I gather. So, I really haven't pulled the trigger on anyone of them yet so I am reading all your information with great interest, but it seems a lot of it doesn't apply to my situation/equipment.

[Dave In Vermont]

Actually, Ray, my post above was inspired by your hunt for a good (or best) UHC filter. In a nutshell, I'm suggesting tossing the DGM Optics 'NPB-Filter' into your possible-list. Seems to be getting many rave reviews, and less money than the Baader UHC-S. And, on top of this - it's locally made in my state of Vermont (though sold out of New Hampshire to avoid anyone paying any taxes on it! Such is typical of us Vermonters! ).

Dave

[Ray of LIght]

Thanks Dave; I checked out your link but I'm not sure a narrow pass band and a broadband filter are the same, are they? And the price seems to be 80 US, the Baader is 89 and both ES are 69. I must be reading the DGM pricing wrong. Can you shed some light? Much appreciated.

[Dave In Vermont]

A UHC-filter is a narrow-band filter. Like the Orion Ultrablock. A CLS-filter is more of a broadband-filter. Orion's equivalent being their "Skyglow" filter:

http://www.telescope.com/125-Orion-SkyGlow-Broadband-Eyepiece-Filter/p/5660.uts?keyword=Skyglow

And their venerable "Ultrablock" lives here:

http://www.telescope.com/125-Orion-UltraBlock-NarrowBand-Filter/p/5654.uts?keyword=Ultrablock

The terms 'narrow-band' are often applied differently depending on the company selling them. They also have been called a 'cut-band' filter as they cut off a portion of the wavelengths of light (photons) coming through them. And to put the cherry on top of the "Confusion-Sundae" - Orion tries to sell them as "Pollution-Filters!" Last Analysis Dept. - It's not an exact science regards linguistics.

Anywho - The DGM 'NPB-UHC" is quite similar to the Baader UHC-S. They both cut certain wavelengths (bandwidths) of light going into them. But they may allow a little more of this, less of that, and so forth with the resulting visual image being most liked by us monkeys looking through the eyepiece.

Mail my banana -

Dave

Found the wavelength images!

Broadband CLS or Skyglow:

Narrowband UHC:

 

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Dave In Vermont said:

I've read lately of people who wanted to see B33 so much, they refused to give up - completely, that is.....

What someone has done is take a cheap web-cam and, using simple eyepiece-projection, try to take it's picture. Much to his own shock - it worked! And a new contest was born:

Who can image B33 with the cheapest equipment?

I left it there. I was laughing to much to keep tabs on the final outcome! But I get that the lesson is: If at first you don't succeed, get a cheap camera!

I can understand why. If you go hunting for reports about people's attempts to see the HH-Nebula (B33), many have ended up  pulling their hair out in utter frustration. So beware.....

'Ta,

Dave

Yes, I've read a fair bit about trying to see B33. Like everything else in astronomy, it's often inconclusive, contradictory and highly subjective. Having a Kodak moment with B33 and EP projection sounds crazy enough to work lol. I see viewing B33 as a long term goal, that way I won't pull out too much of my own hair. Hopefully.

[Mak the Night]

57 minutes ago, Ray of LIght said:

Wow, you guys have left me in the dust?! For my aperture scope we are still talking about the Baader UHC-s or the ES UHC or CLS Broadband filters, right? I can't use a OIII filter from what I gather. So, I really haven't pulled the trigger on anyone of them yet so I am reading all your information with great interest, but it seems a lot of it doesn't apply to my situation/equipment.

I'm not totally sure you can completely rule out an OIII on a 4" refractor, but I'd definitely do more research before pulling the trigger on one. As far as I can see, the DGM UHC is a narrow band UHC filter not unlike the Lumicon UHC. Dave's right about the whole semantics of filter descriptions though, different manufacturer/distributors tend to name them arbitrarily regardless of what they actually do. I'm guessing it's a marketing thing. I've included a PDF by David Knisley about DGM filters.

NPBfilterreview.pdf

[Mak the Night]

FWIW I just daylight tested the UHC-S on a distant church steeple with a 40mm eyepiece in my 90mm Mak. This gave me a 25x magnification for a 3.5mm exit pupil. Apart from the blue hue effect I thought I could discern certain surface features on the steeple more easily.

[Ray of LIght]

Will think about everything. Pretty sure it will be the Baader UHC-S or the ES CLS Broadband filter. Will let you know what I decide. Hoping my TV 3x arrives monday, can't wait to see it!

[Mak the Night]

The TV 3x is beautifully engineered. The Baader UHC-S also threads well onto TeleVue eyepieces so that's another consideration. I've just checked mine with the TV 20mm Plossl. This would give me 45x for a 2.89mm exit pupil on the Bazooka. It might just work.

[Ray of LIght]

Sounds like it! My TeleVue 3x came already! My arm, back and shingles are pretty bad lately but if I can get my son to help me the weather looks pretty good for a couple of nights. Will let u know how it goes, talk in a bit.

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Ray of LIght said:

Sounds like it! My TeleVue 3x came already! My arm, back and shingles are pretty bad lately but if I can get my son to help me the weather looks pretty good for a couple of nights. Will let u know how it goes, talk in a bit.

Yeah, the TeleVue 3x is an engineering work of art IMO. I think it was the first TeleVue eyepiece I ever bought. I was so impressed with it I just had to buy more of their stuff lol. I hope you feel well enough to get some observing in with all this new gear. Weather's pants here. It's really depressing.