Jump to content

UHC FILTERS


AJ PALE

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi and welcome to the forum.

Depends on your budget and the scope that you will be using them with to some extent.

I feel that the best filters are probably currently the ones made by Astronomik in Germany. They do both a UHC and an O-III.

These filters improve the contrast of nebulae - they don't improve galaxies or star clusters.

Here are some band pass charts which might help (or possibly confuse !):

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
22 hours ago, John said:

The O-III makes a bigger difference on certain objects but the UHC makes a noticable difference on a wider range of objects.

 

 

Thank you very much,I've ordered  Astronomik UHC 2",hope will enjoy it a lot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nojus said:

Thank you very much,I've ordered  Astronomik UHC 2",hope will enjoy it a lot..

Nojus,

you will enjoy the Astronomik UHC in both your scopes. I have Astronomik filters and the UHC is great in both my 4" frac and my big dob. 

the general rule is "if you can see the nebula then UHC will improve it, if you cannot see the nebula at all then O3 should make it visible".

In general in my dob, I use the O3 more but I still need the UHC as it gives better result than O3 on many nebulas! 

You can rest easy that you have made a lifetime purchase that will serve you well.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Are any filters worthwhile for faint DSOs, in particular globulars & galaxies. "Faint" for example, being galaxies in the Virgo cluster with magnitudes 7 & greater?

The filter is called petro, which you fill in your car and drive to a dark site.:smiley:

With my 8", I've able to see more than 600 galaxies thanks to this filter, hade I only observing from my light polluted backyard, I'd have done less than half the amount, even with a 12" or 16".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 25585 said:

Are any filters worthwhile for faint DSOs, in particular globulars & galaxies. "Faint" for example, being galaxies in the Virgo cluster with magnitudes 7 & greater?

Most will say that a filter will not help you see galaxies and they will not help them stand out. I happen to disagree with this. I have a Lumicon filter that I bought about 5 years ago, maybe more. It is their version of the Street Lamp Filter, to help filter out the orange type of light that was once all around, well in Hull it was. I live in Bulgaria and have no lights to worry about these days. This filter though is marketed under the somewhat misleading name of a Deep Sky Filter, and yes I fell for it. Having said that though I really do feel it helps on target like M81 & 82 when using my 18 inch Dob, I also feel it helped a bit with 12 inch Meade SC when recently looking at M77 and the faint blobs ( several NGC's) around it. Lumicon by all account are maybe not what they once were so be careful what you buy if going down this road, old secondhand is the one to look for.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alan potts said:

Most will say that a filter will not help you see galaxies and they will not help them stand out. I happen to disagree with this. I have a Lumicon filter that I bought about 5 years ago, maybe more. It is their version of the Street Lamp Filter, to help filter out the orange type of light that was once all around, well in Hull it was. I live in Bulgaria and have no lights to worry about these days. This filter though is marketed under the somewhat misleading name of a Deep Sky Filter, and yes I fell for it. Having said that though I really do feel it helps on target like M81 & 82 when using my 18 inch Dob, I also feel it helped a bit with 12 inch Meade SC when recently looking at M77 and the faint blobs ( several NGC's) around it. Lumicon by all account are maybe not what they once were so be careful what you buy if going down this road, old secondhand is the one to look for.

Alan

Alan, I have one of those already! Late 80s, came in a blue box but always sidelined by UHC & OIII. Give it a try next clear night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Alan, I have one of those already! Late 80s, came in a blue box but always sidelined by UHC & OIII. Give it a try next clear night. 

There was a site that someone linked me to that I bookmarked on my old laptop that also gave some support to what I have said. It basically compaired the main filters on a sizeable given list of objects and rated which was best. Whilst I have never been as thorough as the site I tend to agree with what it said, it took say the the Owl nebula and rated the filter, CLS, H Beta, UHC and Olll and scored them 1-5, on a few tagets mainly galaxies The CLS or Deep Sky Filter, scored 5. I wish I could recall the site but it was only about filters so may be easy to find, it was good reading but now lost in the drive crash.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alan potts said:

There was a site that someone linked me to that I bookmarked on my old laptop that also gave some support to what I have said. It basically compaired the main filters on a sizeable given list of objects and rated which was best. Whilst I have never been as thorough as the site I tend to agree with what it said, it took say the the Owl nebula and rated the filter, CLS, H Beta, UHC and Olll and scored them 1-5, on a few tagets mainly galaxies The CLS or Deep Sky Filter, scored 5. I wish I could recall the site but it was only about filters so may be easy to find, it was good reading but now lost in the drive crash.

Alan

This is the box label showing bandwidths. 

IMG_20171114_115948.jpg

IMG_20171114_115937.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, alan potts said:

There was a site that someone linked me to that I bookmarked on my old laptop that also gave some support to what I have said. It basically compaired the main filters on a sizeable given list of objects and rated which was best. Whilst I have never been as thorough as the site I tend to agree with what it said, it took say the the Owl nebula and rated the filter, CLS, H Beta, UHC and Olll and scored them 1-5, on a few tagets mainly galaxies The CLS or Deep Sky Filter, scored 5. I wish I could recall the site but it was only about filters so may be easy to find, it was good reading but now lost in the drive crash.

Alan

The list you speak of sounds very much like the: Filter Performance Comparisons For Some Common Nebulae - by Dave Knisely. This came from the Article by David Knisely in the Prairie Astronomy Club in the American Mid-West.

I'll leave a copy of this, in Pdf. form, below. Whether it's the same one you were thinking of, I don't know. But it's an excellent and highly useful article nonetheless.

Enjoy:

Filter Performance Comparisons For Some Common Nebulae - by Dave Knisely.pdf

 

Hope it helps -

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dave In Vermont said:

The list you speak of sounds very much like the: Filter Performance Comparisons For Some Common Nebulae - by Dave Knisely. This came from the Article by David Knisely in the Prairie Astronomy Club in the American Mid-West.

I'll leave a copy of this, in Pdf. form, below. Whether it's the same one you were thinking of, I don't know. But it's an excellent and highly useful article nonetheless.

Enjoy:

Filter Performance Comparisons For Some Common Nebulae - by Dave Knisely.pdf

 

Hope it helps -

Dave

It's the very fellow Dave, thanks I know you like your filters, I did actually put some to the test about 3 years ago and for what it's worth I agreed with the finds albeit with different filters, though quality ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John said:

The only difference I have with David Knisely is that he does not rate Astronomik filters that much whereas I feel they are excellent :icon_biggrin:

Yes, it seems to me that David doesn't approve other UHC type filters using the word "UHC",

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/529179-whats-the-best-overall-filter-for-observing/page-2?hl=+uhc

as he refused to comment the actually measurement of my astronomik UHC

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/541172-best-modern-replacement-for-broken-uhc-filter/?hl=%2Bastronomik+%2Buhc+%2Bfilter#entry7287747

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest you the Optolong flters, they can be found in Ebay or in the Netherlands shop Astromarket.

They are cheaper Astronomik copies, the 2'' UHC and OIII cost is around 50 euros. I owe the UHC,OIII, CLS and the Halpha 12nm and I can`t be happier, the Veil Nebula with the OIII is simply from another world.

 

You can check a comparison of the transmission curves for several filters in the web from Carlos Tapia, an physics student form Madrid who performs professional test at the university laboratory.

UHC comparison

http://www.carlostapia.es/curvas_filtros/Comparison_UHC.html

OIII visual comparison

http://www.carlostapia.es/curvas_filtros/Comparison_OIII_Visual.html

Hope this helps

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with filter tests and performance can be linked to a large swing in sample to sample variation. I wonder how many Optolong filters test well? I own numerous filters and right now would not purchase a Lumicon, eventhough I have two superb ones (OIII,UHC) and a poor one (Hb). My Astronomik OIII is VG but not quite as tight as the new ones or my older Lumicon.

Right now I would only purchase the Astronomik OIII,UHC,Hb and I would also purchase a DGM NPB based on the performance of my grand daughters. These are just my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owned two Astronomik filters, UHC and OIII. Although they were did the job, to my eye they were not at the level of the NPB and (old) Lumicon OIII. Essentially, I felt that they did not filter enough, particularly the UHC. In addition, to my eye the NPB showed a better view with richer contrast of the Veil nebula compared to the Astronomik OIII. 

Reading the specs, I believe the Astronomik OIII (CCD version) could be on par with the (old) Lumicon OIII. I never tried it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John said:

The only difference I have with David Knisely is that he does not rate Astronomik filters that much whereas I feel they are excellent :icon_biggrin:

 

I feel the same way you do John and two out votes one. As it happens the Deep Sky one I have is a Lumicon filter all others are Astronomik's and one TV Mars A filter which seems to attract cloud when Mars is close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm playing a balanced game here by having a Lumicon O-III (a few years old and excellent), a DGM NBP (David K's favourite) and an Astronomik H-Beta. One foot in all 3 camps !

If the Astronomik shows me the Horsehead I'll have it framed and mounted on the wall in an honoured place :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two excellent 2" Lumicon filters, the UHC and OIII, plus the DGM NPB. I also have a totally unused (by me) 1.25" Lumicon Hb filter. I'll hold onto it and hope I get a chance to use it one day....

I intended to hand on to these....

IMG_4820.JPG

IMG_4821.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John said:

I'm playing a balanced game here by having a Lumicon O-III (a few years old and excellent), a DGM NBP (David K's favourite) and an Astronomik H-Beta. One foot in all 3 camps !

If the Astronomik shows me the Horsehead I'll have it framed and mounted on the wall in an honoured place :icon_biggrin:

I'm like you John one in each camp! I've got an astronomik uhc as well as the DGM NBP since they do give different types of views and generally I prefer the Astronomik. I read that the passbands of the astronomiks were made shorter a few years back and now they are much more like the 'old' lumicons. 

My most satisfying filter so far has been my lumicon oiii on the Veil. But my lumicons specs are nowhere as good as Stu's - lucky boy! ?

IMG_0264.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.