Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If using a 90° Diagonal on a scope, you can screw one polariser-filter into the end of the diagonal - on the end pointing up the OTA - and the other polariser into your eyepiece-du-jour. Then rotate t

After a couple of nights observation of the full moon recently with my small frac, my eyes almost hurt, it seemed to ages for the ghosting to clear . So I’ve just ordered a variable polarising fi

I do not use filters on the Moon either, as many other members said above.  For me the reason is that I'm excited to observe the Moon when it is waxing or waning rather than when it is full. Duri

I on the other hand do prefer to use a filter; I just find it a bit uncomfortable observing the moon without one. 

I use variable polarising filter, that way you don't need to choose, you can have both, and many more values as well :)

If you want a fixed value one though, I'd say the lower value one; you only want to take the glare away. 

But, as you have seen above, check that you actually need one first. And don't buy a really cheep one that will make the moon look green.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a keen Moon gazer, when work and weather permit and never use a filter, im sure i have an ND some where but not seen it in my kit for a good while, if you find the moon to bright go to a slightly higher mag ep, this has darkens the moon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have stared happily at the moon through an unfiltered 6" and you get a residual image on the eye for some 30 seconds afterwards but that can be fun - just don't walk around until it clears as you will walk into things.

Both scopes are small enough not to really require one, although they may make it a bit easier for prolongued observing of the moon. 13% and 18% are not a great difference apart. If I had to go for one I think I would opt for the 13%. Although that is likely my preference for getting light through the scope to my eye.

I suspect that half of people would pick one and half the other.

Not sure now about the specification is 13% a filter that blocks 13% so passes 87%, or one that passes 13% so blocks 87%.

Usually they are specified by the amount that they block but 13% transparency I suppose reads transparent to 13% and so blocks 87%. If so then I would say they are too dark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone's eyes are different, some much more sensitive to light than others so it is difficult to recommend a filter for someone else. As our eyes age and lenses become less transparent I think we get less likely to need a filter on the moon!

Certainly try observing the moon yourself and see how you find it before buying anything. A variable filter makes sense to me so you can fine tune the brightness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love filters, hence I'm a filter-nut!

For the Moon, I can take them or leave them though. But when I do use one, I wouldn't touch the 13% or 18% or.....Etc. I use the 2-piece Polarizing-Filters like these:

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Accessories/Telescope-Eyepiece-Filters/Orion-Variable-Polarizing-Eyepiece-Moon-Filters/rc/2160/pc/-1/c/3/sc/48/e/14.uts

And these can also be used on other targets as well - such asVenus to help seeing the phase of it. And any other entities that are in need of dimming-down. Like double-stars with a wide-range of magnitudes between the primary star and it's companion - such as Sirius and it's 'Pup.'

Enjoy -

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ronin said:

Not sure now about the specification is 13% a filter that blocks 13% so passes 87%, or one that passes 13% so blocks 87%.

Usually they are specified by the amount that they block but 13% transparency I suppose reads transparent to 13% and so blocks 87%. If so then I would say they are too dark.

@ronin if you do not know then it is always worth checking before giving advice, or not offering it.

There is a useful page on Wikipedia about these filters, the ND0.9 13% filter allows 13% of the light through. The variable filter on FLOs site offers between 1% and 40% of the light to pass through.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral-density_filter

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

After a couple of nights observation of the full moon recently with my small frac, my eyes almost hurt, it seemed to ages for the ghosting to clear .

So I’ve just ordered a variable polarising filter. Glad to hear some of you think they’re good to use!

Clear skies all, Jeremy 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to use the 13% ND filter (it's not too dark at all, Ronin), I find it just right and would advise the OP (MrDusty) to get this one, though I agree with others that a variable polariser is a good option.  From my point of view I prefer not to faff about with this and like to know I am getting just the right amount of filtration, which I believe the ND13 offers me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer a variable polariser on the moon, not so much to "protect" my eyes but to tweak the brightness to maximise the contrast. However, this is with a 2" polarising filter in my 2"-1.25" adaptor and a 1.25" filter on the eyepiece, so that rotating the eyepiece in the focuser allows the brightness to be easily adjusted. With a 1.25" Newtonian focuser you can only do this if viewing the moon through a barlowed eyepiece where one part of the filter can be screwed to the eyepiece and the other to the barlow. Fixing both parts to the eyepiece will require adjusting the brightness with the filter out of the focuser.

A Neodymium and/or yellow (or even red if lunar viewing isn't the last thing on your agenda) wrattan filter can also help improve lunar contrast at the expense of altering the colour.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

With a 1.25" Newtonian focuser you can only do this if viewing the moon through a barlowed eyepiece where one part of the filter can be screwed to the eyepiece and the other to the barlow. Fixing both parts to the eyepiece will require adjusting the brightness with the filter out of the focuser.

That is very true. One possible option, which relies on having enough back focus is to put a short 1.25" extension in which you screw one half of the polariser to, that way you can still add the second part to the eyepiece and rotate it to get maximum brightness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only use filters where they make a really big difference, in positive terms, to the views. So it's narrow band and line filters for nebulae and a Herschel wedge for white light solar.

I do actually have a lunar filter but I keep that for outreach sessions when someone requests it. It's a difficult concept to explain that telescopes don't make the moons surface any brighter than it is with the naked eye :rolleyes2:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the moon is in the sky I don't tend to chase the really faint stuff. They look so much better on a moonless night :smiley:

For planetary observing a bit of moon gazing first actually helps. Very keen planetary observers have been known to stare at an illuminated section of a white surface prior to observing.

Edited by John
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not use filters on the Moon either, as many other members said above. 

For me the reason is that I'm excited to observe the Moon when it is waxing or waning rather than when it is full. During those phases, you can catch plenty of details particularly along the terminator, and I do not find the Moon so bright to require a filter to dim the brightness. Also, you can control the image brightness by reducing the exit pupil, said in another way, by increasing the magnification. Therefore, I would observe the Moon with what you already have before investing in a filter.

I find a full Moon a poetic target when it is low above the horizon coming up from the trees, and is observed through a refractor at low power. In this case, 1) the thicker layer of atmosphere nicely works as a filter (..and adds some tint too!), 2) the refractor projects the image correctly (up is up, down is down), and 3) a low power eyepiece gives a large fov, showing more surrounding Nature. I had some wonderful views of full Moons at low power when this target was illuminating the branches and leaves of trees between us, birds on trees and flying all around, and soft horizontal clouds partially shrouding the Moon with the delicacy that a warm scarf has on our neck in the winter. 

Edited by Piero
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If using a 90° Diagonal on a scope, you can screw one polariser-filter into the end of the diagonal - on the end pointing up the OTA - and the other polariser into your eyepiece-du-jour. Then rotate the eyepiece to the dimming you wish. Works great!

Dave

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank all of you for your input. I believe that I'll take the advice of doing a bunch of observing before deciding if a filter is really needed in my case.

Thanks again and clear skies to everyone,

MrDusty

Richard Hayden

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By CATLUC
      Hello
      No extraordinary images for this lunation, because of the turbulence and the use of infrared filters.
      Here are some images of the 24th, I am working on those of the 25th which will be of the same style.
      Clear skies.
      Luc
      At 75%
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/606990e07e8f3_AUSUDDECLAVIUS2403202121H28NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR807QHY5III178M75LUCCATHALA.jpg.84cfe5d2e0a96ce7e7a5d85118559cac.jpg
      At 100%
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/606990f393159_AUSUDDECLAVIUS2403202121H28NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR807QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.948ab38f7bf5022aafa96254aab0f94f.jpg
      AT 75%
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/6069910b9dba4_AUSUDDEMORETUS2403202121H35NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR807QHY5III178M75LUCCATHALA.jpg.9932feec038a3c6f7bfc2e6b6bd9c953.jpg
      At 100%
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/6069912b6a1f9_AUSUDDEMORETUS2403202121H35NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR807QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.2aba3bde7986d6a0add4a59b588e734d.jpg
      Copernic
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/60699139ebe7a_COPERNIC2403202121H45NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR742QHY5III178M80LUCCATHALA.jpg.ecc5f6e628eaf26a6a1881c8e9e378b3.jpg
      Hainzel
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/606991429608e_HAINZEL2403202122H05NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR742QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.3a4a7bd2926efadfe3cb905a39b6330e.jpg
      Mee and Hainzel
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/6069915116dc7_MEEHAINZEL2403202122H09NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR742QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.cd5baf564a77c723f2a3c7007c96cce3.jpg
      Pitatus Hesiodus
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/60699157ca219_PITATUSHESIODUS2403202121H55NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR742QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.fce9a66ae3896ca8800651cb2fb17996.jpg
      Tycho
      http://www.astrosurf.com/uploads/monthly_2021_04/60699160f1c1c_TYCHO2403202121H55NEWTON625MMBARLOW4FILTREIR742QHY5III178M100LUCCATHALA.jpg.74cdf87906d385c19a1bd7b46c79519e.jpg
    • By Drifter
      Just a quick enquiry ... was strolling the lunar surface on Iroc and bumped into this area of florescence on the lunar surface.


      Any thoughts anyone? (Co-ordinates at bottom of screenshot if you want to get better definition from original website).
      Was struggling to see clear heavy impact crater that would account for the wide spread of surface debris?
      Didn't think it was image flare - not expert on that so could be wrong - but noticed on RHS there appears to be traces of surface debris scatter?
      It almost seems like someone threw a very low velocity ‘flour bomb’ at the surface of the Moon?🤨
      Have there been mineral studies done on these areas of exceptional lunar florescence? ... I tapped the phrase into SGL’s Search ... but surprisingly it came up with ‘no results’??
    • By Andreameda
      Beautiful clear night!
      Telescope: Skywatcher 10" Quattro Newtonian DSLR: Canon EOS rebel T7i
    • By Andreameda
      Telescope: Skywatcher 10" Quattro Newtonian DSLR: Canon EOS rebel T7i
    • By Stargazer33
      Mare Fecunditatis and crater Langrenus. Saturation has been increased to show the different surface material/colours.
      C9.25; CGEM; ASI385MC; Baader Neodymium filter.

×
×
  • 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.