Comparing Baader to Chroma filters.....

[RayD]

I am currently doing a video for my YouTube channel on whether Chroma filters (LRGB specifically) are really worth more than twice the cost of Baader.  I collected some data with the Baader filters on Saturday, and took some flats to see how they look and perform.  I will do the same with the Chromas and see how they stack up.

Below is a very quick (about half hour) process of the Baader data, which wasn't under ideal conditions, but with a bit more time spent would produce more than respectable results I think.  I suspect the Chroma filters are going to have to do pretty well to justify their price.  Once I have both data sets in I'll spend some more time processing both sets using the same workflow as far as possible.

I do use Chroma (2") in Spain, and am delighted with them, and the NB ones are noticeably better, but LRGB............we'll see!

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by RayD

[gingergeek]

Looking forward to watching it over a coffee !

[MarkAR]

Me too, nice image for half an hours worth.

[Jkulin]

I think the biggest difference Ray is the lack of any halo's which I have only found that the Chroma and Astrodon LRGB are capable of.

My imaging has come along in leaps and bounds since switching over.

I look forward to your thoughts.

All the best.

[Merlin66]

John,

I thought the more recent Baader filters had solved this halo issue????

[RayD]

8 hours ago, Jkulin said:

I think the biggest difference Ray is the lack of any halo's which I have only found that the Chroma and Astrodon LRGB are capable of.

My imaging has come along in leaps and bounds since switching over.

I look forward to your thoughts.

All the best.

I can't say as I have noticed this as an issue that has immediately stood out for me, John, but then this really was a quick process just to make sure the data was there to make a fair judgement, so this image isn't really meant as a demonstration of the Baader capabilities, more just a "ok, not bad at all."  There is a blue halo around the brightest star but that could well be me just pushing the saturation a tad too high, and I wasn't working to reduce/remove it, but I think this is going to be easily manageable when I spend a bit more time on it.  If you click to get it full res, on my screen there doesn't seem to be halos of any significance on any other stars that would be of concern.  I certainly didn't feel like I needed to spend loads of time as I was battling with any.

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with the Baader performance generally for the money (I've used them for quite a while) and, whilst I use the Chroma 2" in Spain so know they definitely perform, I'm not convinced that they are going to out perform the Baader by more than double at the level of imaging most of us are at. The difference between the Ha filters was immediately very noticeable (Chroma 3nm and Baader 3.5nm), but even then I think this is going to be target specific, whereby if you are looking for Ha just to add to a LRGB image, then maybe it isn't going to be such an issue.  I'm not yet convinced the difference between the LRGB filters is going to be sufficiently great as to justify the significant price difference FOR THE AVERAGE IMAGER LIKE ME, but I'm dead keen to find out.  

Don't get me wrong, I think when you get to the upper end of quality amateur images produced by the likes of @swag72,  @ollypenrice & @steppenwolf then every part of every photon counts so probably more than justifiable, but for average Joe..............hmmmmm, I'm not so sure.

I can't wait for the next clear night to gather the data for the comparison as I think it is going to be very interesting.

Naturally all of this is going to be subjective, and just my thoughts and feelings, and may not be the thoughts or experiences of others.  It's certainly not intended to be the definitive answer to which is better, just my view on them at my level of imaging (with consideration given to my imaging train and location/skies of course).

 

[RayD]

7 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

John,

I thought the more recent Baader filters had solved this halo issue????

That's interesting as I have older ones and newer ones, so can try both to see if there is a noticeable difference.

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, RayD said:

I can't say as I have noticed this as an issue that has immediately stood out for me, John, but then this really was a quick process just to make sure the data was there to make a fair judgement, so this image isn't really meant as a demonstration of the Baader capabilities, more just a "ok, not bad at all."  There is a blue halo around the brightest star but that could well be me just pushing the saturation a tad too high, and I wasn't working to reduce/remove it, but I think this is going to be easily manageable when I spend a bit more time on it.  If you click to get it full res, on my screen there doesn't seem to be halos of any significance on any other stars that would be of concern.  I certainly didn't feel like I needed to spend loads of time as I was battling with any.

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with the Baader performance generally for the money (I've used them for quite a while) and, whilst I use the Chroma 2" in Spain so know they definitely perform, I'm not convinced that they are going to out perform the Baader by more than double at the level of imaging most of us are at. The difference between the Ha filters was immediately very noticeable (Chroma 3nm and Baader 3.5nm), but even then I think this is going to be target specific, whereby if you are looking for Ha just to add to a LRGB image, then maybe it isn't going to be such an issue.  I'm not yet convinced the difference between the LRGB filters is going to be sufficiently great as to justify the significant price difference FOR THE AVERAGE IMAGER LIKE ME, but I'm dead keen to find out.  

Don't get me wrong, I think when you get to the upper end of quality amateur images produced by the likes of @swag72,  @ollypenrice & @steppenwolf then every part of every photon counts so probably more than justifiable, but for average Joe..............hmmmmm, I'm not so sure.

I can't wait for the next clear night to gather the data for the comparison as I think it is going to be very interesting.

Naturally all of this is going to be subjective, and just my thoughts and feelings, and may not be the thoughts or experiences of others.  It's certainly not intended to be the definitive answer to which is better, just my view on them at my level of imaging (with consideration given to my imaging train and location/skies of course).

 

That's very kind of you, Ray.

I don't think all the filters are worth the extra and for nearly a year I've been working almost entirely with Baaders. I do have a Mr and Mrs Gnomus-owned Astrodon Ha in one camera but my own Astrodon Ha is sitting in its box because it's unmounted and the appropriate filterwheel is for mounted filters. I've only ever used Baader LRGB.

I'd say that the premium Ha filters, especially the 3nm, and the OIII are certainly worth having. My Baader* Astrodon 3nm Ha is way more moon-proof, gives tiny stars and striking contrasts and may even pass more wanted signal. It certainly isn't slower but it's a beggar to focus! (No stars!!!)  Both my 1.25 and 2 inch Baader OIII filters produce bright star halos. This is a bind but isn't fatal simply because I don't do pure NB imaging. When I add OIII to LRGB I can cosmetically remove the halos when I use them to lighten the green and blue channels. I'd like a premium OIII filter, however.

Olly

*I meant to write 'Astrodon.'

Edited April 29, 2020 by ollypenrice

[RayD]

33 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't think all the filters are worth the extra and for nearly a year I've been working almost entirely with Baaders. I do have a Mr and Mrs Gnomus-owned Astrodon Ha in one camera but my own Astrodon Ha is sitting in its box because it's unmounted and the appropriate filterwheel is for mounted filters. I've only ever used Baader LRGB.

Thanks, Olly.  This seems to echo my initial thoughts which are the Baader LRGB set is actually very good, and the Chroma set is going to have to do very well to drastically outdo them.

33 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

My Baader 3nm Ha is way more moon-proof, gives tiny stars and striking contrasts and may even pass more wanted signal. It certainly isn't slower but it's a beggar to focus! (No stars!!!) 

Did you mean Astrodon here?  I don't believe Baader makes a 3nm Ha filter.

[JamesF]

12 minutes ago, RayD said:

Did you mean Astrodon here?  I don't believe Baader makes a 3nm Ha filter.

Baader do an "ultra narrowband" range including an Ha filter with a 3.5nm bandpass.

James

[RayD]

Just now, JamesF said:

Baader do an "ultra narrowband" range including an Ha filter with a 3.5nm bandpass.

James

Yes, I had the Baader 3.5nm, James, but I don't think they make a 3nm.

[JamesF]

2 minutes ago, RayD said:

Yes, I had the Baader 3.5nm, James, but I don't think they make a 3nm.

I'm guessing that's possibly the one that Olly meant.  What's half a nanometre between friends, eh? :)

James

[ollypenrice]

49 minutes ago, RayD said:

Thanks, Olly.  This seems to echo my initial thoughts which are the Baader LRGB set is actually very good, and the Chroma set is going to have to do very well to drastically outdo them.

Did you mean Astrodon here?  I don't believe Baader makes a 3nm Ha filter.

I did. Sorry, I'll correct that. Thanks.

Olly

[steppenwolf]

Thank you for the mention which brought this fascinating thread to my attention!

This is a very interesting comparison that you are working on, Ray and I am looking forward to seeing your results especially as I have been capturing more LRGB data recently than normally, although I still use my old Astronomik LRGB set. I may well be mistaken as I only use their NB filters (occasionally) but I was under the impression that the halo issue with Baader filters was more to do with their narrowband set than their LRGB and in particular, their OIII 8.5nm filter. It was for this reason more than any other that I bought Astrodon 3nm NB filters. However, pre-empting your test results (a dangerous thing to do!), I suspect that the Chroma filters will have to perform spectacularly well to seriously outgun the Baader filters in broadband.

 

[swag72]

A very kind mention @RayD....... I watch this with interest. I use RGB Chroma filter in one rig and RGB Baader in the other rig. Unfortunately they're not comparable as the rigs are very different in almost all ways! When I was more interested a couple of years ago I did wonder about swapping out the Baaders for a set of Astrodons, but in the end decided that the £500 odd or so was a waste of money. I never bother with the L filter in either set as I use a LP filter for all my luminance. 

[RayD]

54 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

I may well be mistaken as I only use their NB filters (occasionally) but I was under the impression that the halo issue with Baader filters was more to do with their narrowband set than their LRGB and in particular, their OIII 8.5nm filter

Thanks for your input and that confirmation, Steve.  As noted to John above, I suspect the halo on the bright star was me as I really didn't spend any time on it, but I certainly didn't see anything that caused real concern in the data.  In fact, for a £200 set of filters I am always impressed at how well they perform.

I think you have concurred with Olly, in that it appears to be the OIII which potentially gives issues.

I'm very intrigued to see the results myself.

[RayD]

31 minutes ago, swag72 said:

A very kind mention @RayD....... I watch this with interest. I use RGB Chroma filter in one rig and RGB Baader in the other rig. Unfortunately they're not comparable as the rigs are very different in almost all ways! When I was more interested a couple of years ago I did wonder about swapping out the Baaders for a set of Astrodons, but in the end decided that the £500 odd or so was a waste of money. I never bother with the L filter in either set as I use a LP filter for all my luminance. 

Thanks, Sara.  Likewise I currently use Chroma in Spain on my FSQ106 (Atik 16200) and Baader here on my Esprit 100 (SX 814) but, as you quite rightly say, it is impossible to compare as the data acquisition is so different.  When I got the opportunity to get the Chroma set here I thought it would be a great opportunity to do a reasonable comparison using exactly the same equipment and location.

I'm really interested to see you use a LP filter for luminance; something I hadn't considered.  Do you see a  noticeable difference using this rather then a L filter, or is it just personal preference?

Thanks for your valued input.

Edited April 29, 2020 by RayD

[souls33k3r]

Really excited to see the video and results Ray. Can I be a bit of pain and ask if the same difference that you noticed when using LRGB filters will also be noticed when imaging through say a Bortle 8 skies?

Also the tests that you've conducted, were they done from Spain or here in the UK? 

I really want to be able to image broadband targets using the mono camera but not sure if I'm just wasting time here. Currently using the el-cheapo ZWO Lrgb filters because my bread and butter is more NB imaging but I really don't want to be a one trick pony by sticking only with NB targets. 

[RayD]

Just now, souls33k3r said:

Really excited to see the video and results Ray. Can I be a bit of pain and ask if the same difference that you noticed when using LRGB filters will also be noticed when imaging through say a Bortle 8 skies?

Also the tests that you've conducted, were they done from Spain or here in the UK? 

I really want to be able to image broadband targets using the mono camera but not sure if I'm just wasting time here. Currently using the el-cheapo ZWO Lrgb filters because my bread and butter is more NB imaging but I really don't want to be a one trick pony by sticking only with NB targets. 

Cheers, Ahmed.  These tests are being carried out under Bortle 5 in the UK, so provided you select your targets carefully and adjust your integration accordingly I don't see why the difference wouldn't apply.  That said, I haven't used the ZWO filters and whilst I appreciate they are cheap, if their cameras are anything to go by, it certainly doesn't mean their performance is any less.

You'll never be a one trick pony to me, mate 🙂

[swag72]

33 minutes ago, RayD said:

 

I'm really interested to see you use a LP filter for luminance; something I hadn't considered.  Do you see a  noticeable difference using this rather then a L filter, or is it just personal preference?

Thanks for your valued input.

I've always used a LP filter as I have quite a lot of pollution..... never bothered to put the L filter in any wheel,  they're both in their boxes never having seen the light of day..... or the dark of night!!

 

[Star101]

As I am looking to upgrade my setup in a few months time ( all things being equal ). I too am very interested in this thread.

Dave.

[souls33k3r]

1 hour ago, RayD said:

Cheers, Ahmed.  These tests are being carried out under Bortle 5 in the UK, so provided you select your targets carefully and adjust your integration accordingly I don't see why the difference wouldn't apply.  That said, I haven't used the ZWO filters and whilst I appreciate they are cheap, if their cameras are anything to go by, it certainly doesn't mean their performance is any less.

You'll never be a one trick pony to me, mate 🙂

Too kind Ray you sweet talker, too kind

[RayD]

Well that was a shame.  I thought I'd give the Baader data a couple of hours just in PI to see how good it was, and ended up blinking all the subs and having to ditch pretty much half of them.  Should have looked at that first!!  It seems that, whilst it appeared pretty clear and guiding was good at the time, there was a ton of high whispy cloud.  One of the issues with imaging remotely I guess, mark 1 eyeball doesn't work.

Anyway, I had a couple of hours so, taking in to consideration @vlaiv's recent comments regarding more natural (or true) colours, I reigned in the blue and used the few reasonable subs left.  Again I didn't feel like I was fighting with anything (other than the rubbish data) and the Baader filters seemed to produce pretty balanced and predictable results.  I didn't take it in to PS for any finishing off, just using deconvolution, DBE, SNR, ACDNR, curves, HT and HDRMT etc in PI. 

Oh well, fingers crossed for some clear nights soon so I can start again and do a valid comparison 🙁

Edited April 29, 2020 by RayD

[souls33k3r]

Damn! Regardless of how much data you ended up throwing away, this to me is still what I would aim to achieve mate. To my untrained eye, the minimal processing you did is still awesome mate. 

[RayD]

4 hours ago, souls33k3r said:

Damn! Regardless of how much data you ended up throwing away, this to me is still what I would aim to achieve mate. To my untrained eye, the minimal processing you did is still awesome mate. 

Cheers mate.  It's my own fault really as I have an all sky camera sitting in the obsy which I made and haven't installed.  This has certainly prompted me to do it now.

The Lum data on its own was not too bad, albeit not much of it, so that helped in the end, but the colour was awful 😟

I think I quite like the idea of holding back on the colour and making your brain work to enhance it if you believe it should look different.