O-III Filters For Visual Observing...

[Stardaze]

3 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Filters, any filters do not help in seeing galaxies, including my Baader Neodymium.

I’m intrigued with the neodymium filter @jetstream seems a marmite filter?

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Stardaze said:

I’m intrigued with the neodymium filter @jetstream seems a marmite filter?

Ok, I'm a hillbilly canuck whos not sure what marmite means lol!

I use it at times on the planets but my best luck is with Baader single polarizer for viewing the planets/moon right at dusk which is a super time to view for various reasons. This filter does work under the described condition.

[bish]

17 hours ago, John said:

Quite right Stu - such filters do help with nebulae under LP skies - in some cases at least you see something !

 

 

Yes on my post above I said the OIII was the difference between seeing and not seeing the veil from my back garden. I probably should also make it clear that 'seeing' means with averted vision or scope wobble i can just see a slight difference in contrast. Somebody new to astronomy could still miss the neb. I"m not talking about great photo like images!

[jetstream]

For info- under dark skies this image represents how I see the Veil in an 8" 0r 10" scope under dark skies and with the right OIII. It points out the value of travelling to dark skies.

ps not my image- its Knisely's

Edited August 27, 2020 by jetstream

[John]

35 minutes ago, jetstream said:

For info- under dark skies this image represents how I see the Veil in an 8" 0r 10" scope under dark skies and with the right OIII. It points out the value of travelling to dark skies.

ps not my image- its Knisely's

That's pretty much the difference I see when using my 12 inch dob at home

[Woking]

59 minutes ago, jetstream said:

For info- under dark skies this image represents how I see the Veil in an 8" 0r 10" scope under dark skies and with the right OIII. It points out the value of travelling to dark skies.

ps not my image- its Knisely's

Veil really needs dark skies. I've tried and tried from my suburban garden but even with an Astronomik OIII it's nothing compared to the one time I saw it from a dark sky site in it's full glory.

Dark skies and OIII = spectacular.

Light polluted garden and OIII = disappointing faint wispy smudge and a car journey to a dark sky site.

No OIII can't see it at all from the garden

 

[Stardaze]

3 hours ago, jetstream said:

Ok, I'm a hillbilly canuck whos not sure what marmite means lol!

I use it at times on the planets but my best luck is with Baader single polarizer for viewing the planets/moon right at dusk which is a super time to view for various reasons. This filter does work under the described condition.

Marmite is a yeast based spread here in the UK that you either like, or not 😀

I think I’m going to try the Baader contrast booster and see how that fares with the planets.

[Stardaze]

2 hours ago, Woking said:

Veil really needs dark skies. I've tried and tried from my suburban garden but even with an Astronomik OIII it's nothing compared to the one time I saw it from a dark sky site in it's full glory.

Dark skies and OIII = spectacular.

Light polluted garden and OIII = disappointing faint wispy smudge and a car journey to a dark sky site.

No OIII can't see it at all from the garden

 

I can’t see it at all either without an O-III filter from my garden (bortle 5)

[johninderby]

11 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

Marmite is a yeast based spread here in the UK that you either like, or not 😀

I think I’m going to try the Baader contrast booster and see how that fares with the planets.

Contrast Booster = yellow tint.

The yellow irritates some and others aren’t too bothered but it does work though.

[John]

19 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

I can’t see it at all either without an O-III filter from my garden (bortle 5)

My locality is rated as Bortle 5 by "Clear Outside". Maybe that's an average figure and parts of the sky are better than that

 

[Rob_UK_SE]

3 hours ago, Stardaze said:

I’m intrigued with the neodymium filter @jetstream seems a marmite filter?

I find that, in less than perfect conditions, it can be useful on Jupiter and Mars, but it is much less effective on the other planets and the moon. I would, however, rather have excellent seeing conditions and unfiltered views of the planets. There is, in my opinion, no appreciable difference when it is used on Saturn, for example. I don’t use it for DSOs at all, but it may help under more heavily light polluted skies? 

It doesn’t necessarily improve contrast on the moon, but I do like the change in colour tone when using it on my Nagler zoom, under certain circumstances. The slight coffee tint of the 3-6N is replaced with a cooler tone which is just a little closer to the Ethos/Delos/Delite presentation. I am not suggesting that the filtered view is a more natural tone or necessarily improving the resolution either.

...it’s definitely a marmite filter, but I also like marmite!

I am mindful that this thread is about OIII filters, but hope this can be of help to your query.

[Colossal Plossl]

4 hours ago, jetstream said:

Filters, any filters do not help in seeing galaxies, including my Baader Neodymium.

Thanks for the info.  Dark site it is then

 

[jock1958]

3 hours ago, Woking said:

Veil really needs dark skies. I've tried and tried from my suburban garden but even with an Astronomik OIII it's nothing compared to the one time I saw it from a dark sky site in it's full glory.

Dark skies and OIII = spectacular.

Light polluted garden and OIII = disappointing faint wispy smudge and a car journey to a dark sky site.

No OIII can't see it at all from the garden

 

My view of the Veil is exactly the same as you described from my back garden....faint & wispy and thats using a Lumicon OIII filter with Bortle 5 skies.

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, John said:

My locality is rated as Bortle 5 by "Clear Outside". Maybe that's an average figure and parts of the sky are better than that

 

Can you see the Veil with no filter John?

[John]

26 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Can you see the Veil with no filter John?

Yes but it's pretty faint. With my fracs I can detect the E portion without a filter. With my 12 inch dob the E & W portions. It's so much better with the O-III filter that I rarely observe it without though.

On one memorable night a few years ago I was able to see the E segment with 15x70mm binoculars unfiltered. That was a truly exceptional night though.

 

[scarp15]

My first filter was an Orion Ultrablock. Perhaps my sample was of a better variant as it was OK, used at home with my then vintage C8. It got me with ease M1 which was quite an achievement from my yard amongst other planetary nebulae. My first deep sky filter was a Lumicon 2" O-III. It was some years before I built up to include a H-beta and UHC. From the first night, it was used exclusively at dark sky locations, never used at home. Brighter nebulae, particularly Planetary are fine from home, unless you live in a reasonable dark suburban environment, faint emission nebulae require a dark sky. The Veil, as in Gerry's supplied picture, with moderate sized aperture is photographic, actually even more exquisite than photographs. 

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, John said:

Yes but it's pretty faint.

I think your in a pocket of darkness John, being able to see it no filter indicates this. I dislike the Bortle scale...

[AstroNash]

Do you have any recommendations on scope size for the TV OIII filter? I’ve not used one before but I’ve heard they darken the view a lot so can’t be used on small scopes? I have a Takahashi FC100-DL

[bingevader]

2 years later...

I enjoy seeing old threads revived when they are still relevant, rather than starting a new one.

I can't see why darkening the view would mean you couldn't use a filter on a smaller 'scope, but I'm sure someone will correct me if this is the case.

I have an O-lll filter, but it's barely been out of the box since I've had it.

I've seen the Veil nebula with a UHC filter and my 8" 'scope.

The filter did darken the background to the point that I couldn't see stars, but I've always assumed that that was the point.

You're trying to cut out bandwidths of light other than those that will help you see the nebula more clearly.

But as I said, I'm not sure why that would mean you couldn't use a smaller 'scope.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, bingevader said:

2 years later...

I enjoy seeing old threads revived when they are still relevant, rather than starting a new one.

I can't see why darkening the view would mean you couldn't use a filter on a smaller 'scope, but I'm sure someone will correct me if this is the case.

I have an O-lll filter, but it's barely been out of the box since I've had it.

I've seen the Veil nebula with a UHC filter and my 8" 'scope.

The filter did darken the background to the point that I couldn't see stars, but I've always assumed that that was the point.

You're trying to cut out bandwidths of light other than those that will help you see the nebula more clearly.

But as I said, I'm not sure why that would mean you couldn't use a smaller 'scope.

A lot of this depends on the exit pupil used. If you use too small an exit pupil in any scope then the view will be too dark. In a small scope then providing you keep it at 4mm or more say then the view should be fine. Of course that means low power but the nice wide fields of view suit targets like the Veil or NAN.

Take my little Tak FS-60C which is 60mm f5.9. A 24mm Panoptic would give a 4mm exit pupil, x14 and a 4.6 degree field, perfect to fit the whole Veil complex in the field of view. Dark adaptation remains important though, as is the darkest sky that you can get under.

[RT65CB-SWL]

On 25/08/2020 at 09:09, Guest said:

I'm using a cheap SW 28mm 2" LET eyepiece with my 200P.  I'll look into the various suggestions, but can't promise getting one given the prices for 2" versions...

I too have the SkyWatcher 2”/28mm LET|LER e/p. You can buy a 2” to 1.25” filter reducer ring. I purchased one from 365Astronomy.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Philip R

[bingevader]

20 hours ago, Stu said:

Of course that means low power but the nice wide fields of view suit targets like the Veil or NAN.

My filters are 2", so it's only ever going to be low power and wide field for me.

[Louis D]

You can thread 2" filters on the bottom of many 2" to 1.25" adapters.  Just be careful the bottom of the 1.25" eyepiece doesn't hit the 2" filter.

[bomberbaz]

@Stu beat me to the key point on filters, exit pupil is to me at least the biggest driver of filter use  as much as the object you are viewing.  The O-III is a line filter (as is the HB) and these typically respond best to an exit pupil of 5mm. The variance is often quoted at 4-7mm for line filters but this isn't set in stone of course although 5mm is generally seen is optimum. However I have been down to under 3mm with the O-III on planetary nebula which are more responsive to higher power due to their small size and high surface brightness. A perfect example is the ring nebula.

If you have a slow scope of F10 or slower, this may mean a line filter is less suitable in terms of exit pupil and in such an instance a UHC may be a better option. The UHC have a wider bandpass and as such will work better in slow scopes with a useable exit pupil from 5 down to 2mm, beyond 2mm the sky is darkened so much and object brightens anyway that the filter may lose it's advantage over no filter at all.  However I have seen reference on exit pupils down to 1mm but I haven't been there myself.

 

[Louis D]

6 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

If you have a slow scope of F10 or slower, this may mean a line filter is less suitable in terms of exit pupil and in such an instance a UHC may be a better option.

It's so difficult to get above a 4mm exit pupil with an f/10 SCT or f/12 Mak, let alone an f/15 Mak.  You need a 40mm or longer eyepiece just to get close to 4mm.  50mm or more is better.  Then the problem becomes you're looking down a straw.