New CMOS optimised Baader Ultra-Narrowband filters

[tooth_dr]

I just wanted to finalise my experience with the new CMOS filters.  I had some problems with a) Oiii not passing any Oiii when I had the high speed ultra-narrowband version b) haloes in the normal ultra-narrowband version Ha and Oiii.   As FLO are kindly refunding me all I've lost is about 30 hours of imaging time.

To be honest it all feels a bit silly complaining about filters/haloes in the grand scheme of things with everything that is going on around us, but I feel a bit peeved off so I'll just summarise briefly here for interests sake.

• the ultra fast version of the filters are really designed for F2, not the range (as advertised)
• regarding no Oiii passing - the pre-shifting of the Oiii filter is temperature dependent, so any lab tests carried out at say 20 degrees that show they dont pass Oiii are not relevant to the temp filters are used at - see HERE .  Also these filters are 'designed' for F2
• the haloes are a result of my focal reducer
• I can return the filters to be tested by an experienced astrophotographer(!) on a RASA
• I should learn to process out the haloes, and my reluctance to learn to do so is the reason I have haloes
• if I can afford Chroma, go and buy Chroma

I think I still have another 15 or so Baader filters I've bought over the past 3-4 years, but I think I will look elsewhere from now on.

 

[nephilim]

I thought everyone involved with this thread may find this a bit interesting. I regularly watch 'Cuiv the lazy geek' on YouTube. He's an astrophotography who not only is a very good source of information (and very entertaining as well) he also reviews equipment & has recently  reviewed these Baader 3/4nm filters & I'm very surprised to see that even now (The video was posted today & iirc these filters went on sale back in April) these filters are been sent out in the same damaged way that they were back when this thread started.

I haven't kept up to date with the thread for a while after quickly deciding I was staying well clear of these filters, so I'm not sure if the bandpass quality has been mentioned. Cuiv sent these filters off to a friend who has a lab in Japan (He also sent them out to various independent outlets for testing) to be tested & the results were quite alarming, Its easier to watch the short video than have me attempt to explain the findings but its along the lines of for example the Olll filter picking up no OIII as the bandpass had shifted, I might have not explained that properly but again watch the clip to fully understand.
I for one wont be buying any more Baader filters if this is the quality standard that they are still sending out & not even trying to rectify months down the line.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSvpOLlD2Y

Steve

 

[tooth_dr]

14 minutes ago, nephilim said:

I thought everyone involved with this thread may find this a bit interesting. I regularly watch 'Cuiv the lazy geek' on YouTube. He's an astrophotography who not only is a very good source of information (and very entertaining as well) he also reviews equipment & has recently  reviewed these Baader 3/4nm filters & I'm very surprised to see that even now (The video was posted today & iirc these filters went on sale back in April) these filters are been sent out in the same damaged way that they were back when this thread started.

I haven't kept up to date with the thread for a while after quickly deciding I was staying well clear of these filters, so I'm not sure if the bandpass quality has been mentioned. Cuiv sent these filters off to a friend who has a lab in Japan (He also sent them out to various independent outlets for testing) to be tested & the results were quite alarming, Its easier to watch the short video than have me attempt to explain the findings but its along the lines of for example the Olll filter picking up no OIII as the bandpass had shifted, I might have not explained that properly but again watch the clip to fully understand.
I for one wont be buying any more Baader filters if this is the quality standard that they are still sending out & not even trying to rectify months down the line.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSvpOLlD2Y

Steve

 

Steve I’ve linked to a thread that Cuivs has posted about this on CNs in my post directly above yours. It covers what he says in the video.  Baader directly told me that these tests were in fact not valid

[nephilim]

5 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Steve I’ve linked to a thread that Cuivs has posted about this on CNs in my post directly above yours. It covers what he says in the video.  Baader directly told me that these tests were in fact not valid

I didnt spot that, thanks for pointing it out.  I'd like to hear Baaders reason as to why two of the filters he received were actually damaged in the same way as has been mentioned here a lot earlier in the thread (chips etc)

[powerlord]

hi chaps,

Most of the conversation above seems to be issues with the high speed filters ?

What are peoples experiences of the regular 3.5mm ones ?

I was considering getting the 3.5mm Oiii as it's very cheap at 210 quid for the 1.25 and I suspect my zwo one isn't wonderful, as I struggle to seperate out oiii from general light pollution at present.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/narrowband/baader-35nm-ultra-narrow-band-oiii-filter-cmos-optimised.html

[scotty38]

I know Cuiv had a video about issues with the Baaders but I can't recall which ones specifically. I suspect it would be the fast ones but may be worth a watch if you haven't seen it already...

[powerlord]

yeh it was the fast ones

[nephilim]

24 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

I know Cuiv had a video about issues with the Baaders but I can't recall which ones specifically. I suspect it would be the fast ones but may be worth a watch if you haven't seen it already...

This is it. Quite shocking really as the majority of us have no real (convenient) way of testing these manufacturers claims. 

 

[TakMan]

6 hours ago, powerlord said:

What are peoples experiences of the regular 3.5mm ones ?

 

I had the 'standard speed' ultra-narrowband version 3.5nm set.

Early testing on Sadr - 10min exposures - Atik 16200m, FSQ106ED (@f/5 with no reducer):

The Ha exhibited a small (and easily processed 'manageable'), halo. Nice quality data. A definite/measurable improvement from the original 7nm version. That was… OK for the time and money, although produced some ‘stunning’ halos on the ‘right’ stars! 

The SII was halo free, it had that 'small outer glow' that the expensive filters show on a bright star. Quite happy with that. Again an improvement on the original, although that never had such obvious halo issues either…

The OIII was an utter disaster - complete rubbish, no better than the earlier 8nm version.

I would stay clear and look at Optolong, Antilia or Astronomik.

Remember, we have no idea with these what the transmission rate is - there is no spec sheet with them.

I would go with a reputable supplier - FLO, who will, as in my case, take the things back and offer a refund.

I just think that it's pretty poor on Baader to dump the problem onto the vendor to sort.

They talk a good game, a lot of 'Zeiss' this and 'Zeiss' that, but their filter range isn't very... 'Zeiss'.....

Take a look at their filter website - a good amount of spiel, lots of pictures, 'Reflex Blocker' (from a marketing meeting that)....

No pictures last time I looked that show the performance using a refractor.... just RASA instruments.... is that... 'telling' I wonder...?

This isn't 2010 anymore, when I thought the halos were 'my problem', something wrong with my equipment, my processing or calibration skills. Not so naive now and I won't accept such performance from my hard earned money.

A picture says a thousand words, so here's my OIII (Sadr - 600s)

And before anyone chips in with the usual..... "But Sadr is very bright... what do you expect from such a star...?"

Well, here's a few screen grabs from less bright stars captured at the same time within that FOV - just a single 600sec sub - uncalibrated.... I’d even go as far as saying that I don’t think the original had this problem - on fainter stars…

How can a decade have passed (the ‘Enforced’ filter range got launched…. and disappeared without a trace - what reviews of them that can be found aren’t favourable either) and then these appear - and they still can’t get it right..?

That's the 'Reflex Blocker' for you.... Reflex Blocker..... my a***

Of course, it’s all my fault. Yep, that FSQ is a bit of an oddity, bit too left field…. whoever heard of a refractor needing a field flattener (it’s got to be that that’s the issue). Never heard of Atik, some obscure manufacturer of cameras, probably don’t know anything about AR sensor windows, and Onsemi, well they must be a new chip maker - yep, nothing to do with the filter - someone else’s issue…….

I'd suggest trying a Quality Street wrapper (other confectionery also available), first - probably do a better job - it's even 'silvered' on one side !

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by TakMan

[tooth_dr]

16 hours ago, scotty38 said:

I know Cuiv had a video about issues with the Baaders but I can't recall which ones specifically. I suspect it would be the fast ones but may be worth a watch if you haven't seen it already...

All the issues I had with my fast ones. 

[tooth_dr]

16 hours ago, powerlord said:

What are peoples experiences of the regular 3.5mm ones ?

I’ve a post on the last page about them. They aren’t good. What [removed word] me off most was Thomas Baader leaving me a voicemail on my mobile saying that it’s people like me using APP and over stretching the data that causes haloes and that my reluctance to learn proper processing removal of haloes is the cause of my haloes.   

[scotty38]

32 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

I’ve a post on the last page about them. They aren’t good. What [removed word] me off most was Thomas Baader leaving me a voicemail on my mobile saying that it’s people like me using APP and over stretching the data that causes haloes and that my reluctance to learn proper processing removal of haloes is the cause of my haloes.   

Just wow and convinced me that once I have a mono camera to look elsewhere, fancy the Antlia ones...

[geeklee]

2 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

What [removed word] me off most was Thomas Baader leaving me a voicemail on my mobile saying that it’s people like me using APP and over stretching the data that causes haloes and that my reluctance to learn proper processing removal of haloes is the cause of my haloes.   

Wow.  That's very poor.

My own experience (3.5nm Ha, 4nm OIII and 4nm SII - normal speed) has been mixed with the equipment I've tested on.  My first set had black hairline paint lines coming from the edges (these are 31mm) on OIII and the edges on one other wasn't great.  The replacement set were much better.

I have some halos on brighter stars.  In individual subs they are hard to see.

Here's Eta Gem (mag 3.3) with an STF in PI (strong) - 4h Ha, 3h OIII and 2.5h SII

Example images using these with my RedCat 51 and 294MM https://www.astrobin.com/swc0q9/ & https://www.astrobin.com/ke9eqx/

My main takeaway from using these is that very narrow band filters do make a big difference and I've been pleased with that side of the performance.

Edited January 20, 2022 by geeklee

[Guest]

On 19/01/2022 at 22:52, tooth_dr said:

All the issues I had with my fast ones. 

Since my replacement, my experience with the f/2 ultra narrow have been solid, although I haven't used the [O III] filter a lot. I'm in Orion right now and will give the horsehead a shot to see how it performs on alnitak. I was happy with the improvements over the original f/2 filters, but there are still some halos that I know many won't be okay with.

Here's menkib, which I had trouble with on the original F/2 filters (left), alongside a newer version using the UNB F/2 (right):

 Only other region I've imaged with a decently sized star:

Still some haloing that the [O III] filter is responsible for, but something that I'm able to work with. Now the transmission issue in the [O III] UNB f/2 filter that I've seen floating around is definitely something I'd like to look into more. Was this ever addressed? I remember seeing something about the squid not showing up and another about the bandpass being shifted too much, but not much of a follow up beyond this

 

Edit:
Lastly, Jellyfish from the older Ha+[O III] f/2 filters
(2hr per filter)

Versus the newer Ultranarrowband Ha+[O III]: (1.5hr Ha, 3hr [O III])

Just have the Horsehead left to test (if I have time), but I've been happy with the improvement between old and new filters. Some notable differences between shoots, though: In the more recent images (California/Jellyfish), I took shorter exposures (60s) because I wanted to keep as many as possible, as I shot through a lot of power-lines and clouds. It *could* be the case that the Halos are worse at a longer exposure (as in the older image of the jellyfish), but I have not tested for this with the newer filters. I also upgraded from the 1600MM to the 294MM, if that impacts anything at all. Same scope: RASA 8.

Hopefully some of this provides value to the discussion

Edited February 6, 2022 by LeftyAstro
additional info