Typically I've seen people using the Baader UHC-S for light-pollution supression when doing shortish focal length imaging using a DSLR and an ED80.
But lately more people seem to be getting the IDAS LPS. The LPS-P2-48 (48mm (2'' eyepiece) LPS filter) is US$189, basically double the price of the Baader UHC-S.
So my question is - is it worth the extra money? What's the difference between the two? Has anyone done, or seen any, comparisons between the two?
I think Eric (Ezy) has gone the IDAS route?
I will be using this with a Canon 350D, WO 0.8x reducer and ED80.
Hi Mike, yes i have used both the UHC-S and now have gone over to the IDAS LPS2. It was a hard decision as i quite love the UHC-S filter. They both have their own merits.
The UHC-S filter does infact brings out more fainter nebs, however, it does alter the colours and when colour balancing, it is very hard and i can never get the colours correct. The IDAS LPS2 doesn't bring out as much nebs as the UHC-S but the colours are pretty spot on and when colour balancing, it is much easier. On the hutech website regarding this filter, it also lowers noise level. A personal choice between the two.
But lately more people seem to be getting the IDAS LPS. The LPS-P2-48 (48mm (2'' eyepiece) LPS filter) is US$189, basically double the price of the Baader UHC-S.
im not sure who else here uses the LPS2? i know scott uses the IDAS UV/IR (which is a different filter).
Yes the UHCS is a more severe filter. Im thinking the idas LPS is more similar to the Astronomik CLS, in being a less severe filter that would work better on broadband emission objects like reflection nebulae and galaxies. Ive tried the UHCS filter on galaxies, it needs a lot more exposure to avoid loosing too much from the galaxy, and yes it does alter colour balances more due to its more severe filtering. It does bring out hydrogen areas in galaxies though.
Im thinking the UHCS would be a better filter from very light polluted places and imaging emission nebulae. The LPS or CLS better for darker areas, or imaging broadband emitters.
I only use the IDAS uv/ir as when I ordered my moded camera I didnt specify an onboard IR cut filter, rather I went for clear glass as I want to image in infra red from time to time, in which case I remove the uv/ir filter and put on a 800Nm uv PASS filter (jet black to look at, passes no visible light at all)
My experience so far is only with the Orion Skyglow, so I'm keen to compare.
My main reason for the purchase of this over others, was the issue of colour balance.
I intend to use it in the same was as Mike. 80ED, WO 0.8x reducer and 350D (unmodded). It's raining tonight (sorry - must have been the filter arriving), but I'll try and do compares on the same objects I've done in the past with the Skyglow and keep everything else as close to the same as I can.
Turbo
Last edited by turbo_pascale; 24-02-2008 at 12:31 AM.
I forgot to also mention that i previously own the Lumicon UHC-S filter. You can totally forget about colour balancing with this filter. Although i must admit for visual use, it out performs the rest but for imaging, a definitely no go so for imaging purpose, stay away from it.
Can't wait to see your result Rob, you mean a "350d"
Hi Titan, sorry i was referring to the IDAS LPS2, Baader UHC-S and Lumicon UHC-S. Never tested the Astronomik UHC but have read reports it is an excellent filter.
I have the Astrononic UHC 2 inch filter. For visual it is great and also for photography. Like all filters it will change the colour of what you are looking at. Especially the stars.
I dont know about the other filters but the Astronomics coatings are supposed to be nearly scratchproof.
The astronomik CLS filter is good for visual use on reflection nebulae, as the Triffid shows its blue part well. With the Baader UHC-S theres less blue and slightly brighter H alpha parts
Scott
OK, has taken a while to get myself outside again after some major personal turmoil.
Setup was Saxon 80ED, WO 0.8x Reducer, unmodded Canon 350D.
Both shots are 5 minutes, ISO 800. That's it. No darks, no flats etc.
Converted from RAW to JPG, shrunk to 25%
The Orion Skyglow filter shot did not have the WO 0.8x reducer in place, and it was a much warmer night (hence more amp glow in the bottom right and a bit more noise)
The Skyglow filter causes a blue cast to everything, and you get giant halos on the bright stars. Although it appears to make a darker image, it is really NOT as good because the colours are all over the place.
this is a very interesting thread , i am currently using a neodymium filter for light pollution which is giving me a purple cast to my images but always wondered which filter is going to be best suited.
here is a single frame with the baader neodymium filter 350d modded 30 secs iso800
Last edited by little col; 01-03-2008 at 10:47 PM.
Reason: forgot exposure
Are you using JPG from the camera or RAW?
If JPG, and you're using a modded camera, perhaps it is embedded the custom white balance which is upsetting things?