#1  
Old 18-02-2008, 05:48 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Baader UHC-S vs IDAS LPS

Hi all

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.

Comments/suggestions welcome.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-02-2008, 11:23 AM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-02-2008, 11:31 AM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman View Post

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).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-02-2008, 12:31 PM
tornado33
Registered User

tornado33 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,931
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)

For an instand comparison of the UHCS and LPS, go to
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=28773
and
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=28707
Both taken with modded Canon cameras so they make a good comparison, though we both processed them differently to suit ourselves so colour balance will vary.
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-02-2008, 04:33 PM
turbo_pascale's Avatar
turbo_pascale (Rob)
Registered User

turbo_pascale is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 350
I just got my LPS-P2-48 in the mail today.

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; 23-02-2008 at 11:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-02-2008, 04:45 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Thanks for the responses. I look forward to seeing your comparison, Robert.

I might hold off for a few weeks and make a decision then.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-02-2008, 08:14 PM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
Hi Mike,

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"

Last edited by EzyStyles; 20-02-2008 at 08:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-02-2008, 09:01 PM
Titan
Registered User

Titan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 21
Hope you don't mind me asking but how does the Astronomik UHC compare with the above two filters for visual use?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-02-2008, 09:02 PM
EzyStyles's Avatar
EzyStyles (Eric)
I HATE COMA!

EzyStyles is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 3,208
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20-02-2008, 09:34 PM
Zuts
Registered User

Zuts is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,427
Hi Titan,

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.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21-02-2008, 09:34 AM
Titan
Registered User

Titan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 21
Thanks Eric and Paul, thats good to hear
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21-02-2008, 02:39 PM
tornado33
Registered User

tornado33 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,931
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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29-02-2008, 11:11 PM
turbo_pascale's Avatar
turbo_pascale (Rob)
Registered User

turbo_pascale is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 350
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%

No filter.
http://tinyurl.com/39cewy

IDAS-LPS
http://tinyurl.com/35vcqq

You can click on the top level to zoom more than the thumbnails.

Best $200 I think I've spent so far. Colour balance seems good!

Turbo

Last edited by turbo_pascale; 01-03-2008 at 03:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29-02-2008, 11:14 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Very telling, Robert!

You got this one? The LPS-P2-48 (48mm (2'' eyepiece) LPS filter) for US$189?

Good time to buy with the dollar so high!

Thanks for the comparison, it's on my list!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29-02-2008, 11:21 PM
turbo_pascale's Avatar
turbo_pascale (Rob)
Registered User

turbo_pascale is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 350
That's exactly the one. Spent an extra USD$25 (instead of USD$11) to get it USPS Express posted - arrived in less than a week, and tracked.

I did have to wait a few weeks because they were out of stock, but when they billed, was here in a week.

Turbo
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-03-2008, 04:35 PM
turbo_pascale's Avatar
turbo_pascale (Rob)
Registered User

turbo_pascale is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 350
Here's a side by side comparison.

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.

I would clearly choose the IDAS-LPS

Turbo
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (FilterCompare.jpg)
184.7 KB856 views
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:47 PM
little col
gosh i love imaging

little col is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 286
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
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (neodymium.jpg)
48.1 KB220 views

Last edited by little col; 01-03-2008 at 09:47 PM. Reason: forgot exposure
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-03-2008, 06:59 PM
turbo_pascale's Avatar
turbo_pascale (Rob)
Registered User

turbo_pascale is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 350
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?

This is total guesswork.

What does a shot look like without any filter?

Turbo
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-03-2008, 08:02 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
Thanks for the great comparison, Robert.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:55 AM
cristian abarca
Registered User

cristian abarca is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne Vic
Posts: 290
Just a question guys, I don't know much about astrophotography but doesn't the orion Skyglow filter look like a clearer image?

Cristian
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement