My vari polariser certainly doesnt increase contrast. Theres nothing i can see with the filter in place that I cant see without it. In fact it seems to slightly degrade contrast however this may have to do with less light reaching my eye.
My vari polariser certainly doesnt increase contrast. Theres nothing i can see with the filter in place that I cant see without it. In fact it seems to slightly degrade contrast however this may have to do with less light reaching my eye.
I'll add that it was my "IMO", that dave47tuc is right and that Mr Starkler you are right too. it is all opinionated really isn't that what the forums are for, differing opinions and experiences
Looks like I will add this item to the list of "Things to try out" at the next starparty !
In the meantime I will use the "Moon" filter to stop the "pupil shock " that people get looking at the unfiltered moon through a 10" scope.
I expect that one would not be able to tell the diff between a polarising filter and an aperture mask that produces the same decrease in light intensity. The advantage of the crossed polarisers is obviously tunability, so you can get it just right. But on a Newtonian, a mask that avoids the secondary mirror and spider vanes may be superior to a filter in terms of contrast.
(BTW. I am not speaking from experience. Just speculation based on the little I know.)
Yes, of course, John! I didn't even think of that. At high magnifications, a filter would be preferable. Although if the scope really needs a filter at high magnification, it is probably big enough to normally exceed the resolving power that the atmosphere would allow... ??
isn't that what the forums are for, differing opinions and experiences 
that people get looking at the unfiltered moon through a 10" scope.
I didn't even think of that. At high magnifications, a filter would be preferable. Although if the scope really needs a filter at high magnification, it is probably big enough to normally exceed the resolving power that the atmosphere would allow... ??
