The Baader UHCS filter rocks!

tornado33 · #1 07-07-2005, 08:36 AM

Hi all
My new 2 inch filter arrived yesterday. Heres the first images taken with it
http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baad...erfiltered.jpg Lagoon Nebula 2 x 10 Min ISO 1600 with the 10 inch and EOS 300D
http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baad...aadersmall.jpg Triffid Nebula, same settings
http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baader/helixbaader.jpg Helix Nebula, a 1 x 10 min and 1 x 15 min ISO 1600
Didnt pack it in till 3 am!
Even the unprocessed images of these objects right off the camera had lots of detail, this Baader Planatarium filter is fantastic!
Scott

xstream (John) · #2 07-07-2005, 08:42 AM

Your certainly blowing them away Scott!
The one of the Triffid is magnificent.

h0ughy is going to be flabbergasted.

Orion · #3 07-07-2005, 08:48 AM

That filter really makes a difference absolutely beautiful. Well done Scott!

tornado33 · #4 07-07-2005, 08:55 AM

Many thanks all. Its great to find a way to beat the dreaded light pollution.
Scott

[1ponders] (Paul) · #5 07-07-2005, 08:55 AM

Great Scott, Scott.

How do you attach the filter to your image train?

Brendan · #6 07-07-2005, 09:01 AM

those images rock scott, well done mate.

tornado33 · #7 07-07-2005, 09:25 AM

Thanks.
The filter screws directly into the 2 inch to t thread adaptor that attaches the camera to the 2 inch focuser .
Scott

h0ughy (David) · #8 07-07-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tornado33

Thanks.
The filter screws directly into the 2 inch to t thread adaptor that attaches the camera to the 2 inch focuser .
Scott

look out mate all I have is 2" stuff.

they are absolutely fantasctic images.

gbeal · #9 07-07-2005, 09:59 AM

Hi Scott,
very nice.
Have you (or would you) tried a comparison, filter/no filter?
The main use is for light pollution control? Or are you using it to increase the detail/contrast?
Any tradeoffs that you note?
Baader stuff is excellent, Mr Baader took over the Zeiss business, and he only deals in the best.
Gary

iceman (Mike) · #10 07-07-2005, 10:06 AM

Like Gary, i'd like to see a side by side comparison of the same image with the filter, and one without.
Taken with the same camera settings, same length of exposure, same processing.

So.... can you do that?

btw those images look fantastic.

tornado33 · #11 07-07-2005, 10:52 AM

Yes I will do some unfiltred comparisons, though it blocks so much light pollution the sky would almost be completely white at a 10 min ISO 1600 exposure unfiltered. I use it to both increase contrast/detail of bright nebulae and to greatly increase the amount of very faint nebulae that can be seen like that on the outskirts of the lagoon nebula, and the Helix Nebula. The filter may not be as effective on Galaxies as the faint one in the Helix that is seen on an unfiltered one is visible
Filtered version http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baader/helixbaader.jpg
Unfiltered http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/temp/helix45min.jpg (This needed much longer exposures at a lower ISO to try and get the detail, 3 x 15 min at ISO 400 as opposed to 1 x 10 and 1 x 15 ISO 1600 fir the filtered shot)
Scott

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #12 07-07-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

Like Gary, i'd like to see a side by side comparison of the same image with the filter, and one without.
Taken with the same camera settings, same length of exposure, same processing.

So.... can you do that?

btw those images look fantastic.

I would like to extend the comparison further to compare the Baader filter with say a Lumicon and an Astronomiks because visually it is no better IMO. Some of the other top quality UHC filters could very well have produced comparable results, who knows.

To say the "filter rocks" when you haven't compared it to other similar filters is a little misleading.

eg. Someone that has never owned a car and takes delivery of a new Diahatsu Charade, probably thinks "it really rocks", cause its way better than "no car". The guy next door who owns a Jaguar XK8, probably thinks the Diahatsu sucks. When the guy with the new diahatsu drives the JAG he realises that "the diahatsu sucks". The Baader may well be a superb filter but it needs to be compared to other similar products at the top of the tree, before you can come to that conclusion. As Gary mentioned Baader stuff is generally very good.

Excellent photos BTW Scott tremendous stuff.

CS-John B

h0ughy (David) · #13 07-07-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

I would like to extend the comparison further to compare the Baader filter with say a Lumicon and an Astronomiks because visually it is no better IMO. Some of the other top quality UHC filters could very well have produced comparable results, who knows.

To say the "filter rocks" when you haven't compared it to other similar filters is a little misleading.

eg. Someone that has never owned a car and takes delivery of a new Diahatsu Charade, probably thinks "it really rocks", cause its way better than "no car". The guy next door who owns a Jaguar XK8, probably thinks the Diahatsu sucks. When the guy with the new diahatsu drives the JAG he realises that "the diahatsu sucks". The Baader may well be a superb filter but it needs to be compared to other similar products at the top of the tree, before you can come to that conclusion. As Gary mentioned Baader stuff is generally very good.

Excellent photos BTW Scott tremendous stuff.

CS-John B

John,
this Diahatsu has a v12 motor

ving (David) · #14 07-07-2005, 12:24 PM

great stuff scott. makes a hage difference in the helix hey!!!

tornado33 · #15 07-07-2005, 03:00 PM

Thanks.
I got this filter because it was said that it filters more severely then the standard Lumicon Deep Sky (which works great as well, photographically, but not well visually, but I only have a 1.25 inch version). Ive also used the Lumicon O3 filter, which yields interesting results adding strong reddish purple hues to nebulae, though not increasing detail as much as the Deep Sky. Basically I'd call the Baader filter a stronger version of the Deep Sky, maintaining a reasonable colour balance, and allowing continium spectrum light through (stars, and reflection nebulae) while filtering light pollution a bit more strongly than the Deep Sky. For astro imaging with DSLR cameras a 2 inch version is a must, vignetting results with 1.25 inch filters.
My site is badly light polluted, can see the brighter bits of the Milky way,and struggle to see the Magellanic clouds. The helix nebula is barely visible in my 10 inch without a filter. The Lumicon Deep Sky makes little difference the Baader UHCS does make a noticable difference, the Lumicon UHC and O3 do too, but they arent as good for photographic use.
Scott

[1ponders] (Paul) · #16 07-07-2005, 03:17 PM

And the cost of the Baader UHCS, Scott? Just if I happen to decide to get one

mch62 (Mark) · #17 07-07-2005, 03:44 PM

Do you have the IR cut filter removed from the Canon?

dhumpie · #18 07-07-2005, 03:48 PM

I agree with John Bambury when he says that a comparison is required between the different filters. It will be a very interesting comparo. But your images are just so plain "AWESOME" Scott. I hope you get more good shots so we can all enjoy those brilliant images!

Darren

tornado33 · #19 07-07-2005, 04:29 PM

Thanks
From www.aoe.com.au the filters are 1.25 inch...$110.00 2 inch...$169.00 http://www.aoe.com.au/filters.html
This place in the States sell them as well http://www.alpineastro.com/product_listing.htm#filters
Scott

atalas · #20 07-07-2005, 05:54 PM

Nice work again Scott .

Louie