Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Eyepieces

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
tomharri
sage
*****

Reged: 09/19/08

Loc: USA
TV Planet Filter
      #5733230 - 03/14/13 11:17 PM Attachment (52 downloads)

Well..... it's not as dramatic as their Mars A filter. Through my 10" f/5.6 dob, using the Pentax XW 7 and Delos 6mm's, Jupiter, the non red spot side, is a brownish cast like somebody threw a handfull of dirt on the planet. And the image is only dimmed a little. The 2 equatorial belts look really brown instead of grey without filter. One polar region shows the multiple banding better, and the other has that mottled look that is more easily seen. And then right along the equator you can see the festoons easier, whereas without filter you can only see hints of something. The real dark 'barges', I think you are calling them, along the equatorial bands are really dark now.

The Delos lens had these very light reflections between my eye and the filter, kind of annoying, just had to move my head a little to get them to go away. The Pentax did not have any of these.

So is the the BPL-0125 Bandmate Planetary Filter worth the price? Hey, it's only the price of their plossls, and it does actually improve the details seen, so to me the answer is yes.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rathbaster
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/21/08

Loc: East Bridgewater, MA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5733297 - 03/14/13 11:58 PM

Thanks for the review.
Looks like its time to start saving up for a new filter.

-joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
buddyjesus
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/10

Loc: Davison, Michigan
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: rathbaster]
      #5733347 - 03/15/13 12:56 AM

didn't know this filter existed. thanks for sharing your review. any other opinions out there?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: buddyjesus]
      #5733579 - 03/15/13 07:51 AM

TV s got several filters out now - they are pricey but i wouldn't doubt in time these guys eclipse even Baader. The mars set type a-b looks promising. If they truly launch into all filter applications I wouldn't doubt their excellence even at the pain of their prices.

Thanks for the review!!!

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tomharri
sage
*****

Reged: 09/19/08

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5735263 - 03/15/13 11:19 PM

Day 2 Great Red Spot Side, sort of.

The big spot was rotating toward the edge, about 3/4 of the way across, AND IT'S RED! Really red with the filter. And the swirling white wake stretched all the way to opposite side. The atmosphere was steadier tonite, could use 5mm Pen XW in the 10" dob. The filter doesn't seem to degrade image at all, could see same amount of detail with or without it. Just everything was more evident and colorful.

The brown cast of the planet looks so odd, so earthy, even though all we are seeing are clouds. Looks more like the photos at ALPO Japan Latest website.

The moon farthest to the left also had a reddish glow. Looking at the S&T chart think it's Callisto.

Gonna try a 4" tomorrow nite.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
george tatsis
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 11/20/08

Loc: Flushing, NY - Europe
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5735402 - 03/16/13 12:55 AM



Gonna try a 4" tomorrow nite.




Now that would be very interesting!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: george tatsis]
      #5735414 - 03/16/13 01:17 AM

I'm enjoying your finds here. Waiting on the 4" comments.
Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter *DELETED* new [Re: george tatsis]
      #5735415 - 03/16/13 01:17 AM

Post deleted by azure1961p

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
t.r.
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 02/14/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5735615 - 03/16/13 07:41 AM

It would be nice if TV displayed transmission and spectrum data for their filters like the effort that Baader puts forth for theirs. You know exactly what your getting with any Baader filter. With TV, its like snake oil or comet pills. Anyone care to take a guess what this is? Polarizing/ND, simple color or absorption? On the website its tinge appears to be similar to the Hoya 85B in color that I have for $5! But if it works, who cares exactly what it is...I'd be interested in buying it!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: t.r.]
      #5735678 - 03/16/13 08:42 AM

I'd guess its an interference filter by the price. I don't think you can make a ND or wratten so good it costs that much. What's really interesting here is that its giving a brown cast to Jupiter as he reports. Typically interference filters seem to boost the primaries or a rosy magenta or deep cyan green, but brown???? That's a new one for me . I'm guessing its boosting the red and greens in some manner which produces brown but that may be a little simplistic as interference filters are counter intuitive to me in the way they select or suppress parts of the spectrum. It'd be interesting to see where TV takes this.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tomharri
sage
*****

Reged: 09/19/08

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5737718 - 03/16/13 11:54 PM

Tonight TV Planetary filter with 100/1300 Carton Achromat.

What a great little but long 4". At f/13 the planetary view is almost as good as an 8" newt, and only a single speed focuser is necessary as it snaps into perfect focus with little additional tweeking.

That being said, lets be blunt- a 4" can only see so much. The difference between a primo Pentax XW and the plossl/orthos available today is very slight. Even with the TV filter in place you can't hardly see any difference except a little added color and dimming of image.

In the 10" dob the view between the Pentax/Delos vs. ortho/plossl is enormous. The most obvious being one set can see the little red spot, the other set cannot. Same goes with using the planet filter but the difference is not as great. The 4" shows little gain, if any, the 10" shows improved colors and contrast.

Both scopes have about same focal length, so about same powers were used with 5-6-7mm lenses. If you want to see all that you can see, you need a bigger scope that can exploit the advantages of better eyepieces and filters.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
george tatsis
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 11/20/08

Loc: Flushing, NY - Europe
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5737887 - 03/17/13 01:32 AM

Quote:

Tonight TV Planetary filter with 100/1300 Carton Achromat.

What a great little but long 4". At f/13 the planetary view is almost as good as an 8" newt, and only a single speed focuser is necessary as it snaps into perfect focus with little additional tweeking.

That being said, lets be blunt- a 4" can only see so much. The difference between a primo Pentax XW and the plossl/orthos available today is very slight. Even with the TV filter in place you can't hardly see any difference except a little added color and dimming of image.

In the 10" dob the view between the Pentax/Delos vs. ortho/plossl is enormous. The most obvious being one set can see the little red spot, the other set cannot. Same goes with using the planet filter but the difference is not as great. The 4" shows little gain, if any, the 10" shows improved colors and contrast.

Both scopes have about same focal length, so about same powers were used with 5-6-7mm lenses. If you want to see all that you can see, you need a bigger scope that can exploit the advantages of better eyepieces and filters.




Thanks for reporting back, because
this is exactly what I was expecting to hear!

The light gathering power of the 10" makes all the difference here.This filter will definitely be part of my arsenal in the near future for my 10"!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: george tatsis]
      #5739465 - 03/17/13 07:25 PM

Then there's something real wrong with those plossls and Orthos - that or the focal ratio of the ten is better suited to the more expensive and modern designs.


Thanks for the 4" update. Below 6" aperture the need or benefit of filters diminishes somewhat for me.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (03/17/13 07:29 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tomharri
sage
*****

Reged: 09/19/08

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5739505 - 03/17/13 07:44 PM Attachment (23 downloads)

Here's my current lineup of 6mm ortho/plossls. And they all give the same views no matter what scope they are used in. The only one that shows the slightest better image is the one with gold ring-Omegon from Germany off ebay. Think it is a 5 element cause has bigger eyelens and larger field of view than others.

These are like junk compared to Pentax XW or Delos in the 10" newtonian. In the 4" can't hardly see any difference with the ortho/plossl vs. Pen/Del.

The Planetary Filter shows the same results. Almost useless in the 4", and a big difference in contrast/colors in a 10".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5739900 - 03/18/13 12:26 AM

Then ive gotta believe its your ten inch f ratio being more,suited to the delos and pentax . Id never consider either with my f9 simply because i dibt run into the issues some faster reflectors have. At anyrate all my plossls and orthos show the red spot fine. If i had an f5 or faster id think differently maybe?

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5740466 - 03/18/13 11:03 AM

tomharri,

Quote:

That being said, lets be blunt- a 4" can only see so much. The difference between a primo Pentax XW and the plossl/orthos available today is very slight. Even with the TV filter in place you can't hardly see any difference except a little added color and dimming of image.

In the 10" dob the view between the Pentax/Delos vs. ortho/plossl is enormous. The most obvious being one set can see the little red spot, the other set cannot. Same goes with using the planet filter but the difference is not as great. The 4" shows little gain, if any, the 10" shows improved colors and contrast.

Both scopes have about same focal length, so about same powers were used with 5-6-7mm lenses. If you want to see all that you can see, you need a bigger scope that can exploit the advantages of better eyepieces and filters.




So then ... which set produced the better image of Jupiter, the XW/Delos or the ortho/plossl? Sometimes I have difficulty following referents.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5740474 - 03/18/13 11:07 AM

OK, I think this cleared it up for me in your latest post:

Quote:

Here's my current lineup of 6mm ortho/plossls. And they all give the same views no matter what scope they are used in. The only one that shows the slightest better image is the one with gold ring-Omegon from Germany off ebay. Think it is a 5 element cause has bigger eyelens and larger field of view than others.

These are like junk compared to Pentax XW or Delos in the 10" newtonian. In the 4" can't hardly see any difference with the ortho/plossl vs. Pen/Del.




Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
urassner
sage
*****

Reged: 07/08/12

Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5746356 - 03/20/13 09:38 PM Attachment (17 downloads)

I just go the planetary filter. I have been enjoying Jupiter the last few days, including the transit of Io. Naturally as soon as the filter arrived, clouds covered the sky from east to west. To get an idea what the filter might do (not exactly scientific, I know) I pulled up true color simulated image of Jupiter taken by Cassini from the NASA website and took a picture of the LCD screen with a point and shoot camera with white balance set to sunlight with and without the filter. When Jupiter is out again, I will see if the view in my 5 inch Apo is anything like this. As previously reported by tomharri, it seems to bring out the browns.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5746643 - 03/20/13 11:52 PM

Quote:

OK, I think this cleared it up for me in your latest post:

Quote:

Here's my current lineup of 6mm ortho/plossls. And they all give the same views no matter what scope they are used in. The only one that shows the slightest better image is the one with gold ring-Omegon from Germany off ebay. Think it is a 5 element cause has bigger eyelens and larger field of view than others.

These are like junk compared to Pentax XW or Delos in the 10" newtonian. In the 4" can't hardly see any difference with the ortho/plossl vs. Pen/Del.




Mike




Nah. If he really believed they were junk we d see a jpeg of the same eyepieces smashed by hammer blows.


Pete
( waiting)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5747288 - 03/21/13 10:33 AM

I think the best planet filter for me would be a new house with a back yard or an elevated deck on the back of my condo. Privacy is the best filter.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5747340 - 03/21/13 11:05 AM

As a condo dweller id agree.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WStewart
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/02/05

Loc: Dallas, TX
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5747355 - 03/21/13 11:11 AM

As an apartment dweller I'd also agree. No privacy whatsoever.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: WStewart]
      #5747383 - 03/21/13 11:21 AM

Observers with a nice back yard or at least a sturdy upper deck don't know how lucky they are.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5747539 - 03/21/13 12:41 PM

And some of the dumb looks I get. One neighbor is a fan and loves to look through my scope. The others ... It's weird - they balk and say nothing.
The treasure of solitude is lost in condo observing. I'd imagine just as so with apartment dwellings.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tomharri
sage
*****

Reged: 09/19/08

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5747597 - 03/21/13 01:05 PM Attachment (15 downloads)

Wear appropriate eye protection before attempting:

Edited by tomharri (03/21/13 02:07 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
hfjacinto
I think he's got it!
*****

Reged: 01/12/09

Loc: Land of clouds and LP
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5747604 - 03/21/13 01:08 PM

Mike,

This filter is on my list. I read that it makes a difference but is the difference that much noticeable? Or is it just a little difference? If you could clarify that would be great.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: hfjacinto]
      #5747675 - 03/21/13 01:48 PM

Which filter? The new TV Planet Filter? I don't have that one yet. My favorite filter for Jupiter is the Baader Moon & Sky Glow. I'd like to see a comparo between the M&SG and the new TV Planet Filter when observing Jupiter.

Maybe you meant the "nice backyard" filter? I would give up all my other filters and most of my telescopes and eyepieces for that filter!


Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5748270 - 03/21/13 06:43 PM

Mike,
Be careful what you wish for.
I regularly observe in 2 places: the SoCal desert, with flat horizons all around, and the high-altitude SoCal mountains, where the observing site is surrounded by tall lodge-pole pines that block off the sky up about 20 degrees from the horizon.
Even though the sky is a little darker (couple tenths of a mag.) in the desert, the sky is more impressive in the mountains, both because the high altitude makes the sky more transparent below 45 degrees altitude, and because the horizon lightening of the sky is blocked off. Blocking off the horizon-20 or 30 degrees altitude is a good thing, I've found.
Plus, it keeps me from being tempted to observe down in the muck.

Now, admittedly, if you've lost half the sky, that's no good. But losing the sky from 30 degrees down isn't so bad.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
faackanders2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/28/11

Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Starman1]
      #5748493 - 03/21/13 08:53 PM

Quote:

Mike,
Be careful what you wish for.
I regularly observe in 2 places: the SoCal desert, with flat horizons all around, and the high-altitude SoCal mountains, where the observing site is surrounded by tall lodge-pole pines that block off the sky up about 20 degrees from the horizon.
Even though the sky is a little darker (couple tenths of a mag.) in the desert, the sky is more impressive in the mountains, both because the high altitude makes the sky more transparent below 45 degrees altitude, and because the horizon lightening of the sky is blocked off. Blocking off the horizon-20 or 30 degrees altitude is a good thing, I've found.
Plus, it keeps me from being tempted to observe down in the muck.

Now, admittedly, if you've lost half the sky, that's no good. But losing the sky from 30 degrees down isn't so bad.




I have observed from NC's outer banks from two locations. One was down on the ground in the shade where I could not see the horizon, but almost all ground lights were blocked - very dark skies. The other up on a 3rd floor deck with 360 horizons mostly to the ocean or bay, but I had light polution from all the ground lights in the town, plus the bright towers/lighthouses far away. Alot harder to get dark adapted above all the lights.

Observing was good at both locations, but I believe I could see dimmer stuff when I was on the ground in the dark shadows


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: faackanders2]
      #5748772 - 03/21/13 11:35 PM Attachment (6 downloads)

Quote:

Wear appropriate eye protection before attempting:






Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5748911 - 03/22/13 01:06 AM

Quote:

Wear appropriate eye protection before attempting:




If you ever come to CT Im wearing more than eye protection.

I can't believe you did that.

Wow.

What a way to end my day - a cross between a chuckle, guffaw and dismayed disbelief and again a chuckle.

Ok so you weren't completely satisfied with these.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5748949 - 03/22/13 01:37 AM

Harsh critic!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scanning4Comets
Markus
*****

Reged: 12/26/04

Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Starman1]
      #5749027 - 03/22/13 03:50 AM

That Lumicon O-III took 8 blows to destroy using a crescent wrench !!! Pretty tough filters! There was a very good reason for it's demise.

So folks.....now you know that dropping one of these on your carpet will do nothing to it. LOL!!!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Scanning4Comets]
      #5749143 - 03/22/13 07:30 AM

You know, there are people starving in the world who want eyepieces.

Wasteful.

Pete

Edited by azure1961p (03/22/13 07:32 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: azure1961p]
      #5749177 - 03/22/13 08:09 AM

I'm willing my eyepiece collection to the starving throngs of Freedonia.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Starman1]
      #5749219 - 03/22/13 08:50 AM

Don,

Quote:

Be careful what you wish for.
I regularly observe in 2 places: the SoCal desert, with flat horizons all around, and the high-altitude SoCal mountains, where the observing site is surrounded by tall lodge-pole pines that block off the sky up about 20 degrees from the horizon.
Even though the sky is a little darker (couple tenths of a mag.) in the desert, the sky is more impressive in the mountains, both because the high altitude makes the sky more transparent below 45 degrees altitude, and because the horizon lightening of the sky is blocked off. Blocking off the horizon-20 or 30 degrees altitude is a good thing, I've found.
Plus, it keeps me from being tempted to observe down in the muck.

Now, admittedly, if you've lost half the sky, that's no good. But losing the sky from 30 degrees down isn't so bad.




I think we may be talking apples and oranges here. I mostly observe planets and the Moon at home. So light domes and light pollution in general are of no consequence. Actually, brighter ambient light can cause the eye to adapt closer to photopic and improve the perceived image of planets. Dark adaptation - mesopic rather than scotopic for bright planets - is not a good thing.

But I live in a condo with no back yard and not even a deck I can observe from. I have to schlep my scope and equipment either beside my building or 500' to a hill beyond a pond. At both sites - depending on which way I'm turned and which neighbors have their outdoor lights on - there is light glaring into my eyes. That is NOT a good thing, even when observing planets / lunar. So I would welcome a nice backyard with fences to shield my eyes from the glaring light of the scotophobes in my neighborhood. There is also the problem of lack of privacy. Those who have never lived in a condo, townhouse or apartment have probably not experienced what I'm talking about.

Deep sky observation is not the same. For deep sky, I go to two dark sites within a couple miles of each other in a yellow zone. We are allowed to use one in the winter, the other in the warmer months. But even for deep sky, I might have some radical views about horizons. Of course, those views make sense to me.

The winter dark site has lower horizons, which allow observing deeper into the southern sky but also exposes the eye to more of the light domes. Some of us prefer the warm-weather site because the horizons are higher, covered by surrounding trees, which hide more of the light domes.

But I really like the lower horizons of the winter site because I like to see how low I can go to pick up southern objects. I was able to catch Omega Centauri last month here at latitude 39 degrees when it appeared between some trees on the low southern horizon. That would have been impossible at the warm-weather site with its higher tree cover all around.

My scope is a solid-tube 10" Dob, completely flocked and baffled. I have one of the Dark Skies Apparel hooded vests. If I want to see something really faint, I just throw the hood over my head and observe like that for awhile. Working this way, I was able to tease out the Horsehead a couple months ago at the winter site, despite the low horizons and exposed light domes.

My bottom line is that for deep sky I'd rather have low horizons, light domes and all. You can always make your own shadows by baffling your scope and throwing a hoodie over your head.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: tomharri]
      #5749309 - 03/22/13 09:46 AM

That Omegon 6mm is actually just a Long Perng Plossl lens stack in a custom housing. Astro-Tech and Sterling Plossls are the same optically. 4-element, 55-degree AFOV.

- Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pkgastro
member


Reged: 12/27/12

Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5749405 - 03/22/13 10:29 AM

Heres a good broken filter story! Got a Lunt wedge , got excited put a 150$ nd on the front of the wedge instead of the Ep , and three minutes into observing the Sun Sashed that filter in half! Moral of story, don't let the Universe get you so excited you forget self!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5749457 - 03/22/13 11:04 AM

Mike,

I lived in a condo for a decade or so, and an apartment building for a decade before that. In both cases, the roof was accessible through a stairway and a call to the person who lived directly under the roof allayed any fears of burglars and often got me a companion to observe with.

Of course, being in LA, those roofs were flat and it was easy to set up a scope. In parts of the country where the roofs are pitched substantially, that wouldn't be possible.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Starman1]
      #5749514 - 03/22/13 11:43 AM

I've never lived in any building that has access to the roof. And yes, in any case, all those roofs were gabled, to prevent accumulation of snow and ice. That song "Up On the Roof" never made any sense to me in my experience.

In condos and apartments where I've lived, you have to take your telescope out to a public area on the ground or bring it out your deck, if you're lucky enough to have one. Nowadays, I bet there are more and more amateur astronomers that share my situation.

Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Sarkikos]
      #5749718 - 03/22/13 01:28 PM

When I lived in a condo, I had to store my astronomy stuff on the upper floor, so I had to take it down to my front door in about ten trips, then take another ten trips to haul it down a 100' hallway to the elevator, load the elevator, unload the elevator and make ten trips across the garage to where my car was (we couldn't park in front of the elevator) to load my car.
Then, the reverse procedure when I got home.
I did that every month for about 13 years until housing values rose high enough I could get into a house.
So I sympathize with the issues of condo living, where astronomy is concerned.
At least I had a flat roof.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Sarkikos
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 12/18/07

Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
Re: TV Planet Filter new [Re: Starman1]
      #5749814 - 03/22/13 02:11 PM

That makes me feel better. I only have two flights of steps to go down - one in my house, one down from the porch - and then straight out to the vehicle. Still, it takes at least a half-hour to pack everything, and at least that long to unpack when I get home.

I don't even want to think about the number of little trips walking my gear down to the first floor of my condo and then out to the vehicle. It's best not to think about somethings.


Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
36 registered and 37 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  ausastronomer, Scott in NC, iceblaze 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 1776

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics