Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Difference between Lumicon UHC and Deep Sky filters?

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 jag32

jag32

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:39 AM

I am unable to determine the difference between the Lumicon UHC and Lumicon Deep Sky filters.  The product description of the Lumicon Deep Sky filter says its Lumicon's "most popular nebula filter" and claims the same stuff as the UHC.  So what is the difference then between the UHC and Deep Sky filters?  From my reading on CN, it looks like no one is using the Deep Sky filter but everyone has the UHC filter.  

 

Thanks



#2 mashirts

mashirts

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Temple, TX

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:55 AM

Deep sky is light pollution filter. UHC is narrow band. Narrow band will darken slightly everything else beside nebulas.

https://www.cloudyni...73709299892.jpg

#3 johnoelliott

johnoelliott

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Toronto Ontario

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:07 PM

I usually find that my deep sky filter gives better views when I'm close to home and the UHC is better when I'm away from the city lights.

But it also depends on the particular object sometimes the OIII blows them both out of the water.



#4 Don W

Don W

    demi-god

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 20382
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • Loc: Wisconsin, USA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:20 PM

I have owned the Deep Sky, OIII and UHC. I have never really found a good use for the Deep Sky. It just darkens everything too much. If I had to have just one, it would be the OIII, but the UHC does have its uses too.


  • Paul Morow likes this

#5 havasman

havasman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 5930
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:22 PM

Manufacturers should not make claims like that. They are significantly different filters for different purposes. Two important criteria are passband and bandwidth. The passbands of the 2 may be fairly similar. The bandwidths are not. A UHC filter, to be most useful to most users on most nebular objects, will be a narrowband filter as the Lumicon is. The Deep Sky filter is a classic broadband filter. Several years ago I tested a range of broadband filters, UHC and UHC-type filters against each other on a range of nebulae in several different aperture scopes from both my very light polluted driveway and the rural dark site the club maintains. The results caused me to try and sell and then try and give away the broadband filters. I think they're still in a back closet. I know I got no takers. Nothing is going to make the objects I like to observe, galaxies and nebulae mostly, visible from my driveway. So I drive up to the dark site and see them very well.

The Lumicon UHC filter is an excellent choice if you want to increase the apparent contrast of many nebular objects against the surrounding field.

An O-III filter has an entirely different passband than a UHC or UHC-type and to work well should certainly be a narrowband filter. They too are very useful, but on a different set of objects than a UHC though there are overlaps in the applicability of the two.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#6 mvas

mvas

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 544
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: Eastern Ohio

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:23 PM

Lumicon Deep Sky:

https://www.optcorp....sky_chart_4.jpg

 

Lumicon UHC:

http://www.owlastron...images/UHC2.jpg

 

Look at the wavelengths that are passed vs blocked.


Edited by mvas, 13 September 2017 - 12:25 PM.

  • Jim Davis likes this

#7 NiteGuy

NiteGuy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:10 PM

Somewhere I have an old Deep Sky filter that's gathering dust too. As mentioned, the Deep Sky is only (slightly) better from highly light-polluted areas. If you're in a decently dark sky, the UHC is a much better choice. The O-III is fantastic but only a much smaller number of select objects. If you only get one filter, make it one of the high-quality UHC-type filters (those include Lumicon's UHC filter, DGM's NPB filter and Astronomik's UHC). Mainstream scope manufacturers' lower-cost nebular filters typically don't measure up performance-wise in field tests.



#8 MrJones

MrJones

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Indiana

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:24 PM

That DeepSky filter comment was on the Lumicon website forever. Maybe it was true once but has probably not been the case for a long time now. I like having a broader band filter but have somewhat retired my DeepSky in favor of an Optolong 'UHC' that has an ideal bandpass for these filters IMO and passes H-alpha. The DeepSky passes the main Swan bands of comets that is good for comets and mostly bad for everything else.

 

You'll want to be careful buying Lumicon filters for now. They no longer make the high quality O-III and it's still unknown what exactly the UHC is. Also careful with eBay, the SVOTek scammers are back.


Edited by MrJones, 13 September 2017 - 01:29 PM.

  • Peter Besenbruch and TiSaph like this

#9 Don W

Don W

    demi-god

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 20382
  • Joined: 19 May 2003
  • Loc: Wisconsin, USA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 02:20 PM

As an aside, I was lucky enough to travel to a dark sky site in Australia in 2005 and 2007. I remember looking at the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud. It was an amazing object. It looked very different using naked eye, OIII filter and UHC filter. I can't remember anything that had that effect. And then to realize that not only was it bigger and brighter than the Orion Nebula, it was in another galaxy! Mind Blown!



#10 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:19 PM

There is an additional factor worth considering in the use of filters with differing bandwidth: exit pupil size. 

 

I use filters of different bandwidths for different exit pupil ranges with some variation based upon individual target.   These are the filters I use:

 

Farpoint UHC (28nm bandwidth)

Optolong UHC (~50nm bandwidth)

Astronomik B-band deep sky imaging filter (~92nm bandwidth)

 

I find each of these filters useful depending upon the exit pupil and target object.

 

As a general rule:

 

Farpoint UHC is used at exit pupils of 2.0mm and larger

Optolong UHC is used at exit pupils from 2mm to 1mm

Astronomik B-band is used at exit pupils from 1.7mm to 0.7mm

 

So based upon my experiences the Lumicon deep sky filter (~70nm bandwidth) should be useful at exit pupils smaller than 2mm.  Last time I was out I found beneficial gains in contrast using the Astronomik B filter at exit pupils as large as 1.7mm. 



#11 TiSaph

TiSaph

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2017

Posted 13 September 2017 - 07:32 PM

Cary, do you publish the transmittance Spectra of these filters? It would go a long way to clearing this up if the numerical Spectra was unambiguously associated with the filter for purchase.
  • bvillebob likes this

#12 Ernest_SPB

Ernest_SPB

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010
  • Loc: St.-Petersburg, Russia

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:50 AM

Difference between UHC and Deep Sky is rather simple. UHC is 2-3 times more effective in nebulae observing (in any conditions). Deep Sky can help a bit in observing wide range objects in conditions of light pollution.



#13 jag32

jag32

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:20 AM

No offense guys, but this thread has just confused me more.  I just purchased a 1.25" Lumicon UHC filter and a 1.25" Lumicon O-III filter.  Now i'm doubting what i'm actually receiving... am I going to be getting the excellent reputation version of the Lumicon filters or am I getting these new Lumicon filters that apparently are lower quality??  I am not experienced enough to tell the difference but want absolute certainty i'm getting the actual "worlds best" Lumicon filters and not the new lesser quality ones.  How can I tell?  They are arriving by FedEx tomorrow and based on the responses in this post, there is a 50/50 chance i'm returning them.


Edited by jag32, 14 September 2017 - 02:21 AM.


#14 TiSaph

TiSaph

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2017

Posted 14 September 2017 - 07:39 AM

Do Lumicons ship with a transmission curve?



#15 sixela

sixela

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14956
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Boechout, Belgium

Posted 14 September 2017 - 08:50 AM

Yes. At least all of my recent ones did. The older ones had transmission figures at "interesting" wavelengths written on them by hand.



#16 MrJones

MrJones

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Indiana

Posted 14 September 2017 - 09:31 AM

No offense guys, but this thread has just confused me more.  I just purchased a 1.25" Lumicon UHC filter and a 1.25" Lumicon O-III filter.  Now i'm doubting what i'm actually receiving...

They should come with spectra. You can post them here if you have any questions.

 

Based on what Cary said the UHC will be the same design as what Lumicon sold for years (to be replaced soon by the Farpoint design) and the OIII will be a new design from Farpoint/OWL/Optical Structures even though it says Lumicon on it.


Edited by MrJones, 14 September 2017 - 02:59 PM.


#17 havasman

havasman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 5930
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 14 September 2017 - 10:54 AM

No offense guys, but this thread has just confused me more.  I just purchased a 1.25" Lumicon UHC filter and a 1.25" Lumicon O-III filter.  Now i'm doubting what i'm actually receiving... am I going to be getting the excellent reputation version of the Lumicon filters or am I getting these new Lumicon filters that apparently are lower quality??  I am not experienced enough to tell the difference but want absolute certainty i'm getting the actual "worlds best" Lumicon filters and not the new lesser quality ones.  How can I tell?  They are arriving by FedEx tomorrow and based on the responses in this post, there is a 50/50 chance i'm returning them.

I think you chose well and will be very well served by your new filters.

Rumors to the contrary are addressed and debunked by the manufacturer openly on these forums.



#18 Cary

Cary

    Vendor (Optic Wave Labs)

  • ****-
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Rancho Cordova, CA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:06 PM

Lumicon filters will continue to be the high quality that the market always perceived them to be.  I have been taking great pains to establish quality vendor relationships, built an in house QC lab and have been working to improve the Lumicon filter designs to be better than they have ever been.

 

See this thread here:  https://www.cloudyni...= farpoint uhc

 

I brought the UHC filter out under the Farpoint name before we acquired Lumicon.  Now that we own Lumicon there is no need for duplicity in the market so we are transferring the UHC design to the Lumicon name.  We just depleted our old stock of Lumicon UHC filters and will be placing orders for the new design and it will begin shipping in a few months.

 

Here's the bottom line about anything we make:  We want you to be satisfied with the product.  If it doesn't meet your expectations at the eyepiece we'll take it back.  It's that simple.



#19 jag32

jag32

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:11 PM

Cary, I bought a Lumicon UHC filter a few days ago from b&h. How do I know if it is the new Farpoint version or the older version?

#20 starbase25

starbase25

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2014

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:25 PM

I have owned the Deep Sky, OIII and UHC. I have never really found a good use for the Deep Sky. It just darkens everything too much. If I had to have just one, it would be the OIII, but the UHC does have its uses too.

Whaaa?

 

The O-III will darken the field a lot more than the deep sky filter because the bandwidth is more narrow.



#21 starbase25

starbase25

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2014

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:31 PM

I am unable to determine the difference between the Lumicon UHC and Lumicon Deep Sky filters.  The product description of the Lumicon Deep Sky filter says its Lumicon's "most popular nebula filter" and claims the same stuff as the UHC.  So what is the difference then between the UHC and Deep Sky filters?  From my reading on CN, it looks like no one is using the Deep Sky filter but everyone has the UHC filter.  

 

Thanks

Deep sky filter can be used for astrophotography, but mainly used for slight enhancement of wider spectra targets. Some have used the deep sky filter for a very slight enhancement of some galaxies in darker skies, (I prefer a dark sky / no filter for that purpose). 

 

I actually find no use for a deep sky filter because the bandwidth is just too wide to show any enhancement. The UHC filter, on the other hand, is very useful for many objects that have emission / reflection nebulae in it. My favorite filter is an OIII because the views I get in darker skies and urban skies are at maximum enhancement.

 

I wouldn't recommend as newer Lumicon OIII filter because the bandwidth is far too wide. i personally know someone who bought the newer type and he sent it back. 


Edited by starbase25, 14 September 2017 - 02:35 PM.


#22 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:38 PM

 

Lumicon filters will continue to be the high quality that the market always perceived them to be.  I have been taking great pains to establish quality vendor relationships, built an in house QC lab and have been working to improve the Lumicon filter designs to be better than they have ever been.

 

See this thread here:  https://www.cloudyni...= farpoint uhc

 

I brought the UHC filter out under the Farpoint name before we acquired Lumicon.  Now that we own Lumicon there is no need for duplicity in the market so we are transferring the UHC design to the Lumicon name.  We just depleted our old stock of Lumicon UHC filters and will be placing orders for the new design and it will begin shipping in a few months.

 

Here's the bottom line about anything we make:  We want you to be satisfied with the product.  If it doesn't meet your expectations at the eyepiece we'll take it back.  It's that simple.

Cary,

 

Is the new production Lumicon UHC going to be the same transmission spectrum as the Farpoint UHC?  Specifically, I bought a 1.25" Farpoint UHC that only transmits the blue/green wavelength' and no red wavelengths.  I love that filter (no double red/green star images) and would eagerly pick up a 2" version if it becomes available.  



#23 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8020
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:54 PM

 

I am unable to determine the difference between the Lumicon UHC and Lumicon Deep Sky filters.  The product description of the Lumicon Deep Sky filter says its Lumicon's "most popular nebula filter" and claims the same stuff as the UHC.  So what is the difference then between the UHC and Deep Sky filters?  From my reading on CN, it looks like no one is using the Deep Sky filter but everyone has the UHC filter.  

 

Thanks

Deep sky filter can be used for astrophotography, but mainly used for slight enhancement of wider spectra targets. Some have used the deep sky filter for a very slight enhancement of some galaxies in darker skies, (I prefer a dark sky / no filter for that purpose). 

 

I actually find no use for a deep sky filter because the bandwidth is just too wide to show any enhancement. The UHC filter, on the other hand, is very useful for many objects that have emission / reflection nebulae in it. My favorite filter is an OIII because the views I get in darker skies and urban skies are at maximum enhancement.

 

I wouldn't recommend as newer Lumicon OIII filter because the bandwidth is far too wide. i personally know someone who bought the newer type and he sent it back. 

 

This is not universally true.  A wide bandwidth filter is useful at smaller exit pupils.  I use the 92nm bandwidth Astronomik B-band deep sky imaging filter for visual observations and  find valuable enhancement of nebular details as compared with unfiltered view at exit pupils between 1.7mm and 0.7mm.   The deep sky filter has an ~70nm bandwidth and should similarly be useful at smaller exit pupils.

 

At large exit pupils a true narrowband UHC filter is certainly useful while the broadband filters are not nearly as effective.

 

Of course I'm describing what I've observed in border yellow-green zone skies so in skies with much worse light pollution all of that may change. 



#24 sixela

sixela

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14956
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Boechout, Belgium

Posted 14 September 2017 - 02:59 PM


Since I'm not a vendor let me paraphrase what you said about OIII filters, since you have described the situation for the UHC filters once more.
 
There will be two models of OIII (and they both appear on the web site): One called as the old Lumicon OIII and made in the USA (to the standards of the "old" Lumicon OIII), and a second "Econoline" Lumicon OIII filter that is sourced from a Chinese vendor. That one will be added to the product range but does not replace the USA-built one.
 
Correct?
 
One question: will the "Econoline" be more like a Baader (which is very aggressive to the point of not transmitting the secondary OIII very well, and even not transmitting the main OIII line fully on some scopes and some individual samples), or more Astronomik OIII-like (slightly wider in passband so that even with some variance both OIII rays are still passed)? Of course I'm going by the samples of these two that I owned.

Of course you can also answer "it's going to have just the same characteristics as the USA made one", but that bodes ill for sales of the USA-built model ;-).

Edited by FirstSight, 16 September 2017 - 03:30 PM.


#25 Cary

Cary

    Vendor (Optic Wave Labs)

  • ****-
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2004
  • Loc: Rancho Cordova, CA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:10 PM

Cary, I bought a Lumicon UHC filter a few days ago from b&h. How do I know if it is the new Farpoint version or the older version?

It is the older version.  The new version won't be available for several months now.


Edited by Cary, 14 September 2017 - 03:10 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics