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

Comparing ZWO vs. Astrodon 36mm filters - a controlled test

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 04:56 PM

I started a post on flats issues that I had using my 36mm ZWO LRGB and NB filters that resulted in uncorrectable artifacts in my final images:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ring-artifacts/

 

It turned out to be a very long thread with many post from interested parties. It has a huge amount of data in it and I highly suggest reading it in full if you are considering filter purchases or how to fix these types of issues. I am highly indebted and grateful for all the help, advice and commiseration from my friends here at Cloudy Nights. I think that this is a great example of how this community can work together to help us all out. 

 

At the end of that thread I posted a set of data collected on the Alnitak region with the ZWO filters and my ASI1600MM-C camera with all the fixes for the hardware to get those filters working. At the end of the day, I was able to generate data that was basically clean enough to eliminate any filter-induced artifacts in my final images. It took a lot of time and effort, but this showed that the ZWO filters ARE usable with the proper masking and image processing. However, in the mean time, I had already bit the bullet and ordered a full set of LRGB, Ha, OIII and SII filters from Astrodon to replace the ZWO filters. In hindsight, I may not have made that purchase at the end since I was able to show that I could get good images. At the 36mm size, the Astrodon filters are ~3X the cost of the ZWO filters. I also had previously posted a thread asking what were the benefits of the Astrodon filters and were they worth the price premium. That thread also generated a lot of passion to say the least. 

 

https://www.cloudyni...ters-seriously/

 

I have since installed and ran the Astrodon filters and collected an identical set of data on the same target of Alnitak. Since the previous thread was so long and I think that this comparison will be welcome, I am posting it in its own thread so that it is not buried in the other thread. I will post a link to this thread at the end of the long one. This is as direct an apples-to-apples comparison as I could do between the ZWO and Astrodon filters and for me is a direct answer to what you get for your money with Astrodon. I do think they are worth the investment.

 

Bare with me as I will take me some time to get all the data posted. I hope to have it done tonight.


Edited by cfosterstars, 16 January 2018 - 04:58 PM.

  • mikefulb, psandelle, rockstarbill and 2 others like this

#2 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 05:36 PM

This is basically the unboxing and installation of the Astrodon filters into the ZWO filter wheel:

 

The narrow band filter each came in the own separate boxes. 

 

Ha filter Box
 
This is the Ha filter. Each of the narrow band filters came in a paper sleeve that was padded with a protective cloth/paper. There was only a small amount of dust on the filters that was easily blown off.
 
Ha filter Surface
 
 
The surface of the SII and Ha was highly reflective. The OIII filter was less so, but still highly reflective. The filters were quite clean except for the dust.
Ha filter sleve
 
All the filters were nicely labled on the edge. The Narrow band filters had backened edges. For reference, I purchased the 5nm bandwidth Ha, SII and OIII filters and the E-series LRGB set
Ha filter Surface EDGE
 
The four LRGB filters came in the same box. Each filter was in a separate sleeve. These sleeves were different than the sleeves used for the narrow band filters. They appeared to be some sort of coated paper with no inner cushioning material like the narrow band filters.
LRGB FILTER SLEVES
 
The LRGB filters did not have blackened edges like the narrow band filters. I was a bit disappointed by this, but If necessary, I can probably blacken them myself with a sharpie. The filters were, however, fully coated to the very edge unlike the ZWO filters. I was afraid that the un-blackened edges of the LRGB filters may lead to reflections so I decided to use the filter masks that came for the ZWO filters to install the Astrodon filters. This may not be the best test, but I wanted to get to the data and had to make a choice.
LRGB FILTER EDGE
 
This is the RED filter surface as received. The surfaces of the LRGB filters were not clean like the Narrow band filters and appeared to have some sort of residue on the surface. I was able to clean this residue off with some 5% IPA in DI water. I was disappointed by this also and had seen other threads complaining about this same issue. I believe that this is due to the differences in sleeve material used more than anything else. For lack of a better term, the LRGB sleeves were a bit like wax paper - not that they were wax paper, but I think the sleeve for the narrow band filters are much better.
RED FILTER SURFACE
 
This shows the GREEN (slot 3) and BLUE (slot 4) filters in place in the ZWO EFW. The color on reflection is deceiving - they are not the RED and GREEN filters. This is after I cleaned the filter surfaces to remove the incoming residue. There was also a nick in the edge of the GREEN filter that was there on arrival. They did fit quite well in the ZWO wheel. All the filters were fully coated to the edge - unlike the ZWO filters. Due to the unblackened edges of the LRGB filters, I decided to use the filter masks that came to fix the ZWO filter leakage issue. At some point I will see what they look like without the filter masks.
ASTRODON FILTERS IN WHEEL
 
This is the 36mm Astrodon Ha filter fully installed and mounted in the ZWO EFW using the ZWO filter mask. The ZWO filter masks do overlap some at the edges so that they do not sit flat onto the filter wheel.
ZWO FILTER EDGE MASKS

 


  • mikefulb likes this

#3 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 05:48 PM

I use 50mm round Astrodon LRGB + HA filters in my 16200 and can confirm that no filter mask will be necessary. You are of course welcome to use those, its your gear, but they are not needed.



#4 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 06:04 PM

Prior to mounting the filter wheel and camera back onto the OTA, I took transmission images through the filters to look at the reflections and how well the edge coating worked. Since I put the ZWO masks in place, this is not really fair, but that was what I have here:

 

Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon E-series LUM filter

LUM FILTER
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon E-series RED filter
RED FILTER
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon E-series GREEN filter
GREEN FILTER
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon E-series BLUE filter
BLUE FILTER
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon 5nm OIII narrow band filter
OIII Filter
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon 5nm Ha narrow band filter
Ha Filter
 
Bright Light transmission through the 36mm Astrodon 5nm SII narrow band filter
SII Filter

 

The comparison images for the ZWO filters are here:

 

This was with my home made filter masks

FILTER COMPOSITE

 
This was without any filter masks
LRGB AND NB FILTERS BEFORE MASKING EDGE
 
With how I installed the filters, there is no appreciable reflections and the edges of the filters have no transmission. At some point I will remove the ZWO masks and test this again. However, for now, there is no evidence of any likely issue due to the reflections from the Astrodon filters. To me, they appear to be better from this point of view than my ZWO filters with the best masks that I could make.  

 


  • mikefulb likes this

#5 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 06:22 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#6 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 06:26 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
  • mikefulb likes this

#7 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 06:34 PM

The optical system that I used for this test was:

 

Mount: ORION HDX-110 EQ-G using EQMOD/CdC - Side-by-side

OTA: ORION EON 115mm APO with JMI motorized focuser/PCFC2

Camera: ZWO ASI1600MM-C with a Williams Optics Flattener IV - 660mm FL

 

For the flats, I used a Alnitak Flatman EM panel with two layers of tee shirt fabric as a diffuser with the panel out put set at 200. I used SGP flats calibration wizard to set the exposure. Compared to the 7nm ZWO filters, the Astrodons had only slightly longer exposures. The data was taken at a camera temperature of -20C. For the narrow band filters, the camera gain was 200 with offset of 40 and for the LRGB filters, the camera gain was 76 with an offset of 40. The USB was set at 90 for both. I took 40 flat frames per filter and 50 dark flat frames to calibrate the flats. I used pixinsight for all processing. 

 

All the flats were - well FLAT. I mean really FLAT. This is in stark contrast to the unmasked ZWO filter flats that caused all this issue. Without a non-linear stretch, there was no visible feature at all to any of the master flat frames. After creating the master flats, I then used the STF to do a stretch of each masterflat and showed the histograms. All the histograms for the LRGB were very symmetric. There was a bit of asymmetry to the narrow band flats histogram, but it was very slight. Here are screen captures for the master flat frames for each filter:

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon E-series LUM filter

LUM filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon E-series RED filter
RED filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon E-series GREEN filter
GREEN filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon E-series BLUE filter
BLUE filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon 5nn OIII filter
OIII filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon 5nn Ha filter
Ha filter flat frame

 

STF stretched masterflat (40 flats with 50 dark flats) showing the histogram for the Astrodon 5nn SII filter
SII filter flat frame

 

I really need to clean the sensor cover and the camera window to eliminate the dust motes, but really these are as good of flats I have seen. The intensity rings are very weak and are only visible with the extreme non-linear stretch.


  • mikefulb likes this

#8 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 06:51 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.

Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#9 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 08:15 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm basing that on the massive level of real world data taken with them. Discount my opinion, the opinion of others here, and the opinions of professionals all you wish.

I can tell you how this story will end.
  • mikefulb likes this

#10 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 08:20 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm basing that on the massive level of real world data taken with them. Discount my opinion, the opinion of others here, and the opinions of professionals all you wish.

I can tell you how this story will end.
Omg.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I’m sure the Astrodon’s will come in first place too. I’m waiting to see the side by side comparison to see if they are worth 3-5 times the cost and if I should pull the pin when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#11 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 08:46 PM

 

 

 

 

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm basing that on the massive level of real world data taken with them. Discount my opinion, the opinion of others here, and the opinions of professionals all you wish.

I can tell you how this story will end.
Omg.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I’m sure the Astrodon’s will come in first place too. I’m waiting to see the side by side comparison to see if they are worth 3-5 times the cost and if I should pull the pin when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This comparison should not be what you make a purchasing decision based on. You didnt hurt my feelings, dude. You are just not making the right data-driven decision, which I am trying to tell you to do. 



#12 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 08:52 PM

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm basing that on the massive level of real world data taken with them. Discount my opinion, the opinion of others here, and the opinions of professionals all you wish.

I can tell you how this story will end.
Omg.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I’m sure the Astrodon’s will come in first place too. I’m waiting to see the side by side comparison to see if they are worth 3-5 times the cost and if I should pull the pin when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This comparison should not be what you make a purchasing decision based on. You didnt hurt my feelings, dude. You are just not making the right data-driven decision, which I am trying to tell you to do.
This comparison is exactly what I should base my purchasing decision on. The O.P’s side by side comparison will go a long way with me and others as opposed to a blanket statement about one of the filter sets.
Everybody knows Astrodon makes the best narrowband filters out there. They cost a small fortune. What I want to see is if they are worth it to me to pay that much. A side by side visual comparison should answer my question.
I hope you are able to understand this now.
  • 1074j, sternenben and RossW like this

#13 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 08:59 PM

OK so here is the imaging tests - the money post so to speak. The other thread I referred to in the first post on this thread has all the details about reflection issues with the ZWO filters, how to suppress them and how to process the remain effect out of your images using pixinsight. I call this issue "resolved" in that if you work hard enough you can get rid of them, but they are there for the unwary. The big question remaining was what do you get after you fix that issue and in particular regarding bright star halos. As I and others has posted, the ZWO filter have rather pronounced halos around brighter stars. Many don't like them but they dont really bother me much - they are in Hubble images for that matter. The Alnitak region is notorious for halo "spoiling" images of the horsehead and flame nebula from the O-class supergiant star Zeta-Orionus. This was the test I chose since it is basically worst case. I previous posted the master frames for a short set of exposure for each filter for the ZWO set and duplicated the exact set of exposures with the exact same optics with the Astrodon filters installed as describe above. Here are the comparisons. They were processed identically in Pixinsight. I used the master flats that I showed above along with Dark frames for calibration. I did cosmetic correction, star alignment and image integration to generate the linear LightMaster frames. After a crop to remove the dark edges, I did a DBE using the Ha frame as the reference to remove any gradient. Then did noise reduction with a Multiscaler linear Transformation. The did a simple stretch using the setting from the screen transfer function. This is not meant to be a lot of processing - it was the exact same set of actions that I did on the ZWO filter set data. The big challenge was with the non-linear stretch - I dont think that they are really the same. The ZWO data seems to be more stretched, especially for the LRGB data. Also the data was taken at different times so there is some differences in collections conditions.

 

Here are the comparisons: Astrodon first then the ZWO.

 

For the LUM filters:

 

LUM R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO LUM DC
 
For the RED filters:
 
RED R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO RED DC

 

For the GREEN filters

 

GREEN R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO GREEN DC
 
For the BLUE filters
 
BLUE R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO BLUE DC
 
I also creates simple LRGB channel combinations for each filter set:
 
Astrodon:
 
Alnitak LRGB AD filter
 
ZWO:
 
Alnitak LRGB DBE CC PP
 
My opinion of the data is that the Astrodon filters are clearly superior with respect to star halos. The best comparison is for Sigma Orionus: there is a clear halo with the ZWO and basically none with the Astrodon filters. I stretch the Astrodon data significantly more and could not see any halo on Sigma Orionus. The halo on Alnitak is also clearly better. 
 
Here is the data for the narrow band filters: Astrodon first then the ZWO
 
For the OIII filter:
 
OIII R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO OIII DC

 

 
For the Ha filter:
 
Ha R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO Ha DC
 
For the SII filter:
 
SII R CP DBE MSLT STS
 
Alnitak ZWO SII DC
 
I also creates simple HSO channel combinations for each filter set:
 
Astrodon:
 
Alnitak HSO
 
ZWO:
 
Alnitak HSO NLS
 

I would say that here is where the Astrodon filters shine. There halos on the ZWO filters is quite stark and there is basically none with the Astrodon filters. I think the narrow band contrast is amazing with the Astrodon filters. That being said - I am going to keep the ZWO filters since I hope to get a second ASI1600MM-C for my other OTAs and retire my Canon T5i unmodified. I just dont see myself ever using it. I would love it if they would ever come out with an ASP-C mono chip, but that is a pipe dream at this point. The ZWO filters should be great for galaxies and a lot of nebula where ther are no monsters like Alnitak. 

 

I know there is now a perfect test, but given my available time and resources it was the best that I could do. 

 

Comments and question are very welcome. And again thanks to everyone who has contributed to this set of post. I have learned a lot in the process.

 

I also have a Narrow band three-panel mosaic of M42 and the running man with the ZWO filters to process and I just finished a collecting a two panel mosaic in HaLRGB of the Horsehead and flame with the Astrodon with much more data collection to process. At the end of the day I would say that the Astrodon filters are CLEARLY superior to the ZWO filters in many ways. Whether they are worth 3X the price is up to you. If you had to make a compromise, I would say that the ZWO LRGB are not bad and that if you had to make a compromise the the ZWO LRGB and the Astrodon narrow band (especially the Ha and SII). That is just my opinion for what it is worth.

 

 

It seems that I am finally - after years of struggling - at the point where I can now just focus on taking data and processing images. Famous last words....

 

Clear Skies everyone!

 

 


Edited by cfosterstars, 16 January 2018 - 11:36 PM.

  • Space99, seigell, leviathan and 7 others like this

#14 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:02 PM

Blanket statement? I assume you did not bother to read the thread he posted? I assume you did not bother to read the material Don has made available about his line of filters (which isnt marketing crap - Don is an imager as well)? 

 

They make the best filters, period. You can go look on Astrobin, or the hundreds of threads here where people have make it 100% clear that Baader, Astronomik, ZWO, and Optolong filters are far inferior. If you want to spend coin on the best results, you buy Astrodon. If you are willing to have some halos, and other issues, then make that choice. 

 

This test is doing nothing that has not already been done in the past, ad nauseum. 



#15 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:05 PM

 

OK so here is the imaging tests - the money post so to speak. The other thread I referred to in the first post on this thread has all the details about reflection issues with the ZWO filters, how to suppress them and how to process the remain effect out of your images using pixinsight. I call this issue "resolved" in that if you work hard enough you can get rid of them, but they are there for the unwary. The big question remaining was what do you get after you fix that issue and in particular regarding bright star halos. As I and others has posted, the ZWO filter have rather pronounced halos around brighter stars. Many don't like them but they dont really bother me much - they are in Hubble images for that matter. The Alnitak region is notorious for halo "spoiling" images of the horsehead and flame nebula from the O-class supergiant star Zeta-Orionus. This was the test I chose since it is basically worst case. I previous posted the master frames for a short set of exposure for each filter for the ZWO set and duplicated the exact set of exposures with the exact same optics with the Astrodon filters installed as describe above. Here are the comparisons. They were processed identically in Pixinsight. I used the master flats that I showed above along with Dark frames for calibration. I did cosmetic correction, star alignment and image integration to generate the linear LightMaster frames. After a crop to remove the dark edges, I did a DBE using the Ha frame as the reference to remove any gradient. Then did noise reduction with a Multiscaler linear Transformation. The did a simple stretch using the setting from the screen transfer function. This is not meant to be a lot of processing - it was the exact same set of actions that I did on the ZWO filter set data. The big challenge was with the non-linear stretch - I dont think that they are really the same. The ZWO data seems to be more stretched, especially for the LRGB data. Also the data was taken at different times so there is some differences in collections conditions.

 

Here are the comparisons: Astrodon first then the ZWO.

 

For the LUM filters:

 

 
 
 
 
For the RED filters:
 
 
 
 

 

For the GREEN filters

 

 
 
 
 
For the BLUE filters
 
 
 
 
 
I also creates simple LRGB channel combinations for each filter set:
 
Astrodon:
 
 
 
ZWO:
 
 
 
My opinion of the data is that the Astrodon filters are clearly superior with respect to star halos. The best comparison is for Sigma Orionus: there is a clear halo with the ZWO and basically none with the Astrodon filters. I stretch the Astrodon data significantly more and could not see any halo on Sigma Orionus. The halo on Alnitak is also clearly better. 
 
Here is the data for the narrow band filters: Astrodon first then the ZWO
 
For the OIII filter:
 
 
 
 

 

 
For the Ha filter:
 
 
 
 
 
For the SII filter:
 
 
 
 
 
I also creates simple HSO channel combinations for each filter set:
 
Astrodon:
 
 
 
ZWO:
 
 
 

I would say that here is where the Astrodon filters shine. There halos on the ZWO filters is quite stark and there is basically none with the Astrodon filters. I think the narrow band contrast is amazing with the Astrodon filters. That being said - I am going to keep the ZWO filters since I hope to get a second ASI1600MM-C for my other OTAs and retire my Canon T5i unmodified. I just dont see myself ever using it. I would love it if they would ever come out with an ASP-C mono chip, but that is a pipe dream at this point. The ZWO filters should be great for galaxies and a lot of nebula where ther are no monsters like Alnitak. 

 

I know there is now a perfect test, but given my available time and resources it was the best that I could do. 

 

Comments and question are very welcome. And again thanks to everyone who has contributed to this set of post. I have learned a lot in the process

 

Clear Skies everyone!

 

 

And that, my friends, is how the story ends. 

 

Astrodon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Others.



#16 mikefulb

mikefulb

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2006

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:09 PM

Very consistent with what I found with the Astrodon narrowband filters compared to some 3 year old Baaders.   Since moving to the Astrodon (5nmHa, 3nm OIII&SII) I have hardly had to mess with "magenta halos" or other odd looking stars when blending.  With the Baader (OIII in particular) it was a processing nightmare cleaning it all up.


  • rockstarbill and Jon Rista like this

#17 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:15 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m following this thread. I’m thinking about putting together a new mono setup and spending a massive amount of cash on Astrodon filters will be my biggest dilemma when the time comes. I’m hoping this thread will help guide me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy them. No question they are the best filters made.
Maybe they are but are you basing your statement on a side by side comparison like the O.P?
Let’s just see what he has to say .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm basing that on the massive level of real world data taken with them. Discount my opinion, the opinion of others here, and the opinions of professionals all you wish.

I can tell you how this story will end.
Omg.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I’m sure the Astrodon’s will come in first place too. I’m waiting to see the side by side comparison to see if they are worth 3-5 times the cost and if I should pull the pin when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This comparison should not be what you make a purchasing decision based on. You didnt hurt my feelings, dude. You are just not making the right data-driven decision, which I am trying to tell you to do.
This comparison is exactly what I should base my purchasing decision on. The O.P’s side by side comparison will go a long way with me and others as opposed to a blanket statement about one of the filter sets.
Everybody knows Astrodon makes the best narrowband filters out there. They cost a small fortune. What I want to see is if they are worth it to me to pay that much. A side by side visual comparison should answer my question.
I hope you are able to understand this now.

 

Just for point of reference, I went through exactly the same dilema with respect to the Astrodon filters and the price. The delta is less than 3X for 1.25" filters and more than 3X for 2" filters. Whether they are worth the cost was the subject of an other thread that I referenced above. At the end of the day, whether something is worth the price is clearly a subjective decision. Whether something is better than something else can be quantified. You still have to decide what your money is worth and whether to and on what to spend it. I would say that the Astrodon filters are clearly superior, but whether they are worth 3X the price is up to you. For me, my time and getting nothing to show for a lot of imaging time led to enough frustration that I forked over the cash. But now that I know what to do, I might not do it so quickly. However, since I have them and have paid the price, all I can say is that I cant wait to collect more PHOTONS!!! using them. 


  • rockstarbill likes this

#18 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:21 PM

Blanket statement? I assume you did not bother to read the thread he posted? I assume you did not bother to read the material Don has made available about his line of filters (which isnt marketing crap - Don is an imager as well)? 

 

They make the best filters, period. You can go look on Astrobin, or the hundreds of threads here where people have make it 100% clear that Baader, Astronomik, ZWO, and Optolong filters are far inferior. If you want to spend coin on the best results, you buy Astrodon. If you are willing to have some halos, and other issues, then make that choice. 

 

This test is doing nothing that has not already been done in the past, ad nauseum. 

I am not sure who you were responding to here. If it was to me and the result I published then I am at a loss as to what makes you so annoyed - it sure seems that you are. If you are not, then my apologies.  Yes, I did read everything posted on the Astrodon web site and several of his lectures from conferences on filters, bandwidths, effect of high focal ratio, even on using SII for high z galaxies to see Ha. I research what I could find. I know his material is not marketing crap. For me I worked very hard to solve these issue and am just posting the results so that others might make a better choice than I did.  I do see that you liked the posts so I am not sure if your comments were directed at me or not. Please take this a just data to help others.


Edited by cfosterstars, 16 January 2018 - 09:29 PM.


#19 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:22 PM

Glad to hear you are excited to get more data with your Astrodon filters. They are well worth the price, but at the same time, they are expensive so they are not for everyone. A tradeoff can be made for other brands, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it is important to be 100% clear with people that read this now, and read this in the future -- you are making a tradeoff. This is not akin to whether or not Denon or Sony make better audio equipment at all. There is a clear difference between what you get in terms of your data with Astrodon filters and other brands. 

 

If anyone here thought I was trying to be rude, I apologize in advance, but this discussion has been had in many permutations and the end result is always the same. 


  • cfosterstars likes this

#20 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:22 PM

Thank you cfosterstars for your efforts! It’s amazingly helpful to see real world comparisons of equipment.
The difference is amazing! I figured the detail and contrast would be a major difference but the amount of halo reduction is huge in the Astrodon’s. This has been the bane of some ZWO users in many posts here lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#21 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:25 PM

This comparison is exactly what I should base my purchasing decision on. The O.P’s side by side comparison will go a long way with me and others as opposed to a blanket statement about one of the filter sets.
Everybody knows Astrodon makes the best narrowband filters out there. They cost a small fortune. What I want to see is if they are worth it to me to pay that much. A side by side visual comparison should answer my question.
I hope you are able to understand this now.

 

 

 

 

Blanket statement? I assume you did not bother to read the thread he posted? I assume you did not bother to read the material Don has made available about his line of filters (which isnt marketing crap - Don is an imager as well)? 

 

They make the best filters, period. You can go look on Astrobin, or the hundreds of threads here where people have make it 100% clear that Baader, Astronomik, ZWO, and Optolong filters are far inferior. If you want to spend coin on the best results, you buy Astrodon. If you are willing to have some halos, and other issues, then make that choice. 

 

This test is doing nothing that has not already been done in the past, ad nauseum. 

I am not sure who you were responding to here. If it was to me and the result I published then I am at a loss as to what makes you so annoyed - it should seems that you are. If you are not, then my apologies.  For me I worked very hard to solve these issue and am just posting the results so that others might make a better choice than I did.  

 

See the first quote, had nothing to do with you dude. Great test, and I think it will only add to the mountain of data that supports the notion that in AP -- filter makers matter, if you want the best results you buy AD. If you are willing to deal with oddities, you can spend less and make that choice. 



#22 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:27 PM

Omg. Stop please. Don’t get this very useful thread closed. You totally missed my point. Let it go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • dan22644 and RossW like this

#23 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6357
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:29 PM

Omg. Stop please. Don’t get this very useful thread closed. You totally missed my point. Let it go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To close the loop here -- the answer is a resounding yes. Yes they are worth it. 



#24 Jeff Smith

Jeff Smith

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chicago

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:29 PM

Lol. Yes they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#25 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2623
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 16 January 2018 - 09:34 PM

Once I process the mosiacs with both filter types I will add that to the thread. It will take some time but should be a lot of fun. I just hope I have enough time on target and my process skills are up to the challenge. I suspect that my processing skill are being surpassed by the quality of the data with the filters. They are truly amazing.


  • Jeff Smith likes this


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.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics