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

Broadband vs Duo-band Luminance Filters

astrophotography accessories equipment imaging
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 wcoastsands

wcoastsands

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2018
  • Loc: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

Posted 18 July 2019 - 01:36 PM

Hi folks!

 

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but might be a good place to start since I'm a beginner when it comes to imaging filters.

 

I've seen a lot of discussions about and reviews of light pollution filters, or filters you can use to cut down on or eliminate sky-glow caused by city lights and the moon. Two products that I've heard about most and am most interested in at the moment are the Optolong broadband L-Pro and duo-band L-eNhance luminance filters. One would think that the L-Pro is preferable when a broader range of color values is desired, but L-eNhance may yield better signal if L-Pro doesn't cut it.

 

So I'm wondering, in which situations would you opt for a duo-band filter like the L-eNhance filter, verses a broadband filter like the L-Pro filter?

 

I don't fully understand their intended use cases yet, and at $200+ ea., it's too expensive to just buy both and find out for myself. I image from my backyard under Bortle class 4 skies. The camera I currently use is a Fujifilm X-T100. My imaging scope is an Explore Scientific N208CF 8" Newtonian. I also use the Explore Scientific HR Coma Corrector, which has the option of threading on 2" filters.

 

EasternCelestialEquater_anim_32_320x213.gif

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Nikko


Edited by wcoastsands, 18 July 2019 - 01:44 PM.

  • elmiko likes this

#2 Gipht

Gipht

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1767
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Prescott Valley, AZ.

Posted 18 July 2019 - 02:14 PM

My duo band filter, the STC version,  does a very good job with color cameras taking pictures of Nebulas,  but not for galaxies, so this may be dependent on the targets you most enjoy.


  • psandelle, elmiko, ghostboo and 2 others like this

#3 ghostboo

ghostboo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2015
  • Loc: Ocean Springs, MS

Posted 18 July 2019 - 03:08 PM

I have an L'eNhance and a Baader Moon and SkyGlow which I think is similar to the L-Pro. Yes, I think it's target dependent. I cannot get much blue with the L'enhance so on a target like the Triffid Nebula, I swap to the Baader filter or just use a UV/IR cut. To be fair though, I haven't poured on the hours with it yet. Usually an hour. I need to try parking on the Triffid for a couple nights and see if blue improves.  The L'eNhance is incredible for objects like the North America Nebula, Pacman, Eagle, and Lagoon.  Here's some examples on my Astrobin. I think the top five are with the L'eNhance filter. 

 

https://www.astrobin.com/users/Chief/

 

Here's the chart for the L'eNhance

Attached Thumbnails

  • transmission-graph.jpg

Edited by ghostboo, 18 July 2019 - 03:24 PM.

  • wcoastsands likes this

#4 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16380
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 18 July 2019 - 03:39 PM

Hi folks!

 

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but might be a good place to start since I'm a beginner when it comes to imaging filters.

 

I've seen a lot of discussions about and reviews of light pollution filters, or filters you can use to cut down on or eliminate sky-glow caused by city lights and the moon. Two products that I've heard about most and am most interested in at the moment are the Optolong broadband L-Pro and duo-band L-eNhance luminance filters. One would think that the L-Pro is preferable when a broader range of color values is desired, but L-eNhance may yield better signal if L-Pro doesn't cut it.

 

So I'm wondering, in which situations would you opt for a duo-band filter like the L-eNhance filter, verses a broadband filter like the L-Pro filter?

 

I don't fully understand their intended use cases yet, and at $200+ ea., it's too expensive to just buy both and find out for myself. I image from my backyard under Bortle class 4 skies. The camera I currently use is a Fujifilm X-T100. My imaging scope is an Explore Scientific N208CF 8" Newtonian. I also use the Explore Scientific HR Coma Corrector, which has the option of threading on 2" filters.

 

attachicon.gif EasternCelestialEquater_anim_32_320x213.gif

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Nikko

The L Enhance is optimal for emission nebulae, the L Pro is better for everything else.  But light pollution filters work best on emission nebulae and metal vapor lights.  Other targets and light pollution are situations where they don't work as well.

 

Are you doing gradient reduction in processing?  It works to reduce the effects of light pollution on all targets and all LP sources (even the Moon, although imaging under moonlight is tough, the Moon is _bright_) equally well.  It works better than most people imagine, see the examples below.  There's no other processing except a simple stretch, which is necessary for you to see anything.

 

Pretty much all serious imagers use gradient reduction.  Some add a light pollution filter, some don't.  Some add one only on emission nebulae.  If you're imaging galaxies under LED lights a light pollution filter does little, and has side effects like lower signal and color distortion.

 

See this discussion, which includes some of the better imagers here.  I exclude myself.  <smile>

 

https://www.cloudyni...-the-answer-is/

 

ABE exampl before.jpg

 

ABE example after.jpg


Edited by bobzeq25, 18 July 2019 - 03:46 PM.

  • Ballyhoo and wcoastsands like this

#5 wcoastsands

wcoastsands

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2018
  • Loc: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

Posted 18 July 2019 - 06:53 PM

Thanks for the feedback everyone. This helps helps a lot.

I was thinking filter selection would be based on lighting conditions, but it makes sense to choose a filter based on subject matter instead.

I’ve tried my hand at gradient removal, but so far I’ve been doing it all manually through Photoshop. I should probably devote more time and attention to that, learn how to improve on my current ability. Would love to be able to remove moon and skyglow without degrading the image. Might just need more practice.

Thanks again!

#6 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16380
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 18 July 2019 - 07:30 PM

Thanks for the feedback everyone. This helps helps a lot.

I was thinking filter selection would be based on lighting conditions, but it makes sense to choose a filter based on subject matter instead.

I’ve tried my hand at gradient removal, but so far I’ve been doing it all manually through Photoshop. I should probably devote more time and attention to that, learn how to improve on my current ability. Would love to be able to remove moon and skyglow without degrading the image. Might just need more practice.

Thanks again!

For Photoshop what you need is the Gradient xTerminator addition.

 

http://www.rc-astro....entXTerminator/

 

It doesn't "remove" all lght pollution, dark skies are still better.  But it's an essential step in improving the situation.


  • wcoastsands 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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astrophotography, accessories, equipment, imaging



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics