78 replies to this topic

[RLK1]

Have you done much in the way of filters with Mars? I did try the Celestron Mars Filter and it did enhance the appearance of a polar cap but less so with surface features. Oddly enough, I've got an old 0111 filter that leaks red light like a sieve and it does enhance the appearance of certain features on the planet. Newer 0111s won't do so, however.

[Starman1]

Thanks for the feedback.
Have you done much in the way of filters with Mars? I did try the Celestron Mars Filter and it did enhance the appearance of a polar cap but less so with surface features. Oddly enough, I've got an old 0111 filter that leaks red light like a sieve and it does enhance the appearance of certain features on the planet. Newer 0111s won't do so, however.

For a superb Mars filter, try a Baader Contrast Booster. I've used tons of "Mars" filters over the years but this one really works. And at high magnifications, too.

[macdonjh]

For a superb Mars filter, try a Baader Contrast Booster. I've used tons of "Mars" filters over the years but this one really works. And at high magnifications, too.

I haven't tried that one, but I think the Orion Mars filter does what Orion claims it will do.  I don't generally use filters when viewing planets (I prefer the natural colors even more than perhaps seeing more detail), but I do like the Orion filter.  It helps sometimes with Jupiter, too.

[Daniel Mounsey]

For a superb Mars filter, try a Baader Contrast Booster. I've used tons of "Mars" filters over the years but this one really works. And at high magnifications, too.

This is very true!

[Shorty Barlow]

For a superb Mars filter, try a Baader Contrast Booster. I've used tons of "Mars" filters over the years but this one really works. And at high magnifications, too.

The Contrast Booster is good. I've found that all of the filters in this picture are good for certain aspects of Mars observation.

 

 

I tried the Contrast Booster after you recommended it, although my favourites during the last Mars opposition were probably the TV Bandmate and the Baader Orange. 

[Daniel Mounsey]

The Contrast Booster on Mars is amazing.

[Astrojensen]

The Contrast Booster on Mars is amazing.

Sounds like I need to try one, then. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

[RLK1]

For a superb Mars filter, try a Baader Contrast Booster. I've used tons of "Mars" filters over the years but this one really works. And at high magnifications, too.

I do have one but I don't think I've tried it on Mars before so thanks for the tip.

[Shorty Barlow]

Sounds like I need to try one, then. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

I honestly thought the Baader Orange 570nm long pass filter was better, but that's just me lol.

[Starman1]

Mars is one of those planets where multiple filters can help with certain details:

--#25 red  dark markings

--#23A red-orange  dark markings with a brighter image

--#21 orange  dark markings and sandstorms

--#15 dark yellow  light markings and sandstorms

--#12 yellow  light markings

--#82A light blue  ice cap, clouds (especially on limb)  bright image

--#80A medium blue  ice cap, clouds, slightly darker image

--#38A dark blue  ice caps, clouds, darker image

--#30 magenta  ice caps, clouds, dark markings at the same time.

--Baader Contrast Booster--everything except the "violet clearing" for highest-resolution ground details.

--Orion Mars filter--similar to a #30 magenta, only with a higher transmission and more internal reflections

--TeleVue planetary filter--almost identical to many broadband nebula filters (possible avenue for experimentation)

--Baader Moon & SkyGlow filter--slight sharpening of details, but fairly color-neutral.  Works better on Jupiter.

 

However, if I were to use just one, it would be the Contrast Booster.  It seems to enhance virtually everything, and the warmer tone seems more like a Mars photo.

Edited by Starman1, 06 May 2020 - 11:02 AM.

[turtle86]

This is very true!

 

If Don and Dr. D both say it’s good, that’s all I need to know!

[Shorty Barlow]

 

--TeleVue planetary filter--almost identical to many broadband nebula filters (possible avenue for experimentation)

 

Not to get too off topic, but ...

 

 

You mean like this one? I thought it was a development of the 'Mars A' and 'Mars B' filters. It does have a magenta hue. If I had a minimalist Mars filter list, this would be on it, probably with the Contrast Booster and Baader Orange.

[Starman1]

Yes, it is the Mars B filter, simply re-named.

This thread shows its response graph.

https://www.cloudyni...netary-filters/

See post #6 for clarity.

The Contrast Booster is in post #28.

The TeleVue Planetary filter is shown in post #34, compared to the Orion SkyGlow broadband.

It has not been made for several years.

Edited by Starman1, 06 May 2020 - 01:20 PM.

[Shorty Barlow]

Yes, it is the Mars B filter, simply re-named.

This thread shows its response graph.

https://www.cloudyni...netary-filters/

See post #6 for clarity.

The Contrast Booster is in post #28.

The TeleVue Planetary filter is shown in post #34, compared to the Orion SkyGlow broadband.

It has not been made for several years.

Thanks Don, that link is interesting. I'm sure I've got an Orion SkyGlow somewhere.

[Thomas_M44]

If Don and Dr. D both say it’s good, that’s all I need to know

Dang it, I simply couldn't restrain myself...

 

Just ordered two new 2" filters: 

 

-Baader Contrast Booster

 

-Baader Orange 570nm Longpasss

 

In addition to Mars, I'm hopeful these filters might assist with lunar and solar (will be used in conjunction with a full-aperture Baader-film white solar filter on my TV-85) viewing.

 

I plan to be doing more solar/sunspot and daytime Lunar viewing over the next few months.

 

Unfortunately, our present location here in Modesto has BAD mosquito issues beginning at dusk this time of year, and so night-time observing beyond a 1-2 minutes of sweeping with the 7X50 Fujinon binos is insufferable.

 

As soon as this Covid crisis abates, we plan to pack the wagon and roll off to Tucson.  We are determined to be viewing the next Mars opposition from dark desert skies  ; )

[junomike]

The Contrast Booster on Mars is amazing.

Anyone know the transmission (drop) on this?

[RLK1]

Anyone know the transmission (drop) on this?

The transmission characteristics of the baader contrast booster can be found here:

https://searchlight....9d-153d7e7c0eb8

[j.gardavsky]

You get the transmission characteristics of the contrast booster filter on the Baader page,

https://www.baader-p...ter-filter.html

This is the primary document of the manufacturer, not needed to look at the secondary sources.

 

JG

[Starman1]

Comparing the graph in this thread with Baader's spectrum will reveal if there are any production variations.

[j.gardavsky]

Comparing the graph in this thread with Baader's spectrum will reveal if there are any production variations.

The production variations on the filters (and not only Baader) have been investigated and documented with the precission high resolution spectrophotometers, and on the filters from the known or at least guessed production batches.

 

JG

[Starman1]

The production variations on the filters (and not only Baader) have been investigated and documented with the precission high resolution spectrophotometers, and on the filters from the known or at least guessed production batches.

 

JG

Yeah, that's pretty much what the CN guy Oggie Golub (LunarFox) uses.

It's always important to get an outside verification of the manufacturer's claims.

For a variety of reasons, I don't really trust the manufacturers to be honest.

Doveryai no proveryai--Trust, but verify.

[BillP]

Doveryai no proveryai--Trust, but verify.

I love that phrase and how popular it became politically.  It basically means don't trust pretending like you do

Edited by BillP, 08 May 2020 - 10:55 AM.

[MrJones]

To be clear Baader sells 3 versions of their Neodymium filter.

 

1) The original Neodymium is currently the Baader Neodymium Moon & Skyglow Filter with IR Cut (700nm) that also has a 400nm UV cut.

 

2) The Baader Contrast Booster that is the Neodymium filter with 450nm UV cut and no IR cut. Note that Baader says it's, "Based on the popular Baader Moon&Skyglow filter".

 

3) The Baader Semi Apo that is also the Neodymium filter with both the 450nm cut and 700nm IR cut. Again Baader acknowledges that it, "Includes color enhancement properties of Baader Moon & Skyglow filter".

 

Then there are the China clones that somewhat vary in quality but the Sybony is pretty good. These are the same Neodymium filters with no UV or IR cuts. The Svbony at least has some AR coatings but unknown if they are multicoated on all sides as per the Baaders.

 

So $13.99 for the 1.25" Svbony vs. $92-$94 for the Baaders, hmm.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by MrJones, 08 May 2020 - 11:29 AM.

[RLK1]

Yeah, that's pretty much what the CN guy Oggie Golub (LunarFox) uses.

It's always important to get an outside verification of the manufacturer's claims.

For a variety of reasons, I don't really trust the manufacturers to be honest.

Doveryai no proveryai--Trust, but verify.

" For a variety of reasons, I don't really trust the manufacturers to be honest". "Trust but verify"

I think it's important to check manufacturer claims with an independent source because, as can be seen in the tool in this thread, several of the same types/brands tested have different transmission characteristics. While some some of the differences can be attributed to variations that may be expected in a mass-produced filter, other causes may be due to production changes throughout the years with either different manufacturers producing the same filter or, more hopefully, improvements in optimizing the transmission characteristics of the filters themselves. What you generally don't see, however, is a disclaimer from the manufacturer noting any of the aforementioned explanations for potential performance differences in their claims.

[Starman1]

" For a variety of reasons, I don't really trust the manufacturers to be honest". "Trust but verify"

I think it's important to check manufacturer claims with an independent source because, as can be seen in the tool in this thread, several of the same types/brands tested have different transmission characteristics. While some some of the differences can be attributed to variations that may be expected in a mass-produced filter, other causes may be due to production changes throughout the years with either different manufacturers producing the same filter or, more hopefully, improvements in optimizing the transmission characteristics of the filters themselves. What you generally don't see, however, is a disclaimer from the manufacturer noting any of the aforementioned explanations for potential performance differences in their claims.

I've had occasion to test multiples of the same filter brand/model and found several that didn't meet the requirements.

To my point of view, if even one filter in a batch doesn't meet the minimum requirements, that is a problem if not every filter is tested

and has its own test results accompanying the filter.

If all the filters in a batch meet the minimum requirements, then individual test data is unimportant.

Right now, that is a serious problem with currently-produced filters at all price ranges.