30 replies to this topic

[thisismyusername]

I found the Baader UHC-L (the successor of the UHC-S). If anyone has this filter, I would like to know their experience on viewing emission and planetary nebulae.

 

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

 

Or of course, if you know of better alternatives, mention them.

[Hesiod]

Astronomik's UHC is pretty good.
May check the theoretical transmission curves against the Baader's (I'd prefer the one with the narrowest bands).

[Battlestamps]

Lumicon UHC Gen III is a good one, but pricey.

 

The Orion Ultrablock works well and much easier on the wallet.

[Dave Mitsky]

The DGM Optics NPB (Narrow Pass Band) nebula filter is another good narrowband filter but is out of stock.

 

http://www.npbfilters.com/home.html

 

https://www.cloudyni...la-filter-r1529

 

https://urbanastrono...la-filters.html

[MTibb]

I own three UHC filters - Astronomik, Orion Ultrablock, and Astromania. I did visual comparisons a few times over the past fall and winter (under suburban skies, using a 10" Meade SCT). The Astronomik wins out overall, though on certain objects (such as M27) the view using the Ultrablock is very similar to that of the Astronomik. The Astromania... works, but as it's not a narrowband, the view is not comparable to those using the Astronomik or Ultrablock.

[sixela]

I found the Baader UHC-L (the successor of the UHC-S). If anyone has this filter, I would like to know their experience on viewing emission and planetary nebulae.

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

Or of course, if you know of better alternatives, mention them.

Not a real narrowband filter; it’s more akin to a Lumicon Deepsky.

[RichA]

I found the Baader UHC-L (the successor of the UHC-S). If anyone has this filter, I would like to know their experience on viewing emission and planetary nebulae.

 

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

 

Or of course, if you know of better alternatives, mention them.

The old certified premium Lumicon UHC and OXYIII

[thisismyusername]

I'll do some research on the Astronomik and the Lumicon. both it seems are very good ones. I'll choose between those two.

[russell23]

I'll do some research on the Astronomik and the Lumicon. both it seems are very good ones. I'll choose between those two.

I think you'll find either are just fine.  I have the Televue Bandmate II - which I think was manufactured by Astronomik.  And I also have the Lumicon UHC Gen 3 - which is the same as the Farpoint UHC.  Both of these are narrowband filters of high optical quality.

[bikerdib]

In the past I used Baader UHC and OIII but then a couple of years ago I decided to try a Lumicon OIII.  I immediately sold both the Baader filters and added the Lumicon UHC.  If something ever happens to either of the Lumicon, It will be replaced with another Lumicon unless something better comes out in the interum.

[PJBilotta]

I have tried most, and I prefer the Lumicons - UHC and OIII, both the current Gen 3 and older "Premium" ones. The Orion, DGM and Baader's were all also excellent, but there is just something special about the Lumicons. For me, they just reveal greater and more finely detailed nebulousity on most targets.

That said, the current prices for them are ridiculous. I have purchased mine used at more affordable prices. Otherwise, I would be using the Orion versions as outstanding "best buys".

[Thurs]

+1 for the Lumicon Gen. 3

 

After reading this article I bought the UHC. Later added the OIII. Haven‘t thought of other nebula filters since.

[aeajr]

Filter review – From 2005 so may be out of date but reading how the eval was
done may be useful.  How various filters work on various nebula
http://www.astronomy...ula_filters.pdf

[Starman1]

The Baader UHC-L is aimed primarily at imagers, though should work fine for visual use.

Here's the thing: it has a narrower bandwidth than the UHC-S (which is a broadband filter), so is less appropriate for blue emission (as in reflection nebulae).

The UHC-S is going to be better for that.  The UHC-L is neither a narrowband not a broadband filter (fits into the medium band category).

It will outperform the UHC-S on emission nebulae, but true narrowband filters will outperform the UHC-L.

 

Baader doesn't make what I would refer to as a narrowband filter (22-26nm bandwidth in the blue green, but covering the H-ß and O-III lines in the spectrum).

The really good ones are:

Astronomik UHC visual.  This has a narrow blue-green bandwidth and an extensive red.  Current ones, with the narrower bandwidth, are from 2017 on.  Stars appear blue-green with some red, intermittently.  It is available.

TeleVue BandMate II Nebustar.  This has a narrow blue green bandwidth and no red transmission.  Current ones started in 2018.  Stars appear blue green.  It is available.

Lumicon Gen.3 UHC.  This is like the Nebustar.  Unfortunately, it is out of production.  It has varied through the years.  Current ones started in 2018.  Stars appear blue-green.

DGM NPB.  This is the narrowest blue-green bandwidth of the narrowband filters and has a fair amount of red transmission.  Stars appear red, but the contrast is superb.  It is now available.

Orion Ultrablock.  This is a narrow filter with no red.  Stars appear blue green.  QC varies, but it is the lowest price of the good narrowbands.  It is available.

There are some others, but they are more expensive, and not widely distributed as a result.

 

Personally, I have used 23 different narrowband filters.  I kept the DGM, TeleVue, and Lumicon.  They yielded slightly different images of nebulae.  I may get rid of either the Lumicon or TeleVue because they are very very close.

The DGM is very different and gives the best view of *some* H-II emission nebulae.  [some people cannot tolerate the red stars, but you use a nebula filter to see nebulae, right?]

Edited by Starman1, 02 April 2023 - 02:51 PM.

[Starman1]

Filter review – From 2005 so may be out of date but reading how the eval was
done may be useful.  How various filters work on various nebula
http://www.astronomy...ula_filters.pdf

Very out of date.

Current filters from Astronomik, Baader, Lumicon, and TeleVue are very different.

Meade filters are discontinued.

 

This is a bit more "generic" and still applicable today:

filter discussion about types and how they work:

https://www.prairiea...ep-sky-objects/

filter comparisons on sky objects:

https://www.prairiea...common-nebulae/

Filter lab tests with superimposable graphs (all fairly recent):

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

Edited by Starman1, 02 April 2023 - 02:51 PM.

[ButterFly]

Lumicon Gen.3 UHC.  ... Unfortunately, it is out of production.

Is this a temporary thing because of the move, or more permanent?

[Starman1]

Is this a temporary thing because of the move, or more permanent?

Only one person on Earth knows that, and he hasn't let any of his employees know.

So it could be permanent or temporary.  I'm a dealer and I have no clue.

[Rick-T137]

The Baader UHC-L is aimed primarily at imagers, though should work fine for visual use.

Here's the thing: it has a narrower bandwidth than the UHC-S (which is a broadband filter), so is less appropriate for blue emission (as in reflection nebulae).

The UHC-S is going to be better for that.  The UHC-L is neither a narrowband not a broadband filter (fits into the medium band category).

It will outperform the UHC-S on emission nebulae, but true narrowband filters will outperform the UHC-L.

 

Baader doesn't make what I would refer to as a narrowband filter (22-26nm bandwidth in the blue green, but covering the H-ß and O-III lines in the spectrum).

The really good ones are:

Astronomik UHC visual.  This has a narrow blue-green bandwidth and an extensive red.  Current ones, with the narrower bandwidth, are from 2017 on.  Stars appear blue-green with some red, intermittently.  It is available.

TeleVue BandMate II Nebustar.  This has a narrow blue green bandwidth and no red transmission.  Current ones started in 2018.  Stars appear blue green.  It is available.

Lumicon Gen.3 UHC.  This is like the Nebustar.  Unfortunately, it is out of production.  It has varied through the years.  Current ones started in 2018.  Stars appear blue-green.

DGM NPB.  This is the narrowest blue-green bandwidth of the narrowband filters and has a fair amount of red transmission.  Stars appear red, but the contrast is superb.  It is now available.

Orion Ultrablock.  This is a narrow filter with no red.  Stars appear blue green.  QC varies, but it is the lowest price of the good narrowbands.  It is available.

There are some others, but they are more expensive, and not widely distributed as a result.

 

Personally, I have used 23 different narrowband filters.  I kept the DGM, TeleVue, and Lumicon.  They yielded slightly different images of nebulae.  I may get rid of either the Lumicon or TeleVue because they are very very close.

The DGM is very different and gives the best view of *some* H-II emission nebulae.  [some people cannot tolerate the red stars, but you use a nebula filter to see nebulae, right?]

Hey Don! I just want to thank you for all the fantastic information you contribute to the astro community on a regular basis. You are DA BOMB! Thank you, sir!

 

Rick

[thisismyusername]

I heard that the DGM gives more natural-looking colors in the stars, is this true?

[Starman1]

I heard that the DGM gives more natural-looking colors in the stars, is this true?

The opposite.  Its bandwidth in the red is so much wider than its narrow bandwidth in the blue-green that it makes all the stars appear red.

The purpose of a nebula filter is to enhance the visibility of the nebula, not the stars, and it does that quite well.

Not everyone likes the red tinted stars, but I think you can forget about it when you see 3x as much nebula.

The narrowband filters with no red transmission make the stars appear blue-green, which is equally discolored, but for some reason no one finds that objectionable.

[aeajr]

 

Filter review – From 2005 so may be out of date but reading how the eval was
done may be useful.  How various filters work on various nebula
http://www.astronomy...ula_filters.pdf

 

 

Very out of date.

Current filters from Astronomik, Baader, Lumicon, and TeleVue are very different.

Meade filters are discontinued.

 

This is a bit more "generic" and still applicable today:

filter discussion about types and how they work:

https://www.prairiea...ep-sky-objects/

filter comparisons on sky objects:

https://www.prairiea...common-nebulae/

Filter lab tests with superimposable graphs (all fairly recent):

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

I figured from 2005 it would be out of date in terms of the individual filters, however, what I like about the article is how it shows that different nebule benefit from different filters and/or different types of filters.  Some do well with broadband, some are best with narrow band and some are best with line filters.  

 

My conclusion is that, if you are only going to have one, the narrow band are the most effective on the broadest range of nebula.

 

I have the DGM NPB and like it very much. They are still available as seconds

http://www.npbfilters.com/

 

I also have the Thousand Oaks OIII.

 

This allows me to compare on individual nebule.  

 

I also have the Orion Skyglow, a broadband, but have not found it particularly effective in my very light polluted area.   I also have two generic LP filters which seem to be fairly useless in my white LED environment.

 

 

I do have a question about terminology.  UHC 

 

The OP asked about the best UHC filter(s). I don't know about the history of this term, UHC as I am only in this hobby 8 years.  As far as I can tell, UHC is a term that was created by Lumicon, though I could be wrong about that.   

 

UHC seems to refer to Lumicon's narrow band filters.  However, other brands seem to have picked up this term, with some calling them light pollution filters.   I had thought that all UHC filters are narrowband vs. broadband?

 

I purchased an Optolong UHC in 2" so I could use it with all of my eyepieces.  However, this appears to be a broadband.    Hopefully it will provide some benefit on galaxies.  With galaxy season upon us I hope to have a chance to test this theory against the Orion skyglow, another broadband.

 

I sometimes get tripped up by the terms which seem to be marketing terms rather than a very standardized definition.

Edited by aeajr, 03 April 2023 - 01:04 PM.

[Starman1]

DGM NPB filters are available new, now.

 

Yes, UHC (UltraHighContrast) was a term created by Lumicon in the late '70s.

The term was popular, so picked up by makers to refer to other filters:

UHC-E by Astronomik.  E is for economy.  This is a medium band filter (49nm), not quite as wide as most broadbands.  Better, perhaps, than no filter, but not much.

UHC-S by Baader.  This is a broadband filter (62nm) and functions as one.

UHC/LPR by Celestron.  Another broadband filter masquerading as a "UHC" filter.

Other companies using the term UHC to describe medium or broadband filters: Castell, ICS, Omegon, Zhumell, Arcturus, Astrotech, Explore Scientific, KSON, Optolong, Svbony, Solomark, Antares, Astromania, 365 Astronomy, Ostara, Future Optics.

Your Optolong UHC is a medium band filter at 45-50nm bandwidth (varies).

The Orion Sky Glow, a true broadband, will likely reduce the brightness of galaxies less.

 

Why that is is that bandwidth is controlled by adding "cavities" to filters.  A "cavity" is a group of coatings that act together to reduce transmission at undesirable wavelengths.  The more cavities added, the narrower the bandwidth, but the more expensive the filter is.

So the wider filters are, not too surprisingly, less expensive.  They also have more OOB (out of bandwidth) transmission.

[aeajr]

Thanks Don.  Really appreciate your help.   

 

I see these UHC posts and investigation showed, what you indicated, that UHC doesn't really mean anything in particular.  it is all marketing fluff.  You have to read the fine print.  

[Starman1]

Thanks Don.  Really appreciate your help.   

 

I see these UHC posts and investigation showed, what you indicated, that UHC doesn't really mean anything in particular.  it is all marketing fluff.  You have to read the fine print.  

To wit: it might be better to called the true UHC filters "Narrowband filters" now, to avoid confusion.

After all, narrowbands go by many names, not just UHC.

They're NPB, Nebustar, UltraBlock, UHC, LP-2, etc.

And the filters from 30-50nm width should probably be called "Medium Band Filters", since they aren't as wide as the broadband/LPR/CLS filters (60-99nm), nor as narrow as the true narrowbands (22-29nm).

A lot of confusion in filters.

[bikerdib]

The opposite.  Its bandwidth in the red is so much wider than its narrow bandwidth in the blue-green that it makes all the stars appear red.

The purpose of a nebula filter is to enhance the visibility of the nebula, not the stars, and it does that quite well.

Not everyone likes the red tinted stars, but I think you can forget about it when you see 3x as much nebula.

The narrowband filters with no red transmission make the stars appear blue-green, which is equally discolored, but for some reason no one finds that objectionable.

That was the main reason I sold the DGM I had.  I hated the red stars!