H-beta or 0-lll filter

From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?

"Jon" wrote in message
...
From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula
and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with
Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?

Jon,

I am not sure what you mean by a "lowband" filter. Orion has broad band and
narrow band filters, at least according to the catalog I have here. I have
never found the broad band filters very useful. The H-beta is not a good
choice. It is only effective on a few objects. The O-III is definitely a
much better choice. The two most popular filters are probably the O-III and
the UHC. My wife, who does a lot of deep sky observing, considers the O-III
the better choice. She says she sees little advantage to the UHC on most
objects, but finds the O-III works better on quite a few objects. She owns
and uses both. (I am sure some deep sky observers will hold the opposite
opinion g).

Clear skies, Alan

"Jon" wrote in message
...
From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula
and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with
Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?


Jon,

Don't waste your money or your time. If you live in a light polluted
invironment, there is no filter that will really help. This is not to say
that neb filters don't work, they do, but they work best from darker skies.

I suggest that you take a few trips to a dark sky location, and when you get
there, try an O-lll or an Orion UltraBlock...and don't waste your money on
an Orion SkyGlow, as they're worthless.

Al

My wife, who does a lot of deep sky observing, considers the O-III
the better choice. She says she sees little advantage to the UHC on most
objects, but finds the O-III works better on quite a few objects.

I suppose I'd agree, although I use the UHC more. Maybe just habit. The
practical difference between UHC and O-III is not great in my experience. The
Lumicon Deep-Sky filter, OTOH, is not worth the expenditure. There's no
replacement for a dark sky.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27'59"N, 117° 05' 53"W

"Al" wrote in message ...
"Jon" wrote in message
...
From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula
and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with
Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?


The H-Beta filter is a somewhat limited unit which will help to some
degree on certain nebulae (I have seen it work to at least some degree
on as many as 15 objects with my ten inch Newtonian). However, the
OIII filter will work on a much larger number (planetary nebulae in
particular), so it will be the better of the two. You also may want
to get a narrow-band filter like the Lumicon UHC or Orion Ultrablock,
as there are a number of objects which the OIII tends to reduce in
brightness or just about kill off altogether. However, in severely
light-polluted environments, these filters may not be able to
effectively handle that level of skyglow, so you still want to find as
dark a site as you can easily get to. At a dark sky site, these
filters really improve the view. If you want to know which filters
work with which objects, check out the articles on filters on the
Cloudynights web page: http://www.cloudynights.com Clear skies to you

"Alan French"

Alan, do you know of anyone who has tried the Andover Three Channel Filters
currently offered on the Scopestuff page?

Thanks. Reid Williams

Jon,

You didn`t mention what aperture your scope is but if it is a smaller scope,
less than 6", a UHC type filter may be a better candidate, or even a
"midband" such as my "VHT" filter.
http://users.erols.com/dgmoptics/LPRfilters.htm The bandwidth is between a
UHC and Broadband filter.

Dan McShane

"Jon" wrote in message
...
From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula
and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with
Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?

"Reid Williams" wrote in message
...

"Alan French"

Alan, do you know of anyone who has tried the Andover Three Channel
Filters
currently offered on the Scopestuff page?

Thanks. Reid Williams

Reid,

Sorry, no, I do not. I'm having a hard time keeping up with all the stuff
that is available, never mind how well the stuff works g. This hobby used
to be a lot simpler.

Clear skies, Alan

The OIII filter is probably the better choice. The bigger the scope the
better it will work. Nothing will help you see galaxies better. There's no
substitute for dark skies.

my 2¢

--

Don Baker
Go 18, 5 & 14....(also 8, 40, & 30)
www.geocities.com/thebugbomber


"Jon" wrote in message
...
From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula
and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with
Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?

The O-III filter is , IMHO, the most 'spectacular' filter available. It
doesn't 'do' everything, but what it does work on (many things,
especially planetary nebulae, the "Veil" , etc.) it displays
impressively. It is the filter of choice for MANY objects.

The H-Beta filter is FAR more specialized. It is the best for the
Horsehead, and a few other things, but is nowhere near as generally useful.

Probably the filter that has the most pleasing effect on the most things
is the UHC, but it just won't quite match the O-III on many objects.

Dan Mitchell
==========

Jon wrote:

From a light polluted environment, I'm hoping to improve views of nebula and
galaxies with an effective filter. There is some sky darkening with Orion's
SkyGlow lowband filter, but it also dims the target a bit. Will a
hydrogen-beta or oxygen filter improve contrast and resolution enough to
justify spending the bucks? Which is the better filter?