This discussion centers on the strategies backyard astronomers use to select celestial targets for observation, particularly when faced with limitations such as obstructed views and light pollution. Participants emphasize the importance of planning using software like Starry Night and Stellarium, while also highlighting the value of manual skills like star hopping. The conversation reveals that many astronomers prefer to join local societies for shared resources and support, especially during challenging times like the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, the use of GoTo mounts is debated, with some preferring the hands-on experience of manual mounts.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for amateur astronomers, particularly those with manual mounts, individuals facing light pollution challenges, and anyone interested in enhancing their observational skills and knowledge of celestial navigation.
I’m not so sure that the reduction in luminosity is great enough with polarisers . Iirc, my ND is 12% and even that’s pretty bright.lomidrevo said:
Nick-stg said:
That was my understanding. Thank you for confirming. But what about the h-alpha, h-beta, O-III etc.. based on their descriptions these appear to do the same thing as the UHC filters. What's the difference?George Jones said:
Nick-stg said:
on the filter I got (Orion Variable Polarizing Filter), you can adjust the amount of light transmission from 1% to 40%. Very practical, as you can appreciate different transmission in case of full moon, and different one in case of observing Jupiter (I noticed that some very fine details can be enhaced by using the filter even with Jupiter).sophiecentaur said:
Narrow-band vs broad band. Those that specifically identify an emission line block everything except that emission line. UHC filters have a broad band of what they let in and/or a narrow band of what they block (sodium-sulphur lines from street lights, for example). It's all described in the product details:Nick-stg said:
I totally agree. I never bought those. Probably more expensive than an nd filter? I must admit that I was commenting on a straight photographic polarlomidrevo said:
The UHC filter idea is a compromise between cutting out what you don't want to see (visually) and letting as much in that you do want. The resulting image is not quite as bright, of course but if you exclude nearby light sources and get light adapted, you can see a lot and the contrast is improved, of course. Astrophotography uses narrow band filters, for instance H-alpha (which will show you virtually nothing visually) and you use long exposure times (tracking and possibly guiding needed). Separate exposures with each filter produce a set of images which can be mixed to taste.Nick-stg said:
Annoying innit? But think of the man-hours in quality checking and the cost of low volume sales. Then realize that 'enthusiasts' in any field are suckers. At least you can measure the results here - unlike with the snake oil that goes into most HiFi equipment.chemisttree said:
Don't get me started on that one...sophiecentaur said:
