Extremely interesting Luke, well done! So it seems to be a filter that is truly meant for Bortle 8-9, with the drawbacks you mentioned... A bit disappointing, makes me want to test some more :)
Thank you so much for watching Cuiv! :-) I definitely agree that in more severe light pollution the drawbacks might be worth it, or perhaps usage in fields of observation where perfect colour/image quality is less important such as EAA, - EAA observations from the city could be very fruitful with this filter! I'd love to see more tests if you got the chance for sure! I can't imagine how challenging b9 skies are I appreciate you watching my friend! :-) Clear skies!
Thanks for testing the GNB, Luke. Interesting to see this filter in action since it was introduced by IDAS, who are known for their quality. At least for my setup the IDAS D3 does the trick on everything. Galaxies, nebula and planets all while blocking newer LED streetlights. Best all-around filter in my opinion.
Thank you buddy!! The LPS D3 looks like a great filter for sure, it's sure working well for you! :-D I may have to pick one up someday! Thank you for watching and giving your support my friend
Handy for On Axis Guider users who want something to put scope side the ONAG, like on the front of a reducer. Letting through a strong IR signal will help the IR signal split off downstream for guiding. I'm going to try it for that. The signal to the imaging camera will be pure Ha Oiii with no IR. NB2 was OK but a stronger IR signal is perfect. I'm tight on backfocus with the ONAG in place so this positioning of a filter really helps.
Thank you Luke. I don’t know if I’m like others, but I tend to be rather impulsive with purchasing “the new best…..” After watching your video I’ve realized that my “L” UV/IR filter isn’t an impediment, in fact, it’s probably just fine 😊. Your “comparison” videos are truly invaluable (plus you’ve just saved me some money).
Hey mate! The GNB is not a good filter for the 2600 duo unfortunately, the 2600 has a built in ir cut window, and it's got weak response in IR anyway even if the window wasn't already blocking it!
I was surprised to see the IDAS suffering with halos hopefully that issue will get resolved, I've got the standard nebula boost filter which works well on all my scopes including the RASA.
It was a bit of a surprise to me too mate, the other IDAS filters I have are devoid of halos! Really odd, but an interesting filter none the less! :-) Clear skies buddy!
Nice comparison, but i wonder if the results would have been different with a reflector in regard to the tighter stars. Are apos normally calculated for such a broad wavelenght range and especially from visible to infrared?
Thanks mate! - A reflector with a good apochromatic coma corrector would have been a nicer test, but my Esprit was only showing 20 focuser steps difference for critical focus between the L filter and the GNB, so they were pretty close to par-focal anyway I guess! 🙂
Always great detail in your videos, Luke...I just signed up as a new patron. Filter question here, please: I have 60mm and 80mm APOs on an AM5 mount using an ASI533MC Pro camera, and I'm using a Svbony SV220 dual band filter in Bortle 8/9 city skies. Is there ONE better filter that you can recommend for general DSOs (nebulae and galaxies) that also avoids star bloating? I know there is no perfect filter that covers everything, but Svbony has a new SV240 that claims to do just that. However, there are those that say it lacks surface coatings that reduce star bloating. Altair is touting their new TRI RGB filter as the "end all" filter for EVERYTHING on color or mono, b1 through b9! I'm not sure what to believe.... Your learned thoughts please. Thanks in advance, Michael
Hey there Michael! - I'd say the Altair TRI-RGB is probably a safe enough bet in your situation/skies, but under b9 conditions everything will always have an extra level of challenge unfortunately, no matter the approach. I've always liked using just a uv/ir cut filter for broadband work from B7 here, but it sounds like your skies are much worse! Hope that helps mate, All the best Luke
Hey Luke, it’s nice to see a really fair and honest review mate! I’m with you, the ‘L’ wins I think on all accounts! Clearly it did a good job on gradients, however, with Pix background extraction, who needs it! And as you say, at that price point! Bet they wish they never asked you to review it now🤣 Great job mate, you stayed true and did a great test👍 Clear skies
Hey Simon! Hope you're well mate :-) It was a bit of a disappointment for sure, I really like the other IDAS stuff I own so this came as a bit of a shock haha! As you say mate, the uv/ir cut filter does the job nicely, if I had to pick one filter to use forevermore - it'd probably be a UV/IR cut! Thanks for watching :-)
Thanks Luke, great comparison I was thinking of getting the IDAS after seeing Cuiv’s video. Quick question would spectral calibration resolve the issue with lack of colour in the stars ? And am I correct if I assume BlurX would take care of the halos ?
Hey Tom! - I did use SPCC on all of these comparisons, so that's a negative on that question my friend! RE: BXT sorting the halos, if they were smaller - perhaps? These are pretty big though, not really correctable is my gut feeling. Thanks for watching mate!
Nice review. Ive been thinking about this filter but not so sure. The gradient removal would be big help though. I get so much of that with my severely light polluted skies.
Hi Luke! A IR Pass type filter is best used when the seeing is bad otherwise it will bloat everything. Looks like your seeing was ok so may have not been a fair comparison and I would suggest trying both then the seeing is bad. Also this GNB filter would possibly be better used as a luminance enhancer so maybe integrate the UVIR and the GNB together to see what happens 🙂 Also halos are unavoidable on IR unless you use a very narrow NIR band. Clear Skies!
Thanks Dave!! :-) It's an interesting idea mate, I feel that while you could indeed use the GNB as a "lum" to be combined with a uv/ir capture, i think the detail loss would be too pronounced on many targets, - it did a decent job on nebula, but galaxies just felt flat to me. Cheers for watching buddy! Hope you've been well :-)
Are you not just seeing the effect of dispersion of the telescope optics at play. You can "focus" at a given position, but the lens are not achromatic into the far infrared. If you could "focus" in the infrared, then the image is out of focus for blue. So the GNB is disadvantaged here. Imaging just in the infrared might be better for the GNB. The Baeder gets around this issue.
Great review mate. I thought the GNB did a great job on the Ha side of things and keeping the gradients at bay. Bit of a let down on the Galaxies though, and the stars. On the fence with it to be honest. Mayby some more tests needed. Enjoyed the video, very honest, thanks for sharing Luke.
Thank you Ben! - I think it'll be worth testing further someday, but right now I'm pretty put-off to be honest haha! I appreciate you watching matey, hope you had a great weekend! All the best Luke
Loved the comparison because it demos the difference IR cut makes when it comes to preserving stars. The IDAS dual band with IR pass is interesting but as someone that chose the L-eNhance over the L-eXtreme to avoid halos it's not for me. Team Baader L UV/IR for me on this one. Nice analyses and narration Luke, well done mate!
Thanks Chris!! :-D I'm glad you enjoyed the video mate, it was a real eye-opener for me to see the data side by side like that! Agreed on the UV/IR cut, It was the winner for me too mate :-) Thanks very much indeed for watching!
Thanks Chris! - It's an interesting enough filter, but I don't think it'd be a good match for the 533 sensor, they don't have the boosted IR response like the 462, 464 & 585 have unfortunately! I appreciate your support my friend :-) Clear skies!
I was literally about to purchase this. Glad I didn't. I have the ASI294MM Pro and the color variant. The extra wavelength exposures would have been wasted with my cameras.
You could certainly do that on some targets, as long as there aren't any bright stars in the field of view! - but the real issue with using GNB data as a lum channel is that you'll lose interesting details on many targets, such as the dust lane details in m51 and m63 as shown on the video - not worth the loss in my opinion! :-)
Amazing honesty regarding halos, I got sucked in by another channel bigging up the L-extreme about a year back, but they failed to mention the halos, so when I discovered this myself I was properly annoyed. Now rocking the IDAZ NBZ.
Good comparison. That being said, why would they label basically a NB filter with "Galaxy" This video pretty much proved what we already knew...galaxies are typically broadband target and nebula aren't 😂
Nice comparison. Seems like there are too many drawbacks to this filter what the with the halos (I hate halos) and the lack of detail in the galaxies and loss of colour in the stars.
Hey Logan! - Agreed really mate, perhaps it would be worth it from an even more light polluted location than mine, but in a B7 I don't think it's worth the drawbacks either. Thanks for watching mate! :-)
Thanks for watching Robert! - I agree there's probably situations where it'd be very useful, but pretty few and far between I reckon, hard to justify the cost at that! Clear skies mate! :-)
You just saved me $250 for a filter that wouldn’t work well with my ASI2600MC. Thanks once again.
Thanks so much for your support my friend!! Clear skies to you :-)
Thanks Luke for that comparison! Clear skies to you!
My pleasure buddy!! - Thanks for watching and clear skies to you too mate! :-D
Extremely interesting Luke, well done! So it seems to be a filter that is truly meant for Bortle 8-9, with the drawbacks you mentioned... A bit disappointing, makes me want to test some more :)
Thank you so much for watching Cuiv! :-) I definitely agree that in more severe light pollution the drawbacks might be worth it, or perhaps usage in fields of observation where perfect colour/image quality is less important such as EAA, - EAA observations from the city could be very fruitful with this filter!
I'd love to see more tests if you got the chance for sure! I can't imagine how challenging b9 skies are
I appreciate you watching my friend! :-) Clear skies!
Many thanks, as always, Luke.
My pleasure Peter! :-) Thanks for watching!
Excellent review and comparison. Looking forward to see what new kit you get to test.
Thank you my friend! :-) Hopefully more stuff to show soon!
Very nice and real review again. Thank you very much Luko san !!
I'm so glad you liked it my friend, thank you for your kind comment!! :-)
Clear skies!
Great comparison Luke, well done.
Looks like you almost hit the 10k subs, great job man and keep up the good work
Thank you Siegfried!! I appreciate your support all this time :-)
Oh dear, well I hope IDAS continue to send you filters to test after this 😳
Thank you for your honest review 👍
Thanks mate! - I hope so too haha, I have other IDAS filters and I've been really happy with them at least! :-D Clear skies!
Thanks for testing the GNB, Luke. Interesting to see this filter in action since it was introduced by IDAS, who are known for their quality. At least for my setup the IDAS D3 does the trick on everything. Galaxies, nebula and planets all while blocking newer LED streetlights. Best all-around filter in my opinion.
Thank you buddy!! The LPS D3 looks like a great filter for sure, it's sure working well for you! :-D I may have to pick one up someday!
Thank you for watching and giving your support my friend
Well done Luke!
Thank you so much Bill! :-D
Handy for On Axis Guider users who want something to put scope side the ONAG, like on the front of a reducer. Letting through a strong IR signal will help the IR signal split off downstream for guiding. I'm going to try it for that. The signal to the imaging camera will be pure Ha Oiii with no IR. NB2 was OK but a stronger IR signal is perfect. I'm tight on backfocus with the ONAG in place so this positioning of a filter really helps.
Good shout William!! I'm sure there's a usage case for it somewhere 👍
Thank you Luke. I don’t know if I’m like others, but I tend to be rather impulsive with purchasing “the new best…..” After watching your video I’ve realized that my “L” UV/IR filter isn’t an impediment, in fact, it’s probably just fine 😊. Your “comparison” videos are truly invaluable (plus you’ve just saved me some money).
I appreciate that a lot Joe, - Thank you mate! I definitely think there's a whole lot that can be done with the humble uv/ir cut filter for sure! :-)
Great post; interesting second opinion!
Glad you think so my friend!! Thanks for watching 👍
Hi, besides the baader L is there a filter that can be compared with this idas gnb for for photos of galaxies ?
Aside from standard light pollution filters, not really I'd say! Sorry I can't be more helpful mate
Thanks for watching!
hello luke , i bought zwo asi 2600 duo can i use the idas gnb with it on my 8 edge hd 2032 mm , 1422 m and Starizona Hyperstar 8 V4 390 mm ?
Hey mate! The GNB is not a good filter for the 2600 duo unfortunately, the 2600 has a built in ir cut window, and it's got weak response in IR anyway even if the window wasn't already blocking it!
I was surprised to see the IDAS suffering with halos hopefully that issue will get resolved, I've got the standard nebula boost filter which works well on all my scopes including the RASA.
It was a bit of a surprise to me too mate, the other IDAS filters I have are devoid of halos! Really odd, but an interesting filter none the less! :-) Clear skies buddy!
Nice comparison, but i wonder if the results would have been different with a reflector in regard to the tighter stars. Are apos normally calculated for such a broad wavelenght range and especially from visible to infrared?
Thanks mate! - A reflector with a good apochromatic coma corrector would have been a nicer test, but my Esprit was only showing 20 focuser steps difference for critical focus between the L filter and the GNB, so they were pretty close to par-focal anyway I guess! 🙂
Always great detail in your videos, Luke...I just signed up as a new patron. Filter question here, please: I have 60mm and 80mm APOs on an AM5 mount using an ASI533MC Pro camera, and I'm using a Svbony SV220 dual band filter in Bortle 8/9 city skies. Is there ONE better filter that you can recommend for general DSOs (nebulae and galaxies) that also avoids star bloating? I know there is no perfect filter that covers everything, but Svbony has a new SV240 that claims to do just that. However, there are those that say it lacks surface coatings that reduce star bloating. Altair is touting their new TRI RGB filter as the "end all" filter for EVERYTHING on color or mono, b1 through b9! I'm not sure what to believe.... Your learned thoughts please. Thanks in advance, Michael
Hey there Michael! - I'd say the Altair TRI-RGB is probably a safe enough bet in your situation/skies, but under b9 conditions everything will always have an extra level of challenge unfortunately, no matter the approach.
I've always liked using just a uv/ir cut filter for broadband work from B7 here, but it sounds like your skies are much worse!
Hope that helps mate,
All the best
Luke
Do they also work for visual observations ?
I'm afraid I couldn't say mate!! - haven't tried
Better off saving money and getting a normal dual band filter then, as your eye cannot see the IR wavelengths so it's a waste of money.
Hey Luke, it’s nice to see a really fair and honest review mate! I’m with you, the ‘L’ wins I think on all accounts! Clearly it did a good job on gradients, however, with Pix background extraction, who needs it! And as you say, at that price point! Bet they wish they never asked you to review it now🤣 Great job mate, you stayed true and did a great test👍 Clear skies
Hey Simon! Hope you're well mate :-)
It was a bit of a disappointment for sure, I really like the other IDAS stuff I own so this came as a bit of a shock haha!
As you say mate, the uv/ir cut filter does the job nicely, if I had to pick one filter to use forevermore - it'd probably be a UV/IR cut!
Thanks for watching :-)
so whats your conclusion? For galaxies standard L filter and for all the rest the GNB?
My conclusion would honestly be skip the GNB filter, I don't think it's good enough.
L filter all the way!
Thanks Luke, great comparison I was thinking of getting the IDAS after seeing Cuiv’s video. Quick question would spectral calibration resolve the issue with lack of colour in the stars ? And am I correct if I assume BlurX would take care of the halos ?
Hey Tom! - I did use SPCC on all of these comparisons, so that's a negative on that question my friend! RE: BXT sorting the halos, if they were smaller - perhaps? These are pretty big though, not really correctable is my gut feeling.
Thanks for watching mate!
Nice review. Ive been thinking about this filter but not so sure. The gradient removal would be big help though. I get so much of that with my severely light polluted skies.
Thanks for watching Thomas! - It's definitely good at suppressing gradients so depending on just how bad your skies are, it could be worth it!
Hi Luke! A IR Pass type filter is best used when the seeing is bad otherwise it will bloat everything. Looks like your seeing was ok so may have not been a fair comparison and I would suggest trying both then the seeing is bad. Also this GNB filter would possibly be better used as a luminance enhancer so maybe integrate the UVIR and the GNB together to see what happens 🙂 Also halos are unavoidable on IR unless you use a very narrow NIR band.
Clear Skies!
Thanks Dave!! :-) It's an interesting idea mate, I feel that while you could indeed use the GNB as a "lum" to be combined with a uv/ir capture, i think the detail loss would be too pronounced on many targets, - it did a decent job on nebula, but galaxies just felt flat to me.
Cheers for watching buddy! Hope you've been well :-)
Are you not just seeing the effect of dispersion of the telescope optics at play. You can "focus" at a given position, but the lens are not achromatic into the far infrared. If you could "focus" in the infrared, then the image is out of focus for blue. So the GNB is disadvantaged here. Imaging just in the infrared might be better for the GNB. The Baeder gets around this issue.
Great review mate.
I thought the GNB did a great job on the Ha side of things and keeping the gradients at bay. Bit of a let down on the Galaxies though, and the stars. On the fence with it to be honest. Mayby some more tests needed.
Enjoyed the video, very honest, thanks for sharing Luke.
Thank you Ben! - I think it'll be worth testing further someday, but right now I'm pretty put-off to be honest haha!
I appreciate you watching matey, hope you had a great weekend!
All the best
Luke
Loved the comparison because it demos the difference IR cut makes when it comes to preserving stars. The IDAS dual band with IR pass is interesting but as someone that chose the L-eNhance over the L-eXtreme to avoid halos it's not for me. Team Baader L UV/IR for me on this one. Nice analyses and narration Luke, well done mate!
Thanks Chris!! :-D I'm glad you enjoyed the video mate, it was a real eye-opener for me to see the data side by side like that!
Agreed on the UV/IR cut, It was the winner for me too mate :-) Thanks very much indeed for watching!
yer Ive been waiting on this since Cuiv looked at it as have a 585.. nice view and I think its worth comparing to the 533
Thanks Chris! - It's an interesting enough filter, but I don't think it'd be a good match for the 533 sensor, they don't have the boosted IR response like the 462, 464 & 585 have unfortunately!
I appreciate your support my friend :-) Clear skies!
Totally agree Luke. For me the standard L filter is the winner really don't like the bloated stars and halos
Thanks Tony! - I feel it might be more worthwhile in worse light pollution, then the tradeoffs might be worth it I guess? Cheers for watching mate!
I was literally about to purchase this. Glad I didn't. I have the ASI294MM Pro and the color variant. The extra wavelength exposures would have been wasted with my cameras.
Glad to have saved you some cash my friend! :-) Thanks for watching the video!
I think the GNB should mainly be used as kind of luminance data to mix with RGB data (check the video of Cuive the lazy geek).
This is my view as well.
You could certainly do that on some targets, as long as there aren't any bright stars in the field of view! - but the real issue with using GNB data as a lum channel is that you'll lose interesting details on many targets, such as the dust lane details in m51 and m63 as shown on the video - not worth the loss in my opinion! :-)
@@lukomatico Interesting observation Luke, thank you!
Amazing honesty regarding halos, I got sucked in by another channel bigging up the L-extreme about a year back, but they failed to mention the halos, so when I discovered this myself I was properly annoyed. Now rocking the IDAZ NBZ.
Thanks mate! The NBZ is fantastic isn't it - I use the "NBZ UHS" variant for my RASA and it never gives halos, very impressive filter :-)
Clear skies!
I agree the standard filter wins
Thanks for watching Nik! :-)
Good comparison. That being said, why would they label basically a NB filter with "Galaxy" This video pretty much proved what we already knew...galaxies are typically broadband target and nebula aren't 😂
It's an interesting idea for a filter definitely! - but, it's definitely not a magic bullet haha :-D Clear skies my friend!
Nice comparison. Seems like there are too many drawbacks to this filter what the with the halos (I hate halos) and the lack of detail in the galaxies and loss of colour in the stars.
Hey Logan! - Agreed really mate, perhaps it would be worth it from an even more light polluted location than mine, but in a B7 I don't think it's worth the drawbacks either.
Thanks for watching mate! :-)
Looks like it might be useful under some circumstances even if it isn’t an every night filter… Shame the halos are so prominent…
Thanks for watching Robert! - I agree there's probably situations where it'd be very useful, but pretty few and far between I reckon, hard to justify the cost at that!
Clear skies mate! :-)