@Cuiv, The Lazy Geek In Poland we have a man that measure the filters. L Extreme have big variety of good and bad samples. We have few pcs that is suitable for f2.
Thanks for that Grzegorz! This is really good to know, and sad at the same time... the equipment lottery is real.... It seems that I was lucky with my own L-eXtreme, surprisingly...
@@grzegorzfurgo7070 sorry I likely missed that completely, would love to see such data and do a video on equipment lottery. Could you reach out at cuivlazygeek at gmail?
I have various hobbies, and I have had various teachers who are all really capable. One of them said, when something is good for you, you are good. Others may not like it.
Great video Cuiv! As an engineer, I appreciate the simplicity of the "blind taste test". I really appreciate your honesty as you are processing those results.
Something I noticed about the reports of the poor Ha performance of the Optolong L-eXtreme at f/2, many of the people having problems were using the ASI294MC Pro (including AstroBlender). I have used the L-eXtreme with my C6 Hyperstar and ASI183MC Pro and I did not notice the Ha being particularly weak. No real data to back this up, and it may not make much sense, but the AS294MC Pro seemed to be the common element to many of those report.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek The ASI294MC Pro is probably just sample size bias. It is a really popular camera and you would expect a greater sample size to have more reported problems. But if you put on your tin foil hat... you never know. :-)
I have the 294mc pro and can tell you that the L extreme HA performance is great. Never had a problem with it from f/10 down to f/2 with the exception of the massive star halos/reflections at subs from 30 sec to 60 shooting at f/2.2 -2.0
A timely and informative video, with a surprise! I find the same result for my ultrafast camera lenses. Of course the rasa-like or fast system you are using has the central obstruction. Some makers assume that central part is lost especially if they are making a pre-shifted band pass as opposed to flat-top. In that case some fast filters that work for central obstruction systems put the central aperture of fast camera lenses off-band. Always a trade off! Yes, batch variation seems to plague some runs of filters. I think when one buys really expensive filters from chromotek or astrodon that you are paying for QC too! I don’t have those yet, as my systems don’t justify that. But I’m thinking of getting a Celestron and trying this hyperstar based on your excellent videos! Thanks Cuiv for all your great work! I have the NBZ as well. Still testing it! The previous iteration NBX I believe had issues with star halos.
Thanks for this useful feeback Geoffrey!! Yeah Astrodon / Chroma etc. you are really paying for excellent filters with proper quality control. Good luck on the Hyperstar if you do end up getting such a system!
Producing filters with very narrow band passes at a precise median wavelength is quite a challenge. Any small variabilty in such a narrow band passes will be most easily shown up with a fast f-ratio.
I know plenty of people that have complained about the L-Extreme on Fast optics F/1.9-F/3 even told them to go Idas instead. Some of them did an saved the L-Extreme for their slower optics. The reason why is the NBZ is pre-shifted for Fast optics the L-extreme is not pre-shifted for fast optics
They have the UHS (Ultra High Speed) version of the IDAS NBZ and it is much cheaper. I used this filter in the last new moon and it works fantastic with F/2.0. I had no idea the L Extreme has variations in manufacturing(quality control issues?). I only concluded that the L Extreme cannot do well in fast systems. Much appreciated for this video and is quite useful as it is mostly info going around only through forums and maybe new Astrophotographers will not be aware of specific filters working with fast optics.
I did this test with the L-eNhance but the other 2 were the same- I found the IDAS to be the best option on a RASA. Aside from the improved contrast on Ha data, it also had much improved star bloat and flare from bright stars.
Blind test. You are such a fricking scientist. I love it. Test the Astrodon filters if you get a chance. When I ordered mine they said they had them in stock but could not ship because they test every filter and the tester was out because of Covid. Is it true that they test every filter? Who knows but they are making the right noises. Given what they cost, they could afford to test every single filter. Every filter comes with a hand written QA sign off sheet and Astrodon has very good reputation because they make filters for the scientific community who have more stringent requirements than we do. Also each filter comes with a holographic seal to thwart counterfeiting. Are they really that good? Only Cuiv the Lazy Geek can verify!
Thanks Cuiv! This testing was everything I'd hoped it would be. I'm just as surprised at the results as you but I'm a bit more comfortable in getting a RASA now with comments below saying the IDAS works fine.
From my experience imaging at F/2 and using many kinds of filters including LP I have found that when imaging around brighter stars the reflecting light back through the system from narrowband filters causes halos around brighter stars compared to just using a UV/IR cut filter where you get less of a halo effect because your not rejecting light back through the system as much. This is why I just shoot colour with OSC under light pollution skies with a UV/IR and use a mono with dedicated F/2 filters and merge the two images to create HaRGB images with beautiful details.
That's really interesting. I've got the L-Extreme and the Idas NBZ for use on my RASA 8. I was extremely underwhelmed with the L-Extreme on my RASA, terrible HA performance. Works great on my slower optics though. The NBZ blows it out of the water, with fantastic transmission of the HA and OIII on the RASA. I bought the NBZ specifically because it stated they designed it to accommodate for faster optics, and I noticed a major difference.
I’m working with my great grandfathers 1950 Lafayette. It’s a 13.3 .. will a filter work on something so slow? I’m using a sv305 Astro cam.. I picked up a svbony light pollution filter. Have not had a chance to try it due to clouds.
Did a single sub test 1X300” comparison on Alnitak star and yes halo was suppressed compared to LeNHance. good ha and oiii transmission on West veil using the IDAS as well. So I’m set on the IDAS for HS f1.9. I would want to test it on dimmer targets with lots of O3 like Squid or any that requires 20+ hrs. This is a good blind comparison video 👍🏼
It would be interesting to test it in a Nebula like the California which is highly rich on only H alfa. I did get bad results, on f2 RASA, on the L extreme (on f5-f7 works great). And yes, this last iteration of the NBZ is almost immune to halos, which is Great. Thanks for the analysis. P.S. For my F2.8 systems I use the IDAS NBZ, and for my F4 I use the L enhance, with great results.
I saw other comments saying they saw from someone measuring the filters spectrum a lot of variability with the L-eXtreme, so that could simply be that...
The timing of this video is incredible! I literally just started looking at Dual-Band filters last week. I was already leaning toward the IDAS NBZ for my Redcat 51-ZWO 183MC setup because of reported star halos from the L-eXtreme. Maybe there was a bad batch but I don't want to take chances so the IDAS NBZ it is! I'll probably wait until next year to get one, seems kind of selfish of me to spend $300 on a piece of glass right before the holidays. :)
Hi Bill! Always glad to be of help! Be aware however that in terms of signal to noise ratio, on a RedCat the L-eXtreme (even a relatively poor sample) would likely completely trounce the IDAS simply because of its bandpasses - I personally don't care about star halos :)
Hi Cuiv, another very interesting video for sure. I just got my IDAS NBZ and I tried it on two targets. I was able to frame the entire Veil Nebula in a single frame. And IC434 the Horsehead Nebula. Both turned out well, but the Horsehead Nebula looks the best as I was able to get 362 usable thirty second sub-frames. Working with that many in Pixinsight takes some time. Stacking that many take a while to finish up. Before I was using my ZWO Dual Band filter as it has 15nm bandpass and it actually works pretty well. But it's not as good as blocking out the moon light. And the star Halo's are quite prevalent. My dew shield must have had an oval shape as all the halos had an oval shape as well. Weird! But I'm happy to say the IDAS NBZ has no halo's. I have two images of IC434, one with the ZWO Dual Band filter and the other with the IDAS NBA. And I definitely prefer the non-halo look. But that's just me. ;o)
I found out about this awhile back while using an Optolong LPro clip in a DSLR in with a Samyang 14mm at F2, got some strange anomalies. alot of these filters don't work well with fast systems. great Vid btw.
Love this video Video Cuiv. Wish more people would do comparisons and even better it was blind with the help of your wife. I suspect the companies probably are not as happy. I think a lot of people don't do these because they anger the companies. I purchased the IDAS NBZ specifically for this reason and have been extremely happy with the results. I have even used it at a higher f-ratio with my EdgeHD800 at F7 and it worked well. Cheers Kurt
Thanks for that feedback Kurt! I suspect you are correct - I think the most complete filter tests I've seen were from Nico Carver, and I think that just like me, he doesn't care about angering the companies. I sure as heck don't care - my role is to help everyday users spend their money wisely, not make companies make more money...
I had the Lextreme and switched to the IDAS. I have a Hyperstar but not used either on it yet. What I can say that there was a very big difference in Flat frames between the two. The Idas showed a very smooth and one color flat frame, whereas the Lextreme showed weird color patterns over the entire field, like ones side more red and the other side more green. Another big difference is the halo performance in the blue channel. On the Lextreme it was pretty bad, the NBZ, hardly noticeable. When you ask me, the NBZ is definitely the better filter here. Thanks for another good video.
Very true - the color pattern seems to be well calibrated with flats fortunately. And the NBZ was specifically engineered to remove halos, replacing the earlier NBX...
This is really an interesting discussion. Optolong themselves, on their website, state that the l-extreme is a good fit for fast systems (even displaying a f/1.8 demo), so I'm biased towards the "bad batch" event. But in such case, having a "lottery" of good equipment is very bad in terms of QA.
I've been in the middle of a curvature/tilt battle from hell, and it got me wondering, with these ultra narrow band filters, if there's and effect between performance as well. Thanks for sharing. I hate playing lottery filter and "hope" I get the good one out of the batch. buy once, cry once
Interesting Cuiv I've seen also with some of the advertising recommending using the L-eNhance for systems F4 and faster. Very useful test and does raise good questions about consistency. Ollie.
The issue is quality control, the band pass centre float s about from one filter to another and a narrow band pass gives a less margin of error. So with a 7nm filter you will find a larger probability of problems. Another filter peramiter that is a factor in a red zone is the out of band optical density, so light through the blocked areas. That can cause relative performance to chance with increased light pollution.
Thank you! Can you review the new Svbony SV220 7nm dual band and new NBZ II on a typical refractor (f 6.3)? I can't decide and have not seen any good reviews/comparisons. Thanks!
Thanks for the great video Cuiv.. I’d love to see this comparison on slower system, as I’d expect most of us own a lens or a refractor that’s >F2. Wishing you clear skies!!
Thanks Bharath! At F4 or slower, I can already tell you the result, because there are no bandpass shift shenanigans, and the narrower the filter the better in terms of SNR: the L-eXtreme would win handily in terms of SNR, but lose on star haloes.
Filter question which I may have asked before - if you are shooting from a light polluted area (B4-B5 where I normally shoot) what would you use for Galaxies - read that they suggest none - which I understand - but would something like a Moonlight filter be acceptable or would you use a GAS filter - which is using a tank of gas to drive to where you can shoot in a lower bortle zone?
Very interesting! I wonder if (and I know you couldn’t do this) stacked images from each filter capture would even further differentiate the differences? I think so. Since I’m not using a RASA and I’m only using a low cost OSC currently, I’m not too worried myself but I’ll bet other viewers are very interested in your well done report. What is the Bortle level in your viewing location in Tokyo? Subscribed!
Thanks Martyn! Yes, I expect stacked images to further differentiate the differences (but it's hard to test because then we go into different sky conditions, and it's unfair for the filters). All the filters will work well on slower systems! I'm in Bortle 8-9ish!
Just bought a IDAS NBZ LHS for use in the RASA 11. So far so good. Fast acquisition is back. Previous filters are Triad Quad Band Ultra (NO GOOD at F/2.2 except for O[III] where it is just okay at ~F/2 with really long exposures) and Altair Quad (not fully tested yet). The Triad works well at slower speeds but largely useless at F/2 despite marketing nonsense. NBZ UHS does not disappoint and shows Ha and O[III] in short exposures -- a win for fast optics. Will try your test with each filter on a ASI094MC.
Yeah I'm not surprised about the Triad Ultra - it's amazing for slower focal ratios but I wouldn't expect it to do well at F2... Ha (and SII) really do get kicked hard by bandpass shift. Marketing can't beat physics...
Excellent video as always. I just received a new set of Antlia 3nm NB filters that I intended to use with my F3 Newtonian system. This video and the one you talked about band pass shift made me a bit nervous, even though I read somewhere that the Antlia was good for F3 and up. I think I may end up using the 3nm filters on a slower system.
Test them out at F3 first! I think F3 is just the point where very NB filters can still work quite well (I remember Astrodon advertising - with justification - 75-80% transmittance at F3 on their 3nm filters)
I also would like to know which one was which. For me, both C1 and C2 seemed the better. Just bought the IDAS NBZ to use in my WO GT71 II with a FR, @ F4.7, mostly because the transmission at this focal ratio is very high, I image at a bortle 3/4 (so not a lot o LP, lesser need for tight bandpass), and halos do bother me alot
I love that you are doing more consistent videos/uploads, Cuiv! You're one of the best TH-cam astrophotographers out there and many of us really look forward to your content! Take care, Cuiv, and clear skies, everybody!
From a video you did a while back I bought the NBZ to use on my RASA 11 & I've been very happy with the result as watching videos about the L Extreme on fast systems put me off buying one, however I'm surprised that the Altair astro performed poorly out of the three. I'll be sticking with the IDAS for some time yet I wonder if they'll ever produce one with a narrower bandwidth?
Thank you Cuiv for the very informative video (as always)!! Now even more important for me as I’m the process to buy a good 2 band narrowband filter for my Askar FMA180 and Skywatcher Evostar 72ED, both using the ASI183MC Pro camera, as with the ZWO Dualband filter I’m not getting good results at all. Thank you very much Cheers Clear skies
Very interesting, and great to see your reaction to the surprise! If you can use your TH-cam fame to leverage assessment of a larger sample size for different brands of filters then that would be absolutely awesome! My guess is that we are seeing that you get what you pay for, the L-extreme is about 30% cheaper than the IDAS NBZ UHS, but may well be more variable in quality as a result. Unfortunately I am not able to test my L-extreme at anything faster than f4.9 until I get a new camera.
I don't know if you see comments on old videos, but I have a question. Would the NBZ work on both fast OTA (Rokinon 135 f2), and slower, f6? I'm presently using the L ENHANSE in bortle 8.
I have the L extreme! I don’t put much weight on comments because a lot of businesses do slimy things like leaving bad comments against the competition. what matters is the results
I think it's interesting to note your copy of the L-extreme also has the lowest medians, indicating lowest sky noise, lowest FHWM, and lowest number of stars detected. To me that means the L-extreme shift was favorable towards being more narrowband than the others. If the Ha is showing up quite well, then I would personally keep that for dual narrowband. Edit: Another thing to note is that the measured SNR on the red channels of the 5 minute exposures are 33.33 dB, 33.28 dB, and 32.81 dB, with the L-extreme in front and IDAS last. Reinforces my opinion YOUR COPY of the L-extreme is pretty great.
Thanks for this additional analysis! I typically don't put much stock in SNR measurement (clouds increase SNR with those :) ), but median and FWHM don't lie. Very interesting, I must have gotten quite lucky with the filter (for once I won at the equipment lottery!)
Depends on whether I feel like it - a comparison at F4 or F5 isn't very exciting - filters would perform per specs (hopefully), so we'd have Altair be equivalent to L-eXtreme, both beating IDAS... Narrower bandpasses would win. Of course there's the filter lottery, but that's not something that a single sample of each filter can measure.
On a slower scope, the L-eXtreme will trounce the IDAS in terms of SNR (but not star halos), simply because of the bandpasses! When there is no bandpass shift, looking at specs because good enough :)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek there have been some awesome results in London with the Altair filter , it was with a slower scope though , so would be good to see the difference between the extreme and the AA with your slower scope , 👌🏻 fast scope it’s defiantly no good on the Ha although it did pull better on the Oiii than the other two , when I put your subs through APP ( fits headers did not show up on Pi probably my lack of understanding it very well 😵💫 )
great vid! question: you started out with the fact that a straight lightbeam would not have that much bandpass shift. Would that not imply that everything in the center of the image (and sensor) would not be very much affected, and work ok, and perhaps extra bandpass shift in the form of Vignetting /lack of contrast would happen towards the corners? the 533 is a pretty small sensor. FWIW my L-extreme performed super bad on Rasa w/2600MC (no Ha signal), and the NBZ or L-Enhance work great.
So no that's actually wrong - a point and the center of the sensor will sill experience high incidence angles from the edge of the objective lens/primary mirror! A point at the edge of the sensor will see even more incidence (slightly) from one edge of the mirror, but less from the other edge of the mirror (by the same amount), giving a similar end result! Seems you got one sample of the L-eXtreme that doesn't work great at high speeds...
Hello, just to say that I did a similar test on my Hyperstar V4 on my C8, comparing the IDAS NBZ and the L-Extreme, and I was very surprised and disappointed to see that the new NBZ performed worse that my L-Extreme... My review is on the Hyperstar Facebook group. I sold my NBZ after that, but a few month after I saw the new NBZ UHS and I bought it because it should maybe perform better than the regular NBZ (and hopefully the L-Extreme too), I still need to test it though...
I think if you get a great sample of the L-eXtreme (like to seem to have), then the L-eXtreme can be superior to the NBZ (except in terms of star halos) in hyperstar. But there's a lot of lottery apparently....
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I don't know, maybe it's indeed a "good" L-Extreme for fast optics, or maybe as the Hyperstar has a different optical system than the RASA, the angle of the light cone could be different and less steep (I don't know if it's even possible)
High Cuiv.. as always... excellent video... if you close your blog camera diafragm, the camera focusing system will catch up the focus very quickly and at the same time.... if the background is very bright ... the lower F stop will help the dymamic range of the camera to get a more balanced video image....
Great vid as usual. What the hell is that thing that appears in mid air near your head in the daytime part of the vid. Some weired reflection or a streetlamp where the fog as mister out the pole?
Nice job, but this can be so frustrating. I have the l-extreme, but then I bought the NBZ to use with my RASA and my hyperstar for the same reason - I had seen other reviews where the l-extreme performed poorly at f/2. I guess there’s no way to know without each of us doing the comparison ourselves. It would be nice if the manufacturers could standardize their products and let us know if a bad batch gets out.
Great point. Some dedicated amateur should test these. I’ve seen some folks on cloudy nights with access to the right equipment who have tested various filters for true band pass characteristics, but it would be great to be able to send your filter off for testing wouldn’t it?
Absolutely... the equipment lottery is real... and it's quite annoying! In the end, the only way to escape it is to buy the expensive stuff since it has good QC...
That would really be nice - I actually did send my old Optolong 7nm NB filters to that guy to test a long time ago! The results were not great, with just north of 50% transmittance...
isn't it always the way? there's always a odd-shaped UFO hovering in the background just behind you when your back is turned on it & you are facing the camera.....
Perhaps the explanation is that the Pacman nebula is a small target. At 300mm focal length, it's 4 x 4 mm object on the sensor. So, you are comparing performance of the filters in a 4mm diameter circle. Hyperstar C6 can provide a 28mm usable circle.
For objects at infinity every point on the image plane receives light from the entire objective or entrance aperture. The edges of the image don’t necessarily correspond to the edges of the objective. Yes you can have very slightly higher incidence angles towards the edge of the FOV (and lower ones too at the same time), but only by a few arcminutes...
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I think that I understand the theory, but as a scientist, I would do due diligence and make sure that this is the case. California nebula is in the prime position right now. It's fairly bright and it will fill the 16mm circle of the ASI533, and it's probably long enough to fill at least 20mm on one axis. That is, if you have a larger sensor camera.
I have the L Extreme and works very well, especially compare to my other L Enhance filter. I guess these two are all I need for OSC narrowband haha, haven't tried with anything faster than F/5 yet.
Should be very similar (actually likely worse for my C6 because of the bigger central obstruction - getting aperture closed off because of bandpass shift is more harmful to total transmittance, percentage wise)
If I remember well, you have a L-enhance filter. Youmay test it. As in the Ha the bandpass is about 10nm, it works better than the L-extreme at High speed with the bandshift. Greetings.
Hi Cuiv, have you heard about the IDAS NBZ UHS which is announced as Ultra High Speed filter for F1.8 to F2.8? I own a „normal“ NBZ and I can confirm that it works pretty well with my RASA 11. But if they can even do better …
to be completely honest, I though the Altair filter was just a rebranded L-extreme, too bad people still reccommend it for fats systems on their FB page, smelt like bad advice at the time, and after seeing that it doesn't provide a better isolation of bands compared to the other too I'd say is just a case of advertisment fever.Still, gonna reserve my ultimate judgement, I feel like a more or less complete session on all filters would be a more tangible way to tell them apart, even though that inevitably introduces variables, seeing conditions and whatnot
That's an intriguing possibility! Still, tt's unlikely - with the Starizona filter drawer (which I saw others reporting the L-eXtreme problem use), you can't put a mounted 2" filter in the wrong orientation!
Is there any way to tell whether my L-eXtreme is good at f2 or not? I can obviously try that, and will probably get some data but not sure if I can know whether it's good at f2 or not.
I think you best bet would be to compare it with another filter, or point it at a target rich in OIII and Ha like the Veil nebula... It's difficult without a comparison point!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yeah exactly..I can try and compare it with my L-eNhance, which is a bit broader I guess. Not sure how good of a comparison that is, but better than nothing probably :)
Interesting test! I have the L-Extreme and IDAS filters and found the L-Extreme better at drawing out Ha and detail. I have a C11 with Hyperstar and use an ATIK Horizon II OSC camera. I wonder if there are performance differences with these filters and type of camera (mono vs OSC)? I believe the Optolong markets the L-Extreme as performing well with OSC cameras. Just a thought. Gord
Either the L-eXtreme or the IDAS NBZ should be used with OSC, unless they're used as a L replacement! It seems that there are some superior L-eXtreme samples out there, and yours is one of them :-)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Agreed! :-) I'm finding with the Hyperstar and my new camera (old camera was a full mod Canon T3i) that I have to shoot even shorter exposures, and many of them, otherwise the stars get washed out and bloated. With the L-Extreme I still shoot short exposures but about half to two thirds as long as my usual lights. 10-15s upped to 15-20s exposures with the L-Extreme.
Great comparison, really insightful. Thank you. Could you please compare Halos between NBZ and L extreme on bright stars. In that regard the NBZ should be superior.
actually i am not surprised. I have a feeling that there is always a lot of quality fluctuations in astro gear. Just look at all the Apos coming from China.
Found this in my filter research. I'm still undecided. I feel the conclusion is reached too early as it only looks at Ha, and doesn't cover more focal ratios. I have no use for F2 more F5.6 so encourage you to try F4.8 as a compromise? There's no OIII comparison, and reflection performance comparison on a bright object, and in both these areas the Altair appears equal if not better. I'm not sure that comparing visibility of features is meaningful. In the Ha comparison, there are some areas which look sharper on the Altair filter, and some which look sharper on the L-Enhance and the Idas, so it appears more a seeing phenomenon averaging subs would be more conclusive. I think it's a good start, but really you should compare them at different focal lengths, show your exact image processing settings in Pixinsight, more than one frame and consider both wavelengths not just Ha. Features in my subs appear brighter or dimmer from frame to frame. Sometimes even a different shape, which I always thought was caused by seeing distortion. If you allowed viewers to download stretched frames marked up with the areas you mention for clarity that would help as TH-cam video isn't that good quality. I don't mean to be a nit-picker but comparisons are a big responsibility and you cannot get this wrong. I do think it's a good start and I don't mean to be critical at all but we do owe more diligence to manufacturers of these wonderful toys else the market diversity will just dry up. A follow up video about these other aspects and more in depth would be very helpful.
Hi Ben - the raw files are already available for download in the description for further analysis (I did also check OIII in the end, not on video, but I see the same results). The problem of a stack is what I mentioned in the video: not getting the same conditions for each filter, which I think is worse - my compromise was going to 5 minute exposures after Meridian - which is the same as averaging subs overall. I don't plan on doing a strict test of those filters at other focal ratios - this is purely for F2 in terms of SNR, which was of interest to me with my current setup. I think (hope) I am very clear in my video about what I cover and what criteria I look at! Also, I don't currently have a slow scope to test with (my Askar lens is back to the reseller for a second round of repairs)!
Thanks for this video, I love this kind of experiment. I think that using a C6 ,150mm with that big ostruction is helping the filters to work better. I once noticed how ostruction helped with non ultraspeed filters. Using a larger mirror will give much more light at f2, hard to deal for these filters. Let me know what you think about it, i love this topic
Thanks Giuseppe - I think the reverse would be true. The central obstruction removes all light rays that are at 90 degrees of the filter - so it makes narrowband filters work worse because only the light rays at an angle are left!
As I understand it the differences in performance would be apparent mostly at the edges/corners of the image, due to angle of incidence of the light hitting the filter. Perhaps if the test was repeated with the nebula in the corner the results would be different.
I think in a well-designed system for objects at infinity every point on the image plane receives light from the entire objective or entrance aperture. The edges of the image don’t necessarily correspond to the edges of the objective.
As Geoffrey says - although we could indeed have very slightly higher incidence angles for objects at the edge of the FOV though (by a few arcminutes), that is true.
That is an interesting finding. I also saw AstroBlenders video about the L-eXtreme just after I purchased mine. I was expecting the same as you and was surprised by your findings. I like these comparison videos. They bring a great deal of value to the community in seeing how different products perform under a controlled set of conditions. FWIW - glad you’re growing your beard out again. It’s a better “look” for you Sir.
The L xtreme works fine on my rasa 8 and edgehd 925 with hyperstar v4. The Ha comes through just fine HOWEVER the halos/reflections are unbearable. I'm saying it looks like the star is out of focus halo complete with the power line and usb cable outlines in the halo/reflection. I don't have that problem when I shoot at f/7 or F/10 with the edgehd. Only at f/2.2 with the hyperstar and f/2 rasa. The idas nbz has none of these problems at all for me. Both on the Rasa and the edgehd.
Cuiv the Lextreame is poor on my Rasa, AND my C14 Hyperstar Not so much on my C9.25 Hyperstar. Maybe..... dunno. On the C14 hyperstar it causes a Hotspot or vignette. My test is on a asi2600. My asi183 shows no difference. Maybe... dunno. What size is your sensor.?
That's quite interesting - my sensor is only 1 inch... Maybe because the C9.25 is slightly slower it performs better? There can be quite a bit of difference between F2.3 and F2...
As always Cuiv, a cracking video! I am really shocked about the Altair Astro filter! Like you, I would of expected better from it and the L-eXtreme to be bottom of the pile. I’m glad I went with the NBZ back in the summer. Even though I’m only using an F/5 system, I’m still getting cracking results from it. Also, it seems to be parfocal with my IDAS NGS1 filter which makes focusing easier. I borrowed my friends L-eXtreme first, but was put off by the bad star halos, so went with the NBZ. I can confirm the NBZ has no star halos at all!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek You’re most welcome! 😄 My friend is using the Altair filter on the same F/5 system as myself, and getting great results. Must just be on the faster scopes it falters. Again, such a shame! 😕
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yes my was great on rejecting everything. Most Ha and non of the OIII was vissible. 1,5 hours on Californa Nebula it was wery faint and was awesome on my IDAS NBZ with 3 hours. I photograph from Bortle 9 Stockholm, Sweden.
@Cuiv, The Lazy Geek
In Poland we have a man that measure the filters.
L Extreme have big variety of good and bad samples.
We have few pcs that is suitable for f2.
That seems quite consistent with what we see
Thanks for that Grzegorz! This is really good to know, and sad at the same time... the equipment lottery is real.... It seems that I was lucky with my own L-eXtreme, surprisingly...
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I tried to reach you on fb, I can provide all data from test not only for multiple L extreme but many other filters
@@grzegorzfurgo7070 sorry I likely missed that completely, would love to see such data and do a video on equipment lottery. Could you reach out at cuivlazygeek at gmail?
do you know if he has tested the Celestron recommended filter for the RASA? I have seen good reviews and no reviews. thanks in advance.
Truth in advertising. Quality control. Materials consistency. All highly variable (sometimes). It’s a rabbit hole!
The equipment lottery is real....
The best part of experimentation is when the results don't match expectations.
always learn more that way
For sure! That really wasn't what I expected!!
Your astonishment at the end was the best redemption.
There is no quality other than the quality you personally measure.
I have various hobbies, and I have had various teachers who are all really capable. One of them said, when something is good for you, you are good. Others may not like it.
Great review and comparison. Included frames shot without a filter would be the icing on the cake :)
Great video Cuiv! As an engineer, I appreciate the simplicity of the "blind taste test". I really appreciate your honesty as you are processing those results.
Something I noticed about the reports of the poor Ha performance of the Optolong L-eXtreme at f/2, many of the people having problems were using the ASI294MC Pro (including AstroBlender). I have used the L-eXtreme with my C6 Hyperstar and ASI183MC Pro and I did not notice the Ha being particularly weak. No real data to back this up, and it may not make much sense, but the AS294MC Pro seemed to be the common element to many of those report.
Interesting... Not sure how it could be the sensor, but it is a possibility...
@@CuivTheLazyGeek The ASI294MC Pro is probably just sample size bias. It is a really popular camera and you would expect a greater sample size to have more reported problems.
But if you put on your tin foil hat... you never know. :-)
I have the 294mc pro and can tell you that the L extreme HA performance is great. Never had a problem with it from f/10 down to f/2 with the exception of the massive star halos/reflections at subs from 30 sec to 60 shooting at f/2.2 -2.0
As Jeremy Clarkson would say " On that bombshell, we'll see you next week."
Ha! Yeah, it's kind of fun :)
A timely and informative video, with a surprise! I find the same result for my ultrafast camera lenses. Of course the rasa-like or fast system you are using has the central obstruction. Some makers assume that central part is lost especially if they are making a pre-shifted band pass as opposed to flat-top. In that case some fast filters that work for central obstruction systems put the central aperture of fast camera lenses off-band. Always a trade off! Yes, batch variation seems to plague some runs of filters. I think when one buys really expensive filters from chromotek or astrodon that you are paying for QC too! I don’t have those yet, as my systems don’t justify that. But I’m thinking of getting a Celestron and trying this hyperstar based on your excellent videos! Thanks Cuiv for all your great work! I have the NBZ as well. Still testing it! The previous iteration NBX I believe had issues with star halos.
Thanks for this useful feeback Geoffrey!! Yeah Astrodon / Chroma etc. you are really paying for excellent filters with proper quality control. Good luck on the Hyperstar if you do end up getting such a system!
Producing filters with very narrow band passes at a precise median wavelength is quite a challenge. Any small variabilty in such a narrow band passes will be most easily shown up with a fast f-ratio.
Cuiv, thanks for another informative and useful video! Also glad to see how much fun you are having with your F2 system in the middle of Tokyo!
Thanks for the feedback! The Hyperstar is definitely a lot of fun :)
Great Sunday Morning video! Thanks as always.
I know plenty of people that have complained about the L-Extreme on Fast optics F/1.9-F/3 even told them to go Idas instead. Some of them did an saved the L-Extreme for their slower optics. The reason why is the NBZ is pre-shifted for Fast optics the L-extreme is not pre-shifted for fast optics
They have the UHS (Ultra High Speed) version of the IDAS NBZ and it is much cheaper.
I used this filter in the last new moon and it works fantastic with F/2.0. I had no idea the L Extreme has variations in manufacturing(quality control issues?). I only concluded that the L Extreme cannot do well in fast systems. Much appreciated for this video and is quite useful as it is mostly info going around only through forums and maybe new Astrophotographers will not be aware of specific filters working with fast optics.
I did this test with the L-eNhance but the other 2 were the same- I found the IDAS to be the best option on a RASA. Aside from the improved contrast on Ha data, it also had much improved star bloat and flare from bright stars.
Thanks for that feedback Dennis!
Blind test. You are such a fricking scientist. I love it. Test the Astrodon filters if you get a chance. When I ordered mine they said they had them in stock but could not ship because they test every filter and the tester was out because of Covid. Is it true that they test every filter? Who knows but they are making the right noises. Given what they cost, they could afford to test every single filter. Every filter comes with a hand written QA sign off sheet and Astrodon has very good reputation because they make filters for the scientific community who have more stringent requirements than we do. Also each filter comes with a holographic seal to thwart counterfeiting. Are they really that good? Only Cuiv the Lazy Geek can verify!
Loved this video and comparison. I really enjoy blind tests because it removes our inherent bias … wish we could do this for politicians!!!!
Thanks Cuiv! This testing was everything I'd hoped it would be. I'm just as surprised at the results as you but I'm a bit more comfortable in getting a RASA now with comments below saying the IDAS works fine.
Thanks! Glad this is helpful :)
From my experience imaging at F/2 and using many kinds of filters including LP I have found that when imaging around brighter stars the reflecting light back through the system from narrowband filters causes halos around brighter stars compared to just using a UV/IR cut filter where you get less of a halo effect because your not rejecting light back through the system as much. This is why I just shoot colour with OSC under light pollution skies with a UV/IR and use a mono with dedicated F/2 filters and merge the two images to create HaRGB images with beautiful details.
Awesome video. I’ve seen a couple of comparisons like this, and the more the better. Really interesting results, to say the least!
I have been happy with my IDAS NB1 on my hyperstar so doesn't surprise me.
Hi Cuiv. Thank you for posting this video. Have you tested the Optolong L-Enhance filter?
My pleasure! Unfortunately no, I don't own that filter...
That's really interesting. I've got the L-Extreme and the Idas NBZ for use on my RASA 8. I was extremely underwhelmed with the L-Extreme on my RASA, terrible HA performance. Works great on my slower optics though. The NBZ blows it out of the water, with fantastic transmission of the HA and OIII on the RASA. I bought the NBZ specifically because it stated they designed it to accommodate for faster optics, and I noticed a major difference.
I’m working with my great grandfathers 1950 Lafayette. It’s a 13.3 .. will a filter work on something so slow? I’m using a sv305 Astro cam.. I picked up a svbony light pollution filter. Have not had a chance to try it due to clouds.
Thank you for another great presentation.
Did a single sub test 1X300” comparison on Alnitak star and yes halo was suppressed compared to LeNHance. good ha and oiii transmission on West veil using the IDAS as well. So I’m set on the IDAS for HS f1.9. I would want to test it on dimmer targets with lots of O3 like Squid or any that requires 20+ hrs. This is a good blind comparison video 👍🏼
It would be interesting to test it in a Nebula like the California which is highly rich on only H alfa. I did get bad results, on f2 RASA, on the L extreme (on f5-f7 works great). And yes, this last iteration of the NBZ is almost immune to halos, which is Great. Thanks for the analysis. P.S. For my F2.8 systems I use the IDAS NBZ, and for my F4 I use the L enhance, with great results.
I saw other comments saying they saw from someone measuring the filters spectrum a lot of variability with the L-eXtreme, so that could simply be that...
The timing of this video is incredible! I literally just started looking at Dual-Band filters last week. I was already leaning toward the IDAS NBZ for my Redcat 51-ZWO 183MC setup because of reported star halos from the L-eXtreme. Maybe there was a bad batch but I don't want to take chances so the IDAS NBZ it is!
I'll probably wait until next year to get one, seems kind of selfish of me to spend $300 on a piece of glass right before the holidays. :)
Hi Bill! Always glad to be of help! Be aware however that in terms of signal to noise ratio, on a RedCat the L-eXtreme (even a relatively poor sample) would likely completely trounce the IDAS simply because of its bandpasses - I personally don't care about star halos :)
As Cuiv is saying the slower systems >F/4.5 I find the conventional narrower band pass filters win due to better light pollution rejection!
By far an excellent review of these very expensive filters. But the best part for me is the look on your face on your findings. 🤓
Ha! Thanks Dino!
Many thanks - That Envelope - like waiting for the next host country for the Olympics to be announced!
Hahaha maybe not that much suspense? :)
Hi Cuiv, another very interesting video for sure. I just got my IDAS NBZ and I tried it on two targets. I was able to frame the entire Veil Nebula in a single frame. And IC434 the Horsehead Nebula.
Both turned out well, but the Horsehead Nebula looks the best as I was able to get 362 usable thirty second sub-frames. Working with that many in Pixinsight takes some time. Stacking that many take a while to finish up. Before I was using my ZWO Dual Band filter as it has 15nm bandpass and it actually works pretty well. But it's not as good as blocking out the moon light. And the star Halo's are quite prevalent. My dew shield must have had an oval shape as all the halos had an oval shape as well. Weird! But I'm happy to say the IDAS NBZ has no halo's. I have two images of IC434, one with the ZWO Dual Band filter and the other with the IDAS NBA. And I definitely prefer the non-halo look. But that's just me. ;o)
I found out about this awhile back while using an Optolong LPro clip in a DSLR in with a Samyang 14mm at F2, got some strange anomalies. alot of these filters don't work well with fast systems. great Vid btw.
Cuiv, nice video. I use the Baader F2 filter with my C14 Edge and hyperstar with no complains other than price for the filters.
Great video !!! I prefer IDAS NBZ for Hyperstar. With hyperstar, we've a mirror image.
Love this video Video Cuiv. Wish more people would do comparisons and even better it was blind with the help of your wife. I suspect the companies probably are not as happy. I think a lot of people don't do these because they anger the companies. I purchased the IDAS NBZ specifically for this reason and have been extremely happy with the results. I have even used it at a higher f-ratio with my EdgeHD800 at F7 and it worked well. Cheers Kurt
Thanks for that feedback Kurt! I suspect you are correct - I think the most complete filter tests I've seen were from Nico Carver, and I think that just like me, he doesn't care about angering the companies. I sure as heck don't care - my role is to help everyday users spend their money wisely, not make companies make more money...
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Cheers to that! I follow Nico as well.
I had the Lextreme and switched to the IDAS. I have a Hyperstar but not used either on it yet. What I can say that there was a very big difference in Flat frames between the two. The Idas showed a very smooth and one color flat frame, whereas the Lextreme showed weird color patterns over the entire field, like ones side more red and the other side more green. Another big difference is the halo performance in the blue channel. On the Lextreme it was pretty bad, the NBZ, hardly noticeable. When you ask me, the NBZ is definitely the better filter here. Thanks for another good video.
Very true - the color pattern seems to be well calibrated with flats fortunately. And the NBZ was specifically engineered to remove halos, replacing the earlier NBX...
This is really an interesting discussion. Optolong themselves, on their website, state that the l-extreme is a good fit for fast systems (even displaying a f/1.8 demo), so I'm biased towards the "bad batch" event. But in such case, having a "lottery" of good equipment is very bad in terms of QA.
Yeah exactly... We don't know if it's a bad batch, recurring problem, or anything like that...
I've been in the middle of a curvature/tilt battle from hell, and it got me wondering, with these ultra narrow band filters, if there's and effect between performance as well. Thanks for sharing. I hate playing lottery filter and "hope" I get the good one out of the batch. buy once, cry once
Interesting Cuiv I've seen also with some of the advertising recommending using the L-eNhance for systems F4 and faster. Very useful test and does raise good questions about consistency.
Ollie.
Thanks Ollie!
The issue is quality control, the band pass centre float s about from one filter to another and a narrow band pass gives a less margin of error. So with a 7nm filter you will find a larger probability of problems. Another filter peramiter that is a factor in a red zone is the out of band optical density, so light through the blocked areas. That can cause relative performance to chance with increased light pollution.
Very good points there - and very true on the out of band optical density!
Thank you! Can you review the new Svbony SV220 7nm dual band and new NBZ II on a typical refractor (f 6.3)? I can't decide and have not seen any good reviews/comparisons. Thanks!
Thanks for the great video Cuiv.. I’d love to see this comparison on slower system, as I’d expect most of us own a lens or a refractor that’s >F2. Wishing you clear skies!!
Thanks Bharath! At F4 or slower, I can already tell you the result, because there are no bandpass shift shenanigans, and the narrower the filter the better in terms of SNR: the L-eXtreme would win handily in terms of SNR, but lose on star haloes.
If I had to guess it may be differences in dew shield shroud length. Maybe try a shield at half length? Or none at all?
is the Antlia's golden filter good on this f2 system? time for a filter battle!
Filter question which I may have asked before - if you are shooting from a light polluted area (B4-B5 where I normally shoot) what would you use for Galaxies - read that they suggest none - which I understand - but would something like a Moonlight filter be acceptable or would you use a GAS filter - which is using a tank of gas to drive to where you can shoot in a lower bortle zone?
In B4-5 just a luminance filter! On galaxies LP filters may do more harm than good in B4-5
Thanks for doing this. I can sleep well with my L extreme now. Lol
Very interesting! I wonder if (and I know you couldn’t do this) stacked images from each filter capture would even further differentiate the differences? I think so. Since I’m not using a RASA and I’m only using a low cost OSC currently, I’m not too worried myself but I’ll bet other viewers are very interested in your well done report. What is the Bortle level in your viewing location in Tokyo? Subscribed!
Thanks Martyn! Yes, I expect stacked images to further differentiate the differences (but it's hard to test because then we go into different sky conditions, and it's unfair for the filters). All the filters will work well on slower systems! I'm in Bortle 8-9ish!
Just bought a IDAS NBZ LHS for use in the RASA 11. So far so good. Fast acquisition is back. Previous filters are Triad Quad Band Ultra (NO GOOD at F/2.2 except for O[III] where it is just okay at ~F/2 with really long exposures) and Altair Quad (not fully tested yet). The Triad works well at slower speeds but largely useless at F/2 despite marketing nonsense. NBZ UHS does not disappoint and shows Ha and O[III] in short exposures -- a win for fast optics. Will try your test with each filter on a ASI094MC.
Yeah I'm not surprised about the Triad Ultra - it's amazing for slower focal ratios but I wouldn't expect it to do well at F2... Ha (and SII) really do get kicked hard by bandpass shift. Marketing can't beat physics...
Excellent video as always. I just received a new set of Antlia 3nm NB filters that I intended to use with my F3 Newtonian system. This video and the one you talked about band pass shift made me a bit nervous, even though I read somewhere that the Antlia was good for F3 and up. I think I may end up using the 3nm filters on a slower system.
Test them out at F3 first! I think F3 is just the point where very NB filters can still work quite well (I remember Astrodon advertising - with justification - 75-80% transmittance at F3 on their 3nm filters)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek You are right, I will definitely try it first!
Hi CUIV.... if the Hyperstar optical system.....also do light cone correction and ..... may be the L- extreme could work at F/1.9 or 2
Can you post which filters are A, B, C for each run?
I also would like to know which one was which. For me, both C1 and C2 seemed the better.
Just bought the IDAS NBZ to use in my WO GT71 II with a FR, @ F4.7, mostly because the transmission at this focal ratio is very high, I image at a bortle 3/4 (so not a lot o LP, lesser need for tight bandpass), and halos do bother me alot
It's in the FITS Headers! But otherwise it is
IDAS = A1 and B2
L-eXtreme = C1 and C2
Altair = B1 and A2
@@CuivTheLazyGeek From one lazy guy to another, thanks!
My eye says the L-Extreme wins, but the NBZ apparently has less halo problems.
I love that you are doing more consistent videos/uploads, Cuiv! You're one of the best TH-cam astrophotographers out there and many of us really look forward to your content! Take care, Cuiv, and clear skies, everybody!
Very true, my current favorite :)
From a video you did a while back I bought the NBZ to use on my RASA 11 & I've been very happy with the result as watching videos about the L Extreme on fast systems put me off buying one, however I'm surprised that the Altair astro performed poorly out of the three.
I'll be sticking with the IDAS for some time yet I wonder if they'll ever produce one with a narrower bandwidth?
It would be nice to see a narrower bandpass designed specifically for high speed systems indeed...
Thank you Cuiv for the very informative video (as always)!!
Now even more important for me as I’m the process to buy a good 2 band narrowband filter for my Askar FMA180 and Skywatcher Evostar 72ED, both using the ASI183MC Pro camera, as with the ZWO Dualband filter I’m not getting good results at all.
Thank you very much
Cheers
Clear skies
Very interesting, and great to see your reaction to the surprise! If you can use your TH-cam fame to leverage assessment of a larger sample size for different brands of filters then that would be absolutely awesome! My guess is that we are seeing that you get what you pay for, the L-extreme is about 30% cheaper than the IDAS NBZ UHS, but may well be more variable in quality as a result. Unfortunately I am not able to test my L-extreme at anything faster than f4.9 until I get a new camera.
I'm not big enough (and probably don't have enough time, I'd have to be doing TH-cam fulltime!) to do that, but yes, absolutely...
Barely used Altair dual-band filter for sale, LIKE NEW, $20.
Ha!
Great video Cuiv! At 5:50, its ZED by the way. Tell Trevor that if you are talking to him ; )
Thanks Bob :D
Well done may have saved me some heart break on my purchase- thx
Happy to help :D
I don't know if you see comments on old videos, but I have a question. Would the NBZ work on both fast OTA (Rokinon 135 f2), and slower, f6? I'm presently using the L ENHANSE in bortle 8.
Yep, the NBZ works on both and should be a nice improvement to the L enhancr
I have the L extreme! I don’t put much weight on comments because a lot of businesses do slimy things like leaving bad comments against the competition. what matters is the results
Overall I love my L-eXtreme - my sample even seems to work great at F2 :D
I think it's interesting to note your copy of the L-extreme also has the lowest medians, indicating lowest sky noise, lowest FHWM, and lowest number of stars detected. To me that means the L-extreme shift was favorable towards being more narrowband than the others. If the Ha is showing up quite well, then I would personally keep that for dual narrowband. Edit: Another thing to note is that the measured SNR on the red channels of the 5 minute exposures are 33.33 dB, 33.28 dB, and 32.81 dB, with the L-extreme in front and IDAS last. Reinforces my opinion YOUR COPY of the L-extreme is pretty great.
Thanks for this additional analysis! I typically don't put much stock in SNR measurement (clouds increase SNR with those :) ), but median and FWHM don't lie. Very interesting, I must have gotten quite lucky with the filter (for once I won at the equipment lottery!)
Thank you again , Would it be possible sometime to do the same comparison with say an F4 or F5 scope ?
Depends on whether I feel like it - a comparison at F4 or F5 isn't very exciting - filters would perform per specs (hopefully), so we'd have Altair be equivalent to L-eXtreme, both beating IDAS... Narrower bandpasses would win. Of course there's the filter lottery, but that's not something that a single sample of each filter can measure.
Cool video😊 i just bought that idas dual narrow band😬 but with Sii and o3
Would be good to see how they compare on a slower scope , as not many people have the f2 units , what you think ?
On a slower scope, the L-eXtreme will trounce the IDAS in terms of SNR (but not star halos), simply because of the bandpasses! When there is no bandpass shift, looking at specs because good enough :)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek there have been some awesome results in London with the Altair filter , it was with a slower scope though , so would be good to see the difference between the extreme and the AA with your slower scope , 👌🏻 fast scope it’s defiantly no good on the Ha although it did pull better on the Oiii than the other two , when I put your subs through APP ( fits headers did not show up on Pi probably my lack of understanding it very well 😵💫 )
great vid! question: you started out with the fact that a straight lightbeam would not have that much bandpass shift. Would that not imply that everything in the center of the image (and sensor) would not be very much affected, and work ok, and perhaps extra bandpass shift in the form of Vignetting /lack of contrast would happen towards the corners? the 533 is a pretty small sensor. FWIW my L-extreme performed super bad on Rasa w/2600MC (no Ha signal), and the NBZ or L-Enhance work great.
So no that's actually wrong - a point and the center of the sensor will sill experience high incidence angles from the edge of the objective lens/primary mirror! A point at the edge of the sensor will see even more incidence (slightly) from one edge of the mirror, but less from the other edge of the mirror (by the same amount), giving a similar end result!
Seems you got one sample of the L-eXtreme that doesn't work great at high speeds...
Hello, just to say that I did a similar test on my Hyperstar V4 on my C8, comparing the IDAS NBZ and the L-Extreme, and I was very surprised and disappointed to see that the new NBZ performed worse that my L-Extreme... My review is on the Hyperstar Facebook group. I sold my NBZ after that, but a few month after I saw the new NBZ UHS and I bought it because it should maybe perform better than the regular NBZ (and hopefully the L-Extreme too), I still need to test it though...
I think if you get a great sample of the L-eXtreme (like to seem to have), then the L-eXtreme can be superior to the NBZ (except in terms of star halos) in hyperstar. But there's a lot of lottery apparently....
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I don't know, maybe it's indeed a "good" L-Extreme for fast optics, or maybe as the Hyperstar has a different optical system than the RASA, the angle of the light cone could be different and less steep (I don't know if it's even possible)
High Cuiv.. as always... excellent video... if you close your blog camera diafragm, the camera focusing system will catch up the focus very quickly and at the same time.... if the background is very bright ... the lower F stop will help the dymamic range of the camera to get a more balanced video image....
Thanks Luis - will experiment with that.
Great vid as usual. What the hell is that thing that appears in mid air near your head in the daytime part of the vid. Some weired reflection or a streetlamp where the fog as mister out the pole?
Neighbor's TV antenna + Bokeh!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Thanks for clearing that up. 😊
Nice job, but this can be so frustrating. I have the l-extreme, but then I bought the NBZ to use with my RASA and my hyperstar for the same reason - I had seen other reviews where the l-extreme performed poorly at f/2. I guess there’s no way to know without each of us doing the comparison ourselves. It would be nice if the manufacturers could standardize their products and let us know if a bad batch gets out.
Great point. Some dedicated amateur should test these. I’ve seen some folks on cloudy nights with access to the right equipment who have tested various filters for true band pass characteristics, but it would be great to be able to send your filter off for testing wouldn’t it?
Absolutely... the equipment lottery is real... and it's quite annoying! In the end, the only way to escape it is to buy the expensive stuff since it has good QC...
That would really be nice - I actually did send my old Optolong 7nm NB filters to that guy to test a long time ago! The results were not great, with just north of 50% transmittance...
Great video, very interesting.
Thank you!
isn't it always the way? there's always a odd-shaped UFO hovering in the background just behind you when your back is turned on it & you are facing the camera.....
My neighbor's TV antenna + bokeh :)
Perhaps the explanation is that the Pacman nebula is a small target. At 300mm focal length, it's 4 x 4 mm object on the sensor. So, you are comparing performance of the filters in a 4mm diameter circle. Hyperstar C6 can provide a 28mm usable circle.
For objects at infinity every point on the image plane receives light from the entire objective or entrance aperture. The edges of the image don’t necessarily correspond to the edges of the objective. Yes you can have very slightly higher incidence angles towards the edge of the FOV (and lower ones too at the same time), but only by a few arcminutes...
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I think that I understand the theory, but as a scientist, I would do due diligence and make sure that this is the case. California nebula is in the prime position right now. It's fairly bright and it will fill the 16mm circle of the ASI533, and it's probably long enough to fill at least 20mm on one axis. That is, if you have a larger sensor camera.
I have the L Extreme and works very well, especially compare to my other L Enhance filter. I guess these two are all I need for OSC narrowband haha, haven't tried with anything faster than F/5 yet.
Yep, on F5 the L-eXtreme would trounce the IDAS (except for star haloes) and the L-eNhance, simply because of narrower bandpasses!
many compliments for you review and, according to me, quite balanced and professional comparison with "blind + wife remix" mode :-)
Thank you!
I'm curious to see if there is an effective difference in function between a RASA and Hyperstar system with the same filters.
Should be very similar (actually likely worse for my C6 because of the bigger central obstruction - getting aperture closed off because of bandpass shift is more harmful to total transmittance, percentage wise)
Nice! You should test the upcoming antlia 5nm duoband when it's available 😋 (maybe not at f2 tho)
Next video :) Yup!
If I remember well, you have a L-enhance filter. Youmay test it. As in the Ha the bandpass is about 10nm, it works better than the L-extreme at High speed with the bandshift.
Greetings.
Sorry, I don't have the L-eNhance!!
Hi Cuiv, have you heard about the IDAS NBZ UHS which is announced as Ultra High Speed filter for F1.8 to F2.8? I own a „normal“ NBZ and I can confirm that it works pretty well with my RASA 11. But if they can even do better …
I see that! Would work even slightly better :) IDAS does make good stuff
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yeah, apart from the NBX halo desaster ;-) … but they are back on track again. Great video … I forgot to post, thanks a lot!
to be completely honest, I though the Altair filter was just a rebranded L-extreme, too bad people still reccommend it for fats systems on their FB page, smelt like bad advice at the time, and after seeing that it doesn't provide a better isolation of bands compared to the other too I'd say is just a case of advertisment fever.Still, gonna reserve my ultimate judgement, I feel like a more or less complete session on all filters would be a more tangible way to tell them apart, even though that inevitably introduces variables, seeing conditions and whatnot
Yeah, maybe my Altair was a bad sample, etc. it's just hard to tell!
Maybe the mixed results with the Lextreme is because of the orientation of the filter?
That's an intriguing possibility! Still, tt's unlikely - with the Starizona filter drawer (which I saw others reporting the L-eXtreme problem use), you can't put a mounted 2" filter in the wrong orientation!
Is there any way to tell whether my L-eXtreme is good at f2 or not?
I can obviously try that, and will probably get some data but not sure if I can know whether it's good at f2 or not.
I think you best bet would be to compare it with another filter, or point it at a target rich in OIII and Ha like the Veil nebula... It's difficult without a comparison point!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yeah exactly..I can try and compare it with my L-eNhance, which is a bit broader I guess. Not sure how good of a comparison that is, but better than nothing probably :)
Just about to buy the L-Extreme..
This should be useful. 👍
For slow systems the L-eXtreme should be great though!
Interesting test! I have the L-Extreme and IDAS filters and found the L-Extreme better at drawing out Ha and detail. I have a C11 with Hyperstar and use an ATIK Horizon II OSC camera. I wonder if there are performance differences with these filters and type of camera (mono vs OSC)? I believe the Optolong markets the L-Extreme as performing well with OSC cameras. Just a thought.
Gord
Either the L-eXtreme or the IDAS NBZ should be used with OSC, unless they're used as a L replacement! It seems that there are some superior L-eXtreme samples out there, and yours is one of them :-)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Agreed! :-) I'm finding with the Hyperstar and my new camera (old camera was a full mod Canon T3i) that I have to shoot even shorter exposures, and many of them, otherwise the stars get washed out and bloated. With the L-Extreme I still shoot short exposures but about half to two thirds as long as my usual lights. 10-15s upped to 15-20s exposures with the L-Extreme.
Did you consider the NBZ UHS version for even faster scopes?
Not yet, it looks even better, doesn't it?
(with Mortal Kombat narator voice): NBZ WINS
FINISH HIM
Great comparison, really insightful. Thank you.
Could you please compare Halos between NBZ and L extreme on bright stars.
In that regard the NBZ should be superior.
I did that off-camera, might do it on-camera at some point - the NBZ is far superior in that respect.
actually i am not surprised. I have a feeling that there is always a lot of quality fluctuations in astro gear. Just look at all the Apos coming from China.
Yeah, the equipment lottery is real...
Put the Antlia to the test too!
Found this in my filter research. I'm still undecided. I feel the conclusion is reached too early as it only looks at Ha, and doesn't cover more focal ratios. I have no use for F2 more F5.6 so encourage you to try F4.8 as a compromise? There's no OIII comparison, and reflection performance comparison on a bright object, and in both these areas the Altair appears equal if not better. I'm not sure that comparing visibility of features is meaningful. In the Ha comparison, there are some areas which look sharper on the Altair filter, and some which look sharper on the L-Enhance and the Idas, so it appears more a seeing phenomenon averaging subs would be more conclusive. I think it's a good start, but really you should compare them at different focal lengths, show your exact image processing settings in Pixinsight, more than one frame and consider both wavelengths not just Ha. Features in my subs appear brighter or dimmer from frame to frame. Sometimes even a different shape, which I always thought was caused by seeing distortion. If you allowed viewers to download stretched frames marked up with the areas you mention for clarity that would help as TH-cam video isn't that good quality. I don't mean to be a nit-picker but comparisons are a big responsibility and you cannot get this wrong. I do think it's a good start and I don't mean to be critical at all but we do owe more diligence to manufacturers of these wonderful toys else the market diversity will just dry up. A follow up video about these other aspects and more in depth would be very helpful.
Hi Ben - the raw files are already available for download in the description for further analysis (I did also check OIII in the end, not on video, but I see the same results). The problem of a stack is what I mentioned in the video: not getting the same conditions for each filter, which I think is worse - my compromise was going to 5 minute exposures after Meridian - which is the same as averaging subs overall. I don't plan on doing a strict test of those filters at other focal ratios - this is purely for F2 in terms of SNR, which was of interest to me with my current setup. I think (hope) I am very clear in my video about what I cover and what criteria I look at! Also, I don't currently have a slow scope to test with (my Askar lens is back to the reseller for a second round of repairs)!
Thanks for this video, I love this kind of experiment.
I think that using a C6 ,150mm with that big ostruction is helping the filters to work better. I once noticed how ostruction helped with non ultraspeed filters. Using a larger mirror will give much more light at f2, hard to deal for these filters.
Let me know what you think about it, i love this topic
Thanks Giuseppe - I think the reverse would be true. The central obstruction removes all light rays that are at 90 degrees of the filter - so it makes narrowband filters work worse because only the light rays at an angle are left!
As I understand it the differences in performance would be apparent mostly at the edges/corners of the image, due to angle of incidence of the light hitting the filter.
Perhaps if the test was repeated with the nebula in the corner the results would be different.
I think in a well-designed system for objects at infinity every point on the image plane receives light from the entire objective or entrance aperture. The edges of the image don’t necessarily correspond to the edges of the objective.
As Geoffrey says - although we could indeed have very slightly higher incidence angles for objects at the edge of the FOV though (by a few arcminutes), that is true.
That is an interesting finding. I also saw AstroBlenders video about the L-eXtreme just after I purchased mine. I was expecting the same as you and was surprised by your findings. I like these comparison videos. They bring a great deal of value to the community in seeing how different products perform under a controlled set of conditions. FWIW - glad you’re growing your beard out again. It’s a better “look” for you Sir.
Thanks David! :D
Yeah L-extreme ❤️💙
The L xtreme works fine on my rasa 8 and edgehd 925 with hyperstar v4. The Ha comes through just fine HOWEVER the halos/reflections are unbearable. I'm saying it looks like the star is out of focus halo complete with the power line and usb cable outlines in the halo/reflection. I don't have that problem when I shoot at f/7 or F/10 with the edgehd. Only at f/2.2 with the hyperstar and f/2 rasa.
The idas nbz has none of these problems at all for me. Both on the Rasa and the edgehd.
So, I love my NBZ :-)))
And rightfully so!
5 min exposures, the one on the right looks to have more saturation of red to me
That's the L-eXtreme :D I think I really have a good sample
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Good.. I bought that based on your previous video
Cuiv the Lextreame is poor on my Rasa, AND my C14 Hyperstar Not so much on my C9.25 Hyperstar. Maybe..... dunno.
On the C14 hyperstar it causes a Hotspot or vignette. My test is on a asi2600. My asi183 shows no difference. Maybe... dunno. What size is your sensor.?
That's quite interesting - my sensor is only 1 inch... Maybe because the C9.25 is slightly slower it performs better? There can be quite a bit of difference between F2.3 and F2...
As always Cuiv, a cracking video!
I am really shocked about the Altair Astro filter! Like you, I would of expected better from it and the L-eXtreme to be bottom of the pile.
I’m glad I went with the NBZ back in the summer. Even though I’m only using an F/5 system, I’m still getting cracking results from it. Also, it seems to be parfocal with my IDAS NGS1 filter which makes focusing easier. I borrowed my friends L-eXtreme first, but was put off by the bad star halos, so went with the NBZ. I can confirm the NBZ has no star halos at all!
Thanks for that feedback Adam! The Altair filter was very disappointing!....
@@CuivTheLazyGeek You’re most welcome! 😄
My friend is using the Altair filter on the same F/5 system as myself, and getting great results. Must just be on the faster scopes it falters. Again, such a shame! 😕
My L-extreme Dont work at all at F2 speed and Idaz NBZ works Great. Problably an early batch that dont work with my Hyperstar.
It's quite interesting though to see such variability!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yes my was great on rejecting everything. Most Ha and non of the OIII was vissible. 1,5 hours on Californa Nebula it was wery faint and was awesome on my IDAS NBZ with 3 hours. I photograph from Bortle 9 Stockholm, Sweden.