SkyGlow Imaging filter for visual?

Here is perhaps an old tired question.

Perusing the Orion catalog, there are the SkyGlow broadband light pollution filters and then at about double the price are SkyGlow Imaging filters.

The Imaging filter and the Broadband filter both share near-identical dual main passbands-- One fairly wide passband around Blue-Green, another wide passband around Red.

For the extra money, the Skyglow Imaging filter gives three extra narrow passbands in Violet, Yellow-Green, and Orange.

Just eyeballing the filter shapes, it looks like the Broadband filter's 'total light attenuation' would be about 50 percent, since about half the spectrum is attenuated and the other half of the spectrum is not atenuated.

Eyeballing the Skyglow Imaging filter shape, it looks like maybe the 'total light attenuation' might be about 30 percent because of the extra three narrow passbands. Therefore the Skyglow Imaging filter MIGHT be about 1.375X brighter than the Skyglow Broadband filter. Additionally, the color balance would have to be better in the more-expensive Skyglow Imaging filter (because of the additional color passbands).

For PURELY VISUAL observing-- If the higher price doesn't matter-- Would the Skyglow Imaging filter offer noticeably improved brightness and color compared to the Skyglow Broadband filter?

This would be typically used in a CPC 1100 in moderate light pollution, or possibly small inexpensive refractors.

I'm so lazy that the CPC 1100 might never leave the backyard, so the light pollution is always gonna be there. If a skyglow filter actually makes a diff, I'd probably just leave it mounted in the diagonal all the time. If it wouldn't make enough of an improvement to leave in there most of the time, maybe it wouldn't be enough of an improvement to bother buying the thing to begin with?

Thanks!

James: I don't have specific information on the Sky Glow but it is my experience with a variety of filters that there is no filter that is sufficiently effective that it can live permanently installed. Even were the filter perfect, one would want to remove it for planetary and double star observation.

But for most observations, such filters by their very nature change the color of the stars so one is no longer looking the same balanced spectrum...

That's my two cents.

Jon

James C Chandler Jr said:

For PURELY VISUAL observing-- If the higher price doesn't matter-- Would the Skyglow Imaging filter offer

For visual observing, forget ANY of these. They and similar filters like the Lumicon Deep Sky are way too mild to be effective.

For visual a UHC/Ultrablock is the way to go.

I agree with what Rod says regarding them being too mild to really be of benefit and the UHC would be a better choice BUT only with that 11" SCT. You mentioned smaller refractors and in my experience just about any filter reduces the light in 4" and smaller scopes to the point visually that only the brightest objects are worth looking at.

James C Chandler Jr said:

Here is perhaps an old tired question.

Perusing the Orion catalog, there are the SkyGlow broadband light pollution filters and then at about double the price are SkyGlow Imaging filters.

The Imaging filter and the Broadband filter both share near-identical dual main passbands-- One fairly wide passband around Blue-Green, another wide passband around Red.

For the extra money, the Skyglow Imaging filter gives three extra narrow passbands in Violet, Yellow-Green, and Orange.

Just eyeballing the filter shapes, it looks like the Broadband filter's 'total light attenuation' would be about 50 percent, since about half the spectrum is attenuated and the other half of the spectrum is not atenuated.

Eyeballing the Skyglow Imaging filter shape, it looks like maybe the 'total light attenuation' might be about 30 percent because of the extra three narrow passbands. Therefore the Skyglow Imaging filter MIGHT be about 1.375X brighter than the Skyglow Broadband filter. Additionally, the color balance would have to be better in the more-expensive Skyglow Imaging filter (because of the additional color passbands).

For PURELY VISUAL observing-- If the higher price doesn't matter-- Would the Skyglow Imaging filter offer noticeably improved brightness and color compared to the Skyglow Broadband filter?

This would be typically used in a CPC 1100 in moderate light pollution, or possibly small inexpensive refractors.

I'm so lazy that the CPC 1100 might never leave the backyard, so the light pollution is always gonna be there. If a skyglow filter actually makes a diff, I'd probably just leave it mounted in the diagonal all the time. If it wouldn't make enough of an improvement to leave in there most of the time, maybe it wouldn't be enough of an improvement to bother buying the thing to begin with?

Thanks!