Astronomik ProPlanet 642 IR-Pass Filter for Lunar? Before & After Controlled Test 

Good point. Not all, but some cameras actually have a UV/IR cut window built in as well. A lot of planetary cameras have that. I believe the 462 only has an anti-reflective coating on the window. It should also be noted that using a color camera will only give you data from one out of four pixels due to the Bayer matrix. A monochrome camera may be better suited for for using an IR pass filter. Another great video!

Oh good Point, so is The ZWO Asi 462mc , More Sensitive The ASI 290.. I just Checked The QE graph on comaparsion of Both The Cameras. Oh well, I think now I changed my Mind : O Now Im Replacing it with ASi 462mc!!😋

@@avt_astro206 Good call :) as mentioned the 290 is around half as sensitive in the IR, but it doesn't have an inbuilt IR Cut filter so it would work (at least half as well) with the Proplanet 642 IR pass filter. However, the ASI 462mc is a better camera on paper for about the same price. This is the reason I bought it :) You seemed to have your heart set on the 290 and thought maybe you chose it over the 462 because they do a mono version?

@@AstroLaVista Yes!! There is A Colour Version of The Camera Too! Im going For That, Should Be Interesting To Try Out With some Planetary Imaging Filters, Like Methane Filters!

@@brandonporter4227 Thanks Brandon :) I think most ZWO cameras now days have the anti reflection coatings alone, and I think that is the right choice purely from the flexibility point of view. Regarding your good point about mono cameras and the Bayer reducing resolution and sensitivity, I'm really hoping ZWO decide to release a mono version of the 462. I don't know about you but I would be on that from day one! :D

That makes me happy Rob, thank you so much! :)

Hey Vineeth, thanks :) Keep safe buddy.

Hi Luke :) hehe Cheers mate, sorry to hear about the clouds. I guess we've had a great run at least hey :) Yeah I said I wasn't going to comment but what can I say other than great minds think alike :D. I was trying to work out why the first before and after capture was so striking, then I remembered that I started off by trying to capture 3000 frames at full resolution but stopped after the first before and after because my laptop was just hanging. For the other two before and after captures I used 1000 frames. It's the only difference I can think of in hindsight, so maybe the ProPlanet 642 IR pass comes into it's own when you stack a lot of frames? I set Autostakkert to use 50% for all, so that's 1500 frames for the first comparison verses 500 for the other two. I probably should comment on that but perhaps more experimentation is needed first :) Take it easy mate, just chill whilst it's cloudy ;)

Cheers Jason :) Astronomik do a more hardcore ProPlanet 742nm IR pass filter which I'm likely to try at some point. Maybe that one would show a more profound difference? I must stop window shopping lol

@@AstroLaVista lol! Tell me about it Chris...I have to keep saying to myself "stop looking at things you can't afford." ...After wiping the drool away :)

Oh no! I thought I was adjusting the brightness slider, but just checked and it was the contrast slider! Well that slightly ruins the test, dammit! In that case it's hard to comment loan, I don't know if I accidentally moved the wrong slider with the other two before and after images? I thought I was just matching brightness, not adjusting contrast :( That's a bit depressing to realise, but thanks for pointing out my mistake :) I'm planning on buying the 742nm IR pass filter as well, so I'll do a 3 way rematch and correct that mistake. Hopefully that will be better! However, I've just started working on something quite ambitious which might take weeks and weeks, so the Lunar filter rematch will have to wait a while, but I've given you credit for pointing out a mistake in a pinned comment :)

Hi Daniel, you're very welcome :) I'll give it a go on the planets at some point, just in case there's more of a difference there?

Hey Paul, thanks! Yeah it's a cool feature, IR pass filters darken bright skies thus increasing contrast. Here's a paper comparing IR cut to IR pass :) www.baader-planetarium.com/en/downloads/dl/file/id/24/product/2951/testreview_ir_pass_uv_ir_comparison_w_paech.pdf

@@AstroLaVista thanks Chris, a really good read!

Thank Garnett, and good point! I'll give it a go the next clear full Moon I get :)

Hi John, it sounds like really frustrating weather you've had! so I'll try not to rub my clear nights in too much. Yes I bought the filter from FLO and it cost £58. That angled polar scope will certainly save your back, I've heard good things about them. Clear skies soon for you I hope.

@@AstroLaVista Hi Chris. At long last I've tested the Pixel 4 astrophotography mode last night in dark skies out side Aviemore as yesterday I went to Aviemore for Wild camp and took pixel 4 and wow far less light pollution in shots as I think out side Aviemore is bortle 3 skies. I waited over a year for this and it's going to get better. So glad I camp in the highlands and pixel 4 verdict? Very impressive even there was few clouds and the stars looked very nice. It felt great camping again and using my pixel 4 under dark skies for the first time since I got it before the Pandemic started. I fan only imagine what it'll be like in bortle 1 skies or even bortle 2. Hope your staying safe and pixel 4 first time test was exciting!!!

@@bushcraftandastronomer.3775 Awh that's so good to hear John! I'm very pleased for you, glad it was a success! :)

Hi Rob, if you want to do planetary and Lunar imaging something like the ASI 462 is the way to go, but if you want to do deep sky imaging then go for the DLSR or the Mirrorless. You'll need the much larger sensor of the DLSR/M43 for finding and framing DSO's even with GOTO. hth

Thanks very much :) I've had a look at the QE curves for both the 290 and 462 and I'm estimating the filter will work at least half as well with the 290, if not a bit more. It's tricky to be precise because one curve has a combined RGB curve and the other shows separate RGB curves, so I've made an educated guess by blinking between the two. The blurb states that it's a planetary and Lunar filter so I'm very much looking forward to testing it on the planets also. Further to that it mentions the filter can be used as an affordable Ha filter so it seems very versatile : ) Oh and thanks again, I think that might be my best ever image of the Copernicus region! :)

@@AstroLaVista Thats Awesome Thanks For the info, I will think lf Buying this filter!! Ones I get my Camera and New Telescope too : D

I've added it to my list of video ideas, Peter. I do want to do a multiple filter shoot out at some point.

@@AstroLaVista Looking forward to it. I could in theory lend you my Baader Contrast booster and Astronomik CLS CCD filters both in 2" for your review

@@entropytango5348 Very kind Peter. I'm working on an objects of the summer triangle video at the moment, but If I've not picked up a Baader Contrast Booster filter by the time I'm ready for another filter video I know who to ask : ) I've not signed a contract yet so can't say who, but I might be able to borrow filters etc from my new employer!

Cheers :) I'm very much looking forward to finding this out! I'll of course video my experience of using the filter for planetary imaging, although I might do a blind test next time and label the images A and B in order that people can make a decision without being subconsciously swayed by knowing a filter was used. I will then give the answers at the end of the video. The filter is said to be a planetary and Lunar filter so fingers crossed :)

@@AstroLaVista Great idea. In this video I thought your images taken with the filter was the better of the two (at least to my eyes).

Hi Alexander, yes I would have refocused as I always do when switching out filters. This was a while ago now, but yes I remember it looking more contrasty on one of the images but not a night and day difference, and the others were a bit meh? I think it made a little difference and it should work in theory but maybe the constant changing seeing conditions just make more of a difference? I remember messing up the experiment by not keeping one of the settings in SharpCap the same so the test could do with being repeated really. It wasn't as controlled as I had hoped!

@@AstroLaVista A valiant effort! Yup the subtle differences are a tad lost in the changed focus and the seeing, plus the contrast tweak on the filtered set. Be interested in a mono camera with the same pixel density too maximise the resolution.

Hi, I would check both your camera and filter specs because some cameras have a build in IR cut, and some filters have UV/IR cut also. It just depends on the particular camera and filters you're using.

Yes I agree, I used an 200p Reflector here but unless you've got a good triplet refractor an IR pass may soften the image slightly from what I understand.