Daytime Lunar Astrophotography - IR Cut vs IR Pass Filter Comparison 

Hey folks! I didn't want to distract or sway anyone by talking over the video as I feel it's good to make up your own mind based on what you're seeing, plus it's probably better for non English speakers. Having said this, here's some information for anyone wanting to find out more about the filters used during this test. Baader UV/IR-Cut Filter The Baader UV/IR-Cut filter is designed to block ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) light, allowing only visible light to pass through. This filter is commonly used to: Reduce chromatic aberration. Enhance image sharpness and contrast. Prevent sensor blooming by blocking unwanted UV and IR wavelengths. Astronomik ProPlanet 642 IR-Pass Filter The Astronomik ProPlanet 642 IR-Pass filter, on the other hand, is designed to transmit infrared light beyond 642 nm while blocking visible and UV light. This filter is specifically tailored for: Improving contrast and detail in lunar and planetary imaging. Reducing the impact of atmospheric turbulence, which is more pronounced in visible light. Providing better performance in poor seeing conditions. Both the Baader UV/IR-Cut filter and the Astronomik ProPlanet 642 IR-Pass filter have their unique strengths. The Baader UV/IR-Cut filter is excellent for improving sharpness and contrast by blocking unwanted UV and IR light. In contrast, the Astronomik ProPlanet 642 IR-Pass filter excels in reducing atmospheric turbulence effects and enhancing image detail by utilizing infrared light, making it particularly advantageous for daytime lunar imaging. The choice between these filters will depend on the specific imaging conditions and desired outcomes for daytime lunar photography.

Both have given a decent image but I think the IR pass filter has given the better result.

**Please click on the cog icon and choose 4K for the best video quality**

wow I never realised just how much improvement is possible when using the IR pass filter. Definitely going to try it myself, thanks!

P.S. I love daytime lunar observing too 😊

For giggles, I recently pointed my Dwarf II at a patch of blue sky during the day and I actually got an image with black dots. I inverted that image with post processing and realized they were stars. The downside to this is that during the day, there is currently no way to calibrate this machine or others like it to track objects in the sky during the daylight hours. Im sure that not many people would be trying to view deep space objects during the day anyhow, but Im the weirdo for trying. It would be possible to SEE some stuff during the day, but with extended time, and exposure, the image would become blurry with trails very quickly. I hope this tech improves as time goes on so we can learn more about space around us. Your setup is awesome!!!

Hi Chris Nice test, however to get the best from the Ir Pass filter you need to use a mono camera, then the real magic happends

A suggestion for a future video, if you think it’s interesting: the effective aperture and light gathering capacity of reflector telescope. On the internet forums it’s a highly debated topic but almost no youtuber talks about it. A lot of people do not know that the effective aperture of a reflector is lower than the theoretical one and also that the light gathering capacity of a reflector is lower than in theory because of the central obstruction and low light reflectivity of usually just 88-92% of the mirrors.

Brilliant! Tha ks for sharing mate.

FYI there is an Svbony filter, "SVBONY SV183 Telescope Filter, IR Pass Filter, 2 Inch 685nm Reduce The Effects of Seeing for Planetary Photography Contrast Enhancement"

Hi Chris, IR pass is my choice. It would be curious if you would consider repeating the same comparison on the sun with a white light filter (WLF) installed on the front of the scope; (1) WLF vs (2) WLF + IR Cut vs (3) WLF + IR Pass. Very nice comparison vid, cheers.

Interesting comparison. I don't really care for rosy hue of the IR Pass when you were capturing the video, but once processed, it sure results in an impressive image. Not sure which I prefer as an end product. Based on how it looked on my screen, I'd be tempted to adjust the levels on the IR Cut image to cut back the brightness a bit, but either one really shows how sweet that FC100dc is 👏

Hi Chris great video mate I think the IR pass images looks do much clearer , thanks for taking the time to make these video mate

Amazing! 😮

I had a Pentax k-01 (mirrorless) modified to full spectrum. You've inspired me to see what I get with that on daytime lunar. Thx!

IR pass, does that mean only IR and no visible light? Imean would the IR pass filter have any benefits for visual viewing?

Definitely the Ir pass filter has it, much better contrast the UV IR cut filter looked washed out in comparison

Like

Nice.

@AstroLaVista: Thanks for the comparison. To make it more realistic, I think it would be better if you also postprocessed the images by at least adjusting the contrast and colour-balance. Right now you essentially show what you get out of camera, which is fine, but it would also be interesting to see what the end result could be for the two filters. E.g., I am sure you would drastically improve you IR-pass image by changing the black point so it doesn't look so washed out. Also, using a gray scale for the moon under day conditions makes sense since you are not coing to reveal any intrinsic colours of the moon. Depending on how acromatic you telescope is, you could also gain some resolution by using a narrower filter, say green. Although in the end I agree with you that the IR pass is probably best for daytime because of the increased contrast, even at the price of a larger diffraction limit.

Looks good. Thanks for sharing.

Curious why the background sky using your IR pass filter is not jet black. I use a Baader 685nm IR pass (should be more or less identical to yours) with a 180mm Mak and the sky is absolutlely black when I shoot the moon during the day.