Biggest WOW binoculars you have ever looked through? (4 Viewers)

[A2GG]

Henry said in one of his old posts that all binoculars show some stereopsis.
I don't notice 3D much in roofs and maybe it's due to my somewhat narrow 59mm IPD.
But, I do notice it in porros. When I haven't used one of my porros for a while, I sometimes
feel like the view is a little wonky at first and then I adjust to it.

I've been avoiding this thread because it almost seems like another "best" bino thread, but I'll give in and say that
my most memorable "wow" moment was my first "real" binocular which was the Leupold Yosemite 6x30.
Prior to that I had not looked through a binocular since I was a child or early teen and I looked through toys essentially
with a very murky view. The Yosemite was so clear and I thought wow this is really nice and it got me hooked on optics.

 

[Troubador]

Yes but Gijs, now that you are 78 years old perhaps this inability to see 3D is age related.

Lee

I should explain that I have no idea of Professor van Ginkel's age but was taking up a joke posted by his fellow countryman, a certain Jan van Daalen, who is known for his quirky sense of humour.

Gijs himself has a talent for comic replies so watch this space!

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lee, post 119,
It was very nice of you to make me that young while I am already 97 (I age very quickly and you probably know why: we distill our own brandy at home and that tastes so very nice. but ones hair start to curl and spontaneous wrinkles are formed in my skin from which one can drink the fresh brandy conveniently. saves a lot of dish washing....
When I read and re-read many of the posts on 3D here I get the impression that a lot of them describe depth of field and that is not 3D in my perception.
Further I am of the opinion that Stanbo described very precisely how 3D works.
Gijs van Ginkel

P.S. Lee, I will ask my youngest great-grandson to make a picture of me, so you can actually see how young I look, despite my age of 97.

 

[SivaL]

Can I respectfully suggest wishful thinking.

What is happening is that instead of the 3D effect being provided by the the wide spacing of the IOD of, say, 140mm as in a porro prism binocular, it is being provided by taking the photographs at, say, 100m IOD apart and then moving them together to view. Hence the superb 3D view.

In order to achieve a true 3D view it is essential for each eye to view a subject from a different angle. In the case of photogrammetry it is easy achieved by moving the images (photographs) closer together. With binoculars, any significant 3D image can only be achieved by having a much larger IOD than IPD. Only porro prism binoculars are able to provide this and then only to a limited degree. Roof prism binoculars can't.

My Nikon 8x32 se and Audubon 840, both porro prisms, give a pleasing 3D view, but I have yet to see a roof prism that can provide a 3D view, simply because both eyes see virtually the same image.

The layout of the lenses on the Canon 10x42L means that the it is more akin to a roof prism binocular than a poro, so no 3D effect either.

Stan

Couldn't agree more with Gigs on this great post by Stanbo. Your comment makes the most sense. Porro binoculars show a 3D view due of their wide inter objective distance and not the inter pupillary distance. In a "3D" view seen through the Nikon 8x30 EII, objects some distance behind and front of the subject being focused can be perceived clearly by the eyes. This is how I see naturally without using binoculars. Right now I am looking at a pine tree 100 ft away without the aid of binoculars. My eyes can perceive trees closer to me at 30 ft and trees and the home behind the pine tree 200 ft away clearly. IMO This is why the view through the Porro looks so natural as it is like being 8 times closer to the subject and seeing with our own eyes. As we all know this effect diminishes as the subject moves further away.

Taking Stanbo's idea further it would be nice to try a home made setup with two scopes of equal magnification (or using barrels from two binoculars) with 0.5-1m separation between and bringing both images to the eyes using some mirrors like two periscopes. This will lose quite a bit of transmission, but the magnified 3D view will be quite fun to see. I volunteer Gigs for the project:t:

Starting with two home made periscopes using just mirrors without any magnification to get some separation between eyes might be a start. B

 

[Binastro]

Stereo is where, if your hands were long enough, you could accurately touch what you are seeing with your fingers first time.
This is what I see with any binocular as long as the object and the background separation is within my eye's suitable resolution limit.
And the plane of what I am looking at is sufficiently far in front or behind the other comparison plane to be within this resolution limit. Either sky or another object.

This is what I see with unaided eyes with the help of spectacles nowadays or with a binocular and unaided eyes.

It is not DOF.

In other words I can perceive the distance of what I am looking at compared with other planes.

I was surprised I had enough DOF using the 8x42 to see 4 planes clearly defined from 20m to infinity without refocusing.
The first object, the roof, might be 25m away I will measure it with a laser rangefinder.

 

[A2GG]

A correction:

In my post 121 I mention my narrow IPD possibly hindering a 3D view, but now I stand corrected by Stanbo, Gijs and Henry. As mentioned already, it's the difference or offset of objective spacing vs ocular spacing. That's not a very good explanation , but here is the better explanation by Henry (post 3):

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311840

 

[etudiant]

Couldn't agree more with Gigs on this great post by Stanbo. Taking Stanbo's idea further it would be nice to try a home made setup with two scopes of equal magnification (or using barrels from two binoculars) with 0.5-1m separation between and bringing both images to the eyes using some mirrors like two periscopes. This will lose quite a bit of transmission, but the magnified 3D view will be quite fun to see. I volunteer Gigs for the project:t:

Starting with two home made periscopes using just mirrors without any magnification to get some separation between eyes might be a start. B

There are lots of relatively cheap range finders available on Ebay, so no need to cobble up some homebrew knockoff.
Any decent WW2 infantry range finder had 18" or more objective lens separation, artillery units much more. They give extreme 3D views over shorter distances.
I don't think anyone can doubt that the distance between the objectives (as opposed to between the oculars) is critical for the 3D effect.
Whether that effect is visible in conventional non porro binoculars is another question. It is surely amenable to testing at very little expense, but who would pay for doing the work?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lee, post 122,
You accuse me of having a sense of humor, but that is really not the case.
I asked my great-grandson to make a photograph of me to publish on this forum, but he was to busy with a birding trip in Siberia, so I decided to publish a picture of him carrying a brandnew Laika Noktanix binocular, which according to his letters show marvellous 3D images and I believe him. I am waiting for his pictures of the snow-hummingbird, which he claims to have made a picture of.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Lee, post 122,
You accuse me of having a sense of humor, but that is really not the case.
I asked my great-grandson to make a photograph of me to publish on this forum, but he was to busy with a birding trip in Siberia, so I decided to publish a picture of him carrying a brandnew Laika Noktanix binocular, which according to his letters show marvellous 3D images and I believe him. I am waiting for his pictures of the snow-hummingbird, which he claims to have made a picture of.
Gijs van Ginkel

Come on Gijs you can't fool me. Thats a picture of you not your great-grandson. I can tell by your unexpectedly youthful appearance and those cool shorts for which you are famous in Utrecht. And those Laika binoculars you are carrying are up to more than 95% made in Portugal which is quite a high probabililty although probably this is not statistically significant.

Lee

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Lee,
I admit that we share some looks, that is not unusual for a great-grandson I think, but no this is really him at the age of 53 and I am very proud of him as being our youngest great grandson. He just an hour ago forwarded a picture of a snow-hummingbird eating the nectar in snow flowers, amazing pictures, but I am not allowed to publish them since the Russian authorities want to keep it a secret (snow humming birds are very rare as you may know and they are very difficult to find because of the enormous amount of glare they introduce in binoculars when they are collecting food in the snow covered fields.) .
I am a bit sad that you do not know the Noktanix Laika 11x66, which were originally made in Liechtenstein, but production had to be stopped since the big three in Europe tried to wipe the company out. So there are very few left.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Troubador]

Lee,
I admit that we share some looks, that is not unusual for a great-grandson I think, but no this is really him at the age of 53 and I am very proud of him as being our youngest great grandson. He just an hour ago forwarded a picture of a snow-hummingbird eating the nectar in snow flowers, amazing pictures, but I am not allowed to publish them since the Russian authorities want to keep it a secret (snow humming birds are very rare as you may know and they are very difficult to find because of the enormous amount of glare they introduce in binoculars when they are collecting food in the snow covered fields.) .
I am a bit sad that you do not know the Noktanix Laika 11x66, which were originally made in Liechtenstein, but production had to be stopped since the big three in Europe tried to wipe the company out. So there are very few left.
Gijs van Ginkel

This is amazing Gijs although I believe the principal source of glare in Russia is Vladimir Putin.
And although the Laika bins sound fascinating, Liechtenstein has never been statistically significant.

Lee

 

[Binastro]

Liechtenstein in fact was the originator of mass multicoatiing for optics, about 1950.
So very significant optically.

(Balzers).

 

[Troubador]

Liechtenstein in fact was the originator of mass multicoatiing for optics, about 1950.
So very significant optically.

(Balzers).

David

Thats a cool fact but please define mass multi-coating.

Was this multi-coating for civilian binoculars in big numbers or multi-coating a large number of lenses at the same time in a chamber or ????

Lee

 

[Binastro]

Lee,
Balzers was the first firm to use multicoating on an industrial scale for civilian use.
It was I think formed by a Duke or similar into a big operation after WW2.
Lots of money sunk into it.
They probably multi coated third party lenses.

Now part of Oerlikon I think.

I don't know which lenses, but probably binoculars also?

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Binastro, posts 132 and 134,
Balzers was a maker and supplier of top quality interference filters, other optical filters and the application of top quality coatings. Moreover the company applied coatings on optical parts for other companies, which did not have coating equipment themselves for example Hartmann had its lenses and prisms coated by Balzers. The company was really an international top player in this field.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[elkcub]

Stanbo, post 105,
Thank you for your input on 3D, it is for me the most convincing post of all the posts published on this topic. I never see 3D with any roofs.
Gijs van Ginkel

Now Gijs, really? If you never see 3D with any roofs can we assume that you see 2D?
Just wondering. :scribe:
Ed

 

[Binastro]

Triumph offers 3D flexible wire.
Perhaps Gijs might see that

Even using a roof prism.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Ed, post 136,
Did you ever look through one of those "Scherenfernrohre' with which the objectives can be turned 10 cm to 100 cm apart from each other? That gives you what I call a stereoscopic view and to a lesser extent this is also the case with normal porro binoculars. That was, if I remember well, also the ground of Abbes patent on the new Zeiss binoculars in 1894 : increase in image plasticity was the name of it. I do not see that same effect with standard roof binoculars. If we speak here about 3D I understand that we mean this type of stereoscopic view.
Does this help to clarify my statement a bit or do you keep wondering about my visual capacities?
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[elkcub]

Can I respectfully suggest wishful thinking.

Many years ago I was involved in photogrammetry using aerial photographs to produce maps. Although there were some sophisticated instruments to do this, I also had a stereoscopic magnifier to carry out an initial assessment of what was on the photographs. This was a very simple instrument with a lens for each eye and two arms to rest it over the photographs at a set distance for the set magnification of the lenses - looking much like a pair of glasses used the wrong way round. Think of this as the eyepieces of a binocular.

If I looked at a photograph it showed no 3D effect whatsoever. However if I viewed two adjacent photographs taken at a set distance apart by the camera in the aircraft, then the 3D effect was amazing with buildings standing up like sentinels. Why should this be?

Because of the distance apart that the photographs were taken, the view of the same area for each one was significantly different. The spacing of these photographs is the equivalent of the spacing of binocular objective lenses. In effect you can see different sides of the object you are viewing which is what is needed in order to produce a 3D image.

What is happening is that instead of the 3D effect being provided by the the wide spacing of the IOD of, say, 140mm as in a porro prism binocular, it is being provided by taking the photographs at, say, 100m IOD apart and then moving them together to view. Hence the superb 3D view.

In order to achieve a true 3D view it is essential for each eye to view a subject from a different angle. In the case of photogrammetry it is easy achieved by moving the images (photographs) closer together. With binoculars, any significant 3D image can only be achieved by having a much larger IOD than IPD. Only porro prism binoculars are able to provide this and then only to a limited degree. Roof prism binoculars can't.

My Nikon 8x32 se and Audubon 840, both porro prisms, give a pleasing 3D view, but I have yet to see a roof prism that can provide a 3D view, simply because both eyes see virtually the same image.

The layout of the lenses on the Canon 10x42L means that the it is more akin to a roof prism binocular than a poro, so no 3D effect either.

Stan

Gijs, I was only pulling your leg — just a bit. But I did want to segway into Stan's comments, in particular the boldface paragraph.

Hi Stan,

Attached below is a page from James J. Gibson's classic paper "Perception of Distance and Space in the Open Air," first published in 1946, and funded by the US Army Air Force. There are no copyright limitations for distribution of Govt. funded research. Although he wrote the paper with emphasis on flyers, to satisfy the Air Force, it is clearly a general theory of 3D perception (based on visual gradients). He wasn't alone in his observations at the time as seen by the reference (bottom) to H. Schlosberg's 1941 paper on "Stereoscopic depth from single pictures."

The point is that what may seem obvious and compelling, ain't necessarily so. Henry Link, an astute observer, also made similar observations about a year ago using a magnifying glass —.

Unfortunately, this thread (and others) has also not distinguished between 3D spatial perception and 3D performance, i.e., stereo acuity. The latter is aided by magnification, the former is not ... IMO.

Ed

PS. Gibson was a member of the US National Academy of Science.

 

[typo]

I've managed to dig up one or two bits about stereopsis that seem relevant here.

Individuals do vary in their ability to see stereopsis but one study showed that 80% of the test subjects were able to see "horizontal disparity" better than 30 arcseconds. I think that mean that with a typical IPD of 65mm it would be detectable at 467m or more.

In Howard and Rogers book, Perception of Depth, Volume two they state that when using binoculars the stereopsis limit increases proportionally with magnification and also the stereobase (objective separation).

Putting those two pieces of information together, 80% of that test group if they used an 8x roof with a 65mm objective separation would be able to detect "horizontal disparity" at at least 3.7km. Using a porro with a 130mm objective separation that would be 7.4km. In fact, Howard and Rogers suggest that stereopsis is normally detectable at up to 1.5km so the 8x roof would be 12km and the porro 24km. I confess those numbers seem extraordinary to me, but then I can't remember ever having a sufficiently clear view with binoculars at anything like that range to be able to tell.

David