Contrast in binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

I have trouble with the concept when color gets involved.

Mostly because of individual variation in color perception.

Individual variation in colour perception makes things difficult, no doubt. However, a binocular should show differences between, say, different shades of brown. How people perceive these shades is subject to individual variation, but they should at least be visible.

Unless the observer is colour blind, of course.

Hermann

 

[agus_m]

Interesting comments.

I think it is like many said here then, it is more about the perception of contrast given by the choice of coatings, and not the actual contrast. So if coatings tend to favor brown colors, dark appears darker.

Another thing that I am thinking now is that the percentage transmission given by manufacturers or reviewers could be just the peak in the transmission curve. Not the averaged transmission across all visible wavelengths. So a binocular that happens to have a peak of 95% transmission at a certain wavelength, but much lower in the rest of the visible spectrum, will be prone to veiling glare at those wavelengths (assuming that the glass is 100% transparent). A binocular with a flatter curve, and consistent high transmission across all visible wavelengths, should have higher contrast.

 

[Yarkho]

Contrast (monochromatic) is defined as the relative difference between features with different intensities.

My understanding is that high-contrast binoculars have low aberrations as well as scattered light. These include low microroughness of individual surfaces - which is both an aberration (due to wavefront deformation) as well as it scatters light.

No wonder the "alphas" come from European manufacturers who had a ~century to perfect the art of glass grinding & polishing.

 

[james holdsworth]

I’m surprised this discussion of contrast doesn’t mention different types of contrast - at least to the extent that I understand the phenomena.

Something like my SF has the best micro contrast of anything I own, great detail of minute surface textures and features, but lacks the punchy macro contrast of my HT - what I perceive to be excellent contrast of dark / light as well as colour contrast. Something else the HT bests the SF is edge contrast, resulting in more pop and more 3 dimensional view.

I prefer the more dynamic view of the HT, even if (technically) the SF has several optical advantages…..and I’m not sure if great micro and macro contrast are mutually exclusive.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I’m surprised this discussion of contrast doesn’t mention different types of contrast - at least to the extent that I understand the phenomena.

Something like my SF has the best micro contrast of anything I own, great detail of minute surface textures and features, but lacks the punchy macro contrast of my HT - what I perceive to be excellent contrast of dark / light as well as colour contrast. Something else the HT bests the SF is edge contrast, resulting in more pop and more 3 dimensional view.

I prefer the more dynamic view of the HT, even if (technically) the SF has several optical advantages…..and I’m not sure if great micro and macro contrast are mutually exclusive.

I think the macro contrast, edge contrast, pop and the 3-dimensional view in the HT are due to the AK prism used instead of the SP prism as used in most binoculars. An AK prism binocular usually has more objective separation relative to the oculars, giving it a more 3D view. I have noticed those things in every AK prism binocular I have tried. Usually, an AK prism binocular has about 2% higher transmission than a binocular with an SP prism also. I believe the HT is up there at about 95% transmission in Habicht territory, giving it the same sparkle the Habicht has. There are more advantages with an AK prism than some people think.

 

[hopster]

For best possible contrast in optics my experiences suggest: modern porros with ED glass, Zeiss HT in 8x, Noctivid (maybe Leica in general).