• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Contrast (1 Viewer)

SuperDuty

Well-known member
United States
With the new Noctivid there has been a lot said about contrast, what is the proper amount of contrast for an optical device, probably about what the naked eye sees if you want a neutral view. The HT and SV I had showed more contrast and saturation than my current SF, and in some circumstances it made for more pop and drama in the view, the SF can look a little washed out in comparison, but I'm not so sure it isn't a slight bit more true to life. For me, high contrast has always meant deep blacks at the expense of shadow details, maybe you can have both, but I haven't been able to turn the contrast up on any visual device without losing
faint details in shadow areas. I have reposted the SF and HT photos from Binomania to illustrate what I'm talking about. Another thing, I don't know how much difference there is between people in how they see saturation and contrast. By all means though, if you enjoy a more Technicolor view than is perfectly neutral, I agree that it can be very exciting.
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss_HT.jpg
    Zeiss_HT.jpg
    250 KB · Views: 131
  • Zeiss_SF.jpg
    Zeiss_SF.jpg
    301.2 KB · Views: 139
SuperDuty, or others, in binoculars, can that "more Technicolor view" be achieved across the spectrum, or is it always at the expense of certain colors, or to be more exact hues within certain colors?
 
Here are a couple of crops, I don't know how much the camera influenced the differences between the two. HT left- SF right
 

Attachments

  • Zeiss_HT_kindlephoto-173541498.jpg
    Zeiss_HT_kindlephoto-173541498.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 82
  • Zeiss_SF_kindlephoto-174660087.jpg
    Zeiss_SF_kindlephoto-174660087.jpg
    113.4 KB · Views: 87
Interesting stuff. I have both HT and SF and I expect to see more detail in the shadows with HT so the fact that the SF photo shows a little more shadow detail suggests to me that the photo was given a bit more exposure than the HT pic and this might explain the reduced contrast.

Lee
 
I'm not sure what's going on with those photos. It looks to me that there is a difference in yellow and blue content in the two images, but whether that is due to the camera auto functions, the ambient light or the binocular I couldn't say.

I think contrast is the key to many aspects of binocular performance and I think it's something that can be very difficult to figure out exactly what the designer has done.

In many situations a scene might be illuminated mostly by the direct yellowish light of the sun, but the shadows still recieve the scattered, mostly blue light from the sky. When using binoculars with a strong blue transmission, the detail in the shadows will look 'brighter' than one with a poor blue transmission, and consequently betterncontrast. This is even more evident at greater distances where there may be haze due to mostly scattered blue light. So filtering out some of the blue light will often improve contrast, but filtering out some red will as well in other light conditions, particularly around sunset. It's a fine balancing act between accurate colour rendition and contrast. It seems to me that the different design choices from the major brands suite different lighting conditions best.

Of course scattered light within a binocular will also reduce contrast. This is often more acute when the sun shines directely on the interior surfaces of the binocular, and few models are completely immune.

There are other aspects to contrast which are just as critical. The resolution limit for binoculars is defined by contrast at a specific angle but so is sharpness. The designers are potentially able to optimise one over the other if they wish, but I suspect it's relatively rare in practice. I have found a few that I think have balanced the two particularly well, and seem to enhance the viewing experience.

An interesting topic!

David
 
SuperDuty, or others, in binoculars, can that "more Technicolor view" be achieved across the spectrum, or is it always at the expense of certain colors, or to be more exact hues within certain colors?
I'm not sure.
I should have expanded on that. The reason I asked is that up until at least a few years back models which gave such a view had lapses in rendering certain parts of the spectrum, which are not easy to notice unless this happens in a part of the image one needs to srutinize. Leicas were known for "brilliance" in color but showed such a weakness, which as I recall was in separating certain lighter brownish hues. I have been following what Typo has been writing about the Meopta HD and Leica Noctivid, and about contrast in general as above, and am wondering whether designers are now finally able to enhance color across the spectrum, and whether this will result in a better image in a wide range of models by different manufrs.
 
Hi Robert,

From my experiences with photography, post digital processing "gives a hint" at what enhancing contrast can add\take away from the static image. Although I may achieve deeper black levels and tame stray light haze, I seem to loose edge sharpness and detail shadow resolution that makes the capture look more natural. Adding a "little" contrast can go a long way to making a vibrant and pleasing capture, but too much can\does smear details and renders the image plasticity. I use various PP programs, but often find that if I spend the extra time working with the best lighting and proper settings, I end up using little to no PP, accepting the static image as truth of the capture.

For me, binocular observations are very different (on-the-spot, real time changing lighting and fast moving subjects), but similar (our eyes\brain replace the camera imager). I believe optical designs and engineering goals are set by most manufactures so as to achieve to the observer, as much as possible, Truth and Accuracy in rendering the ocular image with all the dynamic color, sharpness and contrast that our eyes are capable of seeing. Ahhhh, but there lies the biggest problem, as they have no control over how\what you or I See, which of course is what our brains interpret and Perceive! Many infinite variables dealing with the millions of "H" factors, so a designer has to decide, with all of the optical production compromises there appears to be, what performance direction are they going to take.

If you want a view that to you, represents an overall natural view of the world, there seems to be a good selection in the market place for that. If you may prefer one color bias over the other, you'll find those also. Or, you may prefer extra edge sharpness, brighter colors or stronger contrast, have at it. As you and I have discovered, until you see with your own eyes, you aren't sure that what is written about particular optics is what You are going to see. If possible, try before you buy!

My .01 cent (stock market has dropped), ;)

Ted
 
I've had decent luck with Lightroom on some digital images, my plasma screen has driven me crazy over the years trying to find a balance between shadow detail and the pop that extra contrast gives at the expense of some detail.
 
Hi Lee

In side by side comparison the HT for sure shows more detail in shadow areas than the SF ? When you said (expect) to see, I didn't know if you were thinking (in theory), or that is what you had quantified through observation. As an owner of both, maybe I can coax you into being a shadow detail testing (mule).:king:


Interesting stuff. I have both HT and SF and I expect to see more detail in the shadows with HT so the fact that the SF photo shows a little more shadow detail suggests to me that the photo was given a bit more exposure than the HT pic and this might explain the reduced contrast.

Lee
 
Hi Lee

In side by side comparison the HT for sure shows more detail in shadow areas than the SF ? When you said (expect) to see, I didn't know if you were thinking (in theory), or that is what you had quantified through observation. As an owner of both, maybe I can coax you into being a shadow detail testing (mule).:king:

Hi SD

With apologies to visitors who have heard this story before, a couple of years back I was repeatedly surveying rivers and brooks for the presence of Water Voles (a declining species in UK) using an FL. This involved looking for signs under overhanging banks and among tree root tangles etc and when I swapped from FL to HT I immediately noticed that these overhanging banks that had previously been 'black holes' now had some detail. It wasn't much, just the odd tree root or corner of a stone, but enough to tell me that I was seeing more than with the FL and more recent use of the SF has shown the same pattern.

So when I posted that I would expect more shadow detail with HT I was being very imprecise and should have said 'from my experience I would expect more shadow detail with HT'.

Lee
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of crops, I don't know how much the camera influenced the differences between the two. HT left- SF right

...the fact that the SF photo shows a little more shadow detail suggests to me that the photo was given a bit more exposure than the HT pic and this might explain the reduced contrast.

Lee

Robert & Lee,

Difficult to discern in pics what the true variables are, the optics or the exposure (unless shooting full manual). That is why "user objective experiences" (ex: yourself and SD) can become a more definitive evaluation. However, sometimes comparative views of what differences "I think I see" in optics are simply the variances in moment to moment (or second to second) outdoor light changing conditions. Now when I perform any glassing side by side comparison activity, I try to be under consistent -clear or overcast- sky conditions. Camera settings are controllable, mother nature not so much!

The Binomania captures appear to have equal lighting conditions, but the SF pic does seem a tad longer exposure, bringing out details in the shadows without over exposing the highlights (ideal contrast photo). Reviewing the exf camera data (if available) could tell the whole story! ;)

Ted
 
Robert & Lee,

Difficult to discern in pics what the true variables are, the optics or the exposure (unless shooting full manual). That is why "user objective experiences" (ex: yourself and SD) can become a more definitive evaluation. However, sometimes comparative views of what differences "I think I see" in optics are simply the variances in moment to moment (or second to second) outdoor light changing conditions. Now when I perform any glassing side by side comparison activity, I try to be under consistent -clear or overcast- sky conditions. Camera settings are controllable, mother nature not so much!

The Binomania captures appear to have equal lighting conditions, but the SF pic does seem a tad longer exposure, bringing out details in the shadows without over exposing the highlights (ideal contrast photo). Reviewing the exf camera data (if available) could tell the whole story! ;)

Ted

I agree Ted, its hard deduce anything definitive without the exposure info and other settings.

I have edited my previous post to make it clear that I was repeatedly surveying the same rivers and brooks over and over, in very varying lighting conditions. I got used to the appearance of the bank overhangs and which ones were impenetrable darkness and most of these changed when I started using the HT. I can't claim that I made any useful discoveries as a result of the HT seeing a little more than the FL (and SF) but if there had been voles under there and moving about I think I had a decent chance of seeing them.

Lee
 
I agree Ted, its hard deduce anything definitive without the exposure info and other settings.

I have edited my previous post to make it clear that I was repeatedly surveying the same rivers and brooks over and over, in very varying lighting conditions. I got used to the appearance of the bank overhangs and which ones were impenetrable darkness and most of these changed when I started using the HT. I can't claim that I made any useful discoveries as a result of the HT seeing a little more than the FL (and SF) but if there had been voles under there and moving about I think I had a decent chance of seeing them.

Lee

Lee,

Similarly, I also use a consistent scenic venue for any comparative evaluations of different optics. It helps to establish familiar visual acuity references under different lighting conditions to minimize SWAG variances!! :eek!: :-O :t:

Ted
 
With the new Noctivid there has been a lot said about contrast, what is the proper amount of contrast for an optical device, probably about what the naked eye sees if you want a neutral view. The HT and SV I had showed more contrast and saturation than my current SF, and in some circumstances it made for more pop and drama in the view, the SF can look a little washed out in comparison, but I'm not so sure it isn't a slight bit more true to life. For me, high contrast has always meant deep blacks at the expense of shadow details, maybe you can have both, but I haven't been able to turn the contrast up on any visual device without losing
faint details in shadow areas. I have reposted the SF and HT photos from Binomania to illustrate what I'm talking about. Another thing, I don't know how much difference there is between people in how they see saturation and contrast. By all means though, if you enjoy a more Technicolor view than is perfectly neutral, I agree that it can be very exciting.


Interesting question. Can binoculars ever have too much contrast? Could a binocular with more contrast actually show less shadow detail? With a couple caveats, I think the answer is no. First, that assumes you are talking about passive optical systems--no electronic amplification or enhancement and no camera. Second, it assumes that the contrast of the scene being viewed is within the dynamic range for the human eye. If that's the case, the best a binocular can do is pass on 100% of the contrast available in the light reflected off your subject. That should always be "better" than a view with less contrast. The higher the contrast, the more "true to life" the view.

So why do some bins have more "pop" than others? Why do some appear more saturated? When you are talking about alpha quality bins I suspect it is mostly a matter of coatings and stray light suppression with some addition contribution from chromatic aberration.

Extra contrast in photograps, whether chemical or digital, is created by boosting or suppressing different parts of the brightness range, and that can certainly result in loss of detail at either end, but I don't think that's true for simple bins.
 
Oh, one refinement to my post above... I basically ignored the fact that binoculars don't treat all colors equally. A binocular may be much more efficient in the green portion of the spectrum and much less in the blue or red or vice versa. This can certainly affect how a binocular passes shadow details which are often more blue than other areas of a scene. Certainly a binocular that surpasses blue details might appear to have more contrast--the "scene" that the eye is presented will have darker shadows, but I wouldn't consider that higher contrast. That's more a matter of color cast (warm/cool/neutral).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top