Does the scientist say that? Doesn't ring true to me.
--AP
Scientists, similarly some of our more optical-theory savvy posters on here, like facts that can be immediately understood and tested for verification by other, similarly savvy folks.
Lee
Does the scientist say that? Doesn't ring true to me.
--AP
Full length pants of the heaviest construction. :king:
Hi Renze,
Untill NV's launch, at every launch I was present, the rep points out the highlights of the new model and answers every technical and/or other question to satisfactory. This is extremely important because these questions will/can also being asked by the potential buyer and he needs/want also a satisfactory answer.
At Leica's it was highlighting the pro's but in no way explaining how they accomplished it.
For example: When the customer asks how FF is realized with the SV/SF, I grab both cut a ways and show them.
It happens that the customer asks me, that he has read raving 3D experiences with the NV (Forums are powerfull) and what he must see/or how Leica fixed it.
In those cases I can't go any further than my opinion in the post before.
The actual possesion of the NV happened after the "peptalk" and outside, so there was no actual possibillity to combine actual use with theoratical marketing.
Jan
Jan: Your mailbox is full, could you clear some space?
Thanks,
Jerry
I did not ask for a clarification of 3D.
I asked if you could compare the Noctivid 3D (or whatever it is we see) to a reference bin which everyone agrees has very good 3D.
After all, you say that you see the same 3D in the SF and SV, this in contrast to the claims made by some other posters and arguably even Leica.
It's that you said there was a lot of noise regarding this 3D effect, so lets reduce this noise. A reference point is a great way to achieve this.
Hi Anthon,
Comparing the Noctivid 8x with the SV/SF 8x and the NV 10x with the SV/SF 10x in the "woods" near the shop I do not see any difference in 3D/popping up images as decribed by the other observers.
I can say that, to my eyes, the contrast is more present in the NV, which might create that 3D feeling(?).
I have no other explanation.
Taking the Fujinon 10x50FMTRSX and the 10x40 Habicht as a reference, I can't say I'm impressed by the shown 3D. This will say everything about my abillity to see 3D
On the other hand, diving in the almost 150 meters FOV of the SF, the SF gives me more of a feeling of climbing into the scenery, but that's not what you mean by 3D I assume.
Jan
Hi Anthon, Comparing the Noctivid 8x with the SV/SF 8x and the NV 10x with the SV/SF 10x in the "woods" near the shop I do not see any difference in 3D/popping up images as decribed by the other observers.
On the other hand, diving in the almost 150 meters FOV of the SF, the SF gives me more of a feeling of climbing into the scenery, but that's not what you mean by 3D I assume.
Also worth mentioning the 3D effect is indeed real, especially when viewing a moving object, like the ducks and swans 12ft away on the local river earlier, amazing detail, I can't stop using them.
After trying the NV:s a bit more, I pretty much agree.
The NV:s are very fine bins, but so are the SV:s and SF:s.
There are other more important factors than "3D" for choosing either one.
I never argued the contrary. We all have our own preferences and indeed there might be better factors for choosing a bin than 3D.
But this topic is about 3D, so that's what we discuss. Do YOU perceive any difference in 3D between the bins you mentioned? Because again we are at a strange crossroads. Some say 3D is nonsense in a roof. Some say all top quality roofs have 3D. Even if the two groups directly contradict each other, they will band together and cheer at anyone who suggests that the Noctivid is nothing special when it comes to 3D :smoke:
As Jan mentioned (that's why I quoted him..), the excellent contrast might help to see more POP in the image, in some situations for some people. I wouldn't call it 3D. Just a good view.
.....
.....
.....
I've reached the conclusion that some see 3D and some do their best not to o
:-C:-C:-C 3D, where are you? OK, maybe afterB B B B ....Yes I see everything double. Should this be 3D?
J
It all depends on your perception! :cat::-C:-C:-C 3D, where are you? OK, maybe afterB B B B ....Yes I see everything double. Should this be 3D?
J
I know that theory, I'm just not convinced. Hence my further questions for comparison which are twice...ignored.
Image POP cannot be the only answer since my 10x50 does not pop. In no way does the view come close to the Noctivid. Yet it does 3D. The Habicht has spectacular 3D. But POP? nah...
I've reached the conclusion that some see 3D and some do their best not to o
It all depends on your perception! :cat:
Discussion of which optical instruments work best for You is great. Me telling You that you should\shouldn't see this or that, not so great. Sometimes we need to step back, recognize and appreciate our unique visual differences. As we've all probably heard before, "Perception Is Reality"...(may not be the truth, but it is real to you or I)!
The scientist says “your impression is not as important as my facts.” The artists say “my impression is all that matters.” Imaging is that way.
Roger Cicala, M.D.
Does the scientist say that? Doesn't ring true to me.
--AP
Scientists, similarly some of our more optical-theory savvy posters on here, like facts that can be immediately understood and tested for verification by other, similarly savvy folks.
Lee
...However, as a someone who likes to discover phenomena and explanations of phenomena, I like for a phenomenon to be described/defined and then possible explanations explored...To those who see 3-D in the Noctivid, which of these bases for seeing depth are being exploited by the Noctivid? Indeed, which bases for depth perception, apart from the already much discussed stereopsis, are exploitable for different performances of different binocular designs?
--AP