• 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.

Digital Binoculars; Just a matter of time (1 Viewer)

I suspect that the development of such a device would need to be driven by a customer (or customers) with very deep R&D pockets and relatively high volume demand. Erm... so that would be the military then :)

As soon as we see the US army placing orders for digital bins, we can suppose that a consumer version will follow soon after.

I would have to agree that eye-limited resolution is a killer for the display technology. There's no high volume consumer electronics application demanding very small but very, very high resolution displays (phones are heading to bigger displays and only need to meet e.g. full HD resolution at most; head mounted 'personal cinema' displays have been around for years but the "motion sickness" associated with using them for long periods has prevented them hitting mass market volumes; heads up displays for military and other such applications are small volume markets).

LCD has a fundamental problem in raising its dot density as transistors can only be so small. OLED is similarly challenged.

Using some kind of projection technology to put the light directly onto the retina could be a solution - tiny projection devices are expected to be found in mobile phones in significant numbers in time so the volume demand should be there. But there would be a lot of resistance from the consumer due to imagined (or real) "safety issues" I would think.

Also key for me is the issue of battery power as already raised by others here. One thing is sure with conventional optics - they never run out of juice!

Can it happen? Almost certainly in time. Will digital replace conventional entirely? I doubt it. I personally think that putting a digital interface in the way removes you from the reality of observing just that bit too much.

But then I did once upon a time think that this new-fangled internet malarky would never catch on...
 
pete_gamby said:
But then I did once upon a time think that this new-fangled internet malarky would never catch on...
Click to expand...

LOL! First time I saw a mobile phone was in China, in the early nineties. I laughed and told my wife that such nonsense would never catch on in Europe...unnecessary, I said, as we usually have phones in our houses. D´oh.
 
+

Even if a Digital IS Field Sensor w/ OLED display was developed,
what do you think it will weigh with batteries ect..?/#
Really,..much over 30 oz. and people tend to lose interest.

Part of me believes most people go out to enjoy birds/wildlife, as a way to unplug.
I guess it comes down to what people think they need...;)
 
Last edited:
spitfiretriple said:
Not yet we haven't, Kevin, not yet.
Click to expand...

And I was trying to show how far away "yet" is using some back of the envelope calculations which work better than wishful thinking. It's a long way.

Remember people can think things up that aren't realizable now and others that probably won't be realizable ever (e.g. teleportation ... do the back of the envelope calculation for the energy requirements).

I would think that more people would get what they need out of IS bins (if they ever become widespread). That's a useful step forwards but still not widespread (perhaps when the Canon patents expire in the next few years).
 
Sancho said:
LOL! First time I saw a mobile phone was in China, in the early nineties. I laughed and told my wife that such nonsense would never catch on in Europe...unnecessary, I said, as we usually have phones in our houses. D´oh.
Click to expand...

Early nineties?! I had a Mitsubishi cell phone in 1984, about the size of a small lunchbox. It was 3 watts as compared to.6 watts for modern phones and had warnings not to use it inside a car with the built in antenna!

Unfortunately the cell service now (SoCal) isn't much better than it was then, just much cheaper.
 
NWBirder said:
will those futuristic digital binoculars still need optics (glasses) to gather the signal/light?
Click to expand...

Hello NWBirder,

Of course. As Elkcub, indicated binoculars are "coupled" to our eyes, it is a single system. Taking the optical information, digitizing it and putting on a screen will involve loss of image quality. Perhaps in the future, that loss may be minimised, but it will still be there.

A digital system might open avenues for image stabilisation but the simplicity and reliability of an optical mechanical binocular may retain a lot of interest.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
 
Mono:

Interesting to read about this new technology. First it seems the objective lens seems
very small, and that means poor light gathering. Also any optic requires quality glass
to magnify the view.
It is like comparing a $50 digital camera to a Digital SLR, a whole different ballgame.

Maybe it is like looking through the old "Viewmaster". No pixels here, only film slides. Now that was fun.

Thanks for the post.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
reasonable electronics

As a devellopper (and inventor in medical technology), I am obliged to look forwards to be innovative, around in the present not to duplicate, and rearwards not to violate patents.

Out of this experience, observation optics without electronic gadgetry fascinate me, because, as even most recent products, still being conventional mechanics, can show a long lasting reliability even with permanent use, not technologically out date within years and (up to now at least) still offering higher picture performance than any electronic display. Or in short: They are a product with a long lasting value; fully compatible with conservation minded nature lovers.

True added value, as image stabilization, night vision, or as in the case of my Vector, the capability not only to measure distances or headings, but even to automatically have inclined measured distances calculated into horizontal, these functions I fully accept. But for pure observation, mechanical engineering minded, I still prefer optics pure not blended.

If electronicallly assisted observation once will be able to feed signals directy to the brain, bypassing display and eye completely, overlaying the picture with additional information like maps, this probably would even convince me as real progress.
 
Mono said:
The future is here!
http://www.sightwaveoptics.com/home.html

Display resolution 480 x 234 !!
Click to expand...

That's really interesting, just from the fact that it is approaching the goal of a digital binocular, or rather a digital monocular.

If a DSLR had a stereoscopic attachment to it, where I could use both eyes, I probably would just carry the camera and not use bins any more. It's certainly something that could be done with present technology and there would be no need for a screen. Look straight thru the lens, as DSLR's do now, just with both eyes instead of one eye.

I've never actually been a fan of binoculars. I would rather take a digital photo of what I am looking at, so the memory stays with me for life. Of course I have to think that way, since I can't remember what I wrote at the top of this post any more.:-O

Take a P&S like one of the Canon 20x mega zooms and do it with the DSLR mirror & prism in it and you don't have to have a huge bulky lens. Then split the view to stereoscopic and it would be great. Photos, video and the view all at once. Not really outrageous and not that far away to do.

I would think the military would have to want it first, so that the technology would be paid for. If it also incorporated a range finder they might want it, or even night vision incorporated into it. I really don't think it would be that far away.
 
Hans Weigum said:
True added value, as image stabilization, night vision, or as in the case of my Vector, the capability not only to measure distances or headings, but even to automatically have inclined measured distances calculated into horizontal, these functions I fully accept. But for pure observation, mechanical engineering minded, I still prefer optics pure not blended.

If electronicallly assisted observation once will be able to feed signals directy to the brain, bypassing display and eye completely, overlaying the picture with additional information like maps, this probably would even convince me as real progress.
Click to expand...

Fascinating post, Hans! I think that I would prefer advancements in Image-Stabilisation to advances in Digital imaging in binoculars. As long as my eyes work, I can "see" the image myself, and if it were stabilised effectively, I could resolve more.

But one day my eyes will dim, and I´m fascinated by your comment about electronic observation feeding information to the brain, while by-passing the eyes. This must surely be the stuff of science-fiction, no?

Best Wishes!
 
Sancho said:
Fascinating post, Hans! I think that I would prefer advancements in Image-Stabilisation to advances in Digital imaging in binoculars. As long as my eyes work, I can "see" the image myself, and if it were stabilised effectively, I could resolve more.

But one day my eyes will dim, and I´m fascinated by your comment about electronic observation feeding information to the brain, while by-passing the eyes. This must surely be the stuff of science-fiction, no?

Best Wishes!
Click to expand...

Yes, it surely is not, — more like a cluster fantasy.

Anatomically the retina is part of the brain itself, not separate from it; so when the retina is stimulated by any means the brain is being stimulated by definition. Our perceptual experience, or awareness, is not to be found, much less manipulated, at specific locations within the brain mass. In fact, the retinal extension of the brain is specialized for visual information processing well beyond what can be done by digital image processing, and it's output provides only raw input signals for even more central brain processing. That's what a million years of evolution produces, along with cluster fantasies, of course. :-O

Ed
 
Steve C said:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/digitalbino.html

I thought this was pretty interesting, so I'll pass it along.
Click to expand...
Why not? If the objective lens is big enough and the display has enough resolution, this kind of thing could be quite good. Instead of image stabilisation, just the ability to freeze the picture for a moment could make quite a difference. Many times I've been unable to id a bird with binoculars, but could see enough to id it from a shot on the screen of my camera.

One difference between this type of system and a purely optical system is that you'd be focusing your eyes on a screen at a fixed distance. There would no longer be the possibility of using your eyes to accommodate slight focusing inaccuracies, so you'd have to get the binoculars focused perfectly for it to work well. That could turn out to be quite a shortcoming. I'm not sure autofocus would be very practical for a lot of birding, although it could be useful at times.

Being able to adjust the brightness could be a huge advantage in dim conditions, even if it comes with added noise.

Construction could be cheaper. Not only are prisms unnecessary, dual objective lenses would be unnecessary too. The light from a single large objective lens can be easily split to two displays. You'd lose the stereoscopic effect, but do you really need it? Can you even see it at 100m anyway? With one objective lens, you could focus very closely without going cross-eyed.

Best of all would be the ability to have a record of what you saw.

I suspect display technology won't let these things compete with optical binoculars for quite a while, but the Micro Four Thirds cameras already work as Holger describes. I think the best displays are now about 1 megapixel.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

tehri
An hour and a half review about binoculars is always nice to watch at.
Replies
4
Views
724
dries1
dries1
kimmik
The Apple Digital Binocular, gen1
Replies
13
Views
1K
jafritten
jafritten
F
DDoptics Binoculars Pirschler 15x56 Gen. 3
Replies
0
Views
208
fikey
F
T
Waterproofness and your use of binoculars
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
tehri
tehri
B
Which monocular as a substitute for binoculars...?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
wm.wragg
W

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top