• 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.

Leica's Noctivid and 3D (1 Viewer)

Sorry Ed, I still don't understand why the addition of field curvature by the binocular would be beneficial. The afocal light that falls on the eye directly from the natural world is inherently free of field curvature. Isn't it desirable for the afocal light that falls on the eye from the binocular eyepiece to be just like the direct afocal light except for magnification?

Henry

Hi Henry,

I don't think it works quite that way. Light that enters the eye directly from the natural world is formed into a retinal image by the eye's optics (cornea and lens), which constitute a focal system. The eye produces all the usual aberrations including non-zero field curvature.

When an afocal telescope if placed in front to the eye, the optics of the telescope couple with those of the eye, and the combined telescope+eye system is focal. Image field curvature varies with the optical design, but it isn't eliminated. Field flatteners added to the telescope reduce the curvature of the entire system, which I believe is why some people perceive "unnatural" images. All of this is not to say that flatteners don't serve a useful purpose for people willing to overlook these unnatural qualities.

The same reasoning was used to analyze depth of field, incidentally, where it was shown that the coupled telescope + eye system simply reduces the DOF of the eye by M^2.

Hope that explains my point of view.

Ed
 
Ed, post 53,
No I described what I see in the picture we were discussing and the depth of field is what I see, and something similar is happening when I make a photograph with a wide-angle lens as compared with a telephotolens.
Gijs van Ginkel

As I said you're analyzing the picture (i.e., DOF) and not the depth experience.

Ed
 
Best '3D' I ever perceived was through a 10x40 Habicht W. Pity the effect - and view generally - was so often completely ruined by veiling glare.

The effect - through my eyes - seems to correlate positively with high resolution, high contrast bins that also posses the quality of a great depth of field.
 
Ed, post 62,
Yes, I was analysing the picture, but I have also looked through the Noctivid and the view is quite different from the ones for example like:
-1-using a so-called Viewmaster were you get to see a picture with two eyes and the images are more or less a bit separated from each other, so you get the feeling as if you are walking into the scene.
-2- The same occurs when you visit a movie theatre where you get polaroid glasses to see a 3-D movie and it is as if you are part of the scene.
-3-Similar when you have to perform air reconnaissance with a camera from a plane. One makes two pictures which overlap a bit and when you look through a viewmaster type binocular you are in the midst of the scene. These examples is, what I call 3D and that certainly did not occur to me when I look at the picture we were discussing or when I look through the Noctivid.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
These examples is, what I call 3D and that certainly did not occur to me when I look at the picture we were discussing or when I look through the Noctivid.

Now that is strange, isn't it? I thought no one doubts that one [edited] can see 3D through the Noctivid. I thought the question discussed is just whether 3D and DOF is enhanced in some way beyond the pure physics given by magnification and objective offset in the Noctivid, compared to other binoculars of the same configuration?

When I look through a binocular, even through a roof, I definitly see a stereoscopic effect. The effect is stronger in a porro than in a roof, even stronger in a stereoplotter (your example 3). But still it is there, and it is clearly different from a obvious two-dimensional image like the photo in post 4, where the 3D impression is created by perspective, and background out of focus etc, but not by real stereoscopy.

If you really don't see stereoscopy through a roof binocular, than maybe you should indeed go see your doctor? ;)

As for the pic in post 4, looking with one eye, I also experience the illusion of more 3D than looking with both eyes. So I tend to agree to etudiants conclusion:

Clearly there is more to depth perception than just geometry, to my surprise.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this 'pronounced 3-D effect' is much like the 'high transmission sparkle' spoke of in the first reviews the UV HD+?
 
Hi Renze,
I'm not sure what you mean by conformity to (your) peripheral view. Could you explain that a little more?

Ed

Oh, oh, you sly... I believe I've entered treacherous territory here.

But here goes. What I meant was that the image of the Noctivid reminds me of what I see with the bare eye, my natural vision. The world is sharp in the center and gradually more out of focus when the angle widens. I'd say the periphery relative to the center is not becoming gradually more blurred or murky, it's still nicely illuminated and transparent, only somewhat unsharp. (Question: can we speak of transparency when (part of) the image is out of focus? For the moment I'd say we can).
Binoculars with field flatteners, ideally being sharp to the edge, have never really satisfied me. Not only because my eyes won't go there, toward the edge, but also because I experience their image as unnatural. I seem to like a modicum of gradual unsharpness.
Of course I know that a binocular offers only a part of the angle we see with the bare eye, and yes i do value a large sweet spot, but still. The Noctivid's view came to me as surprisingly natural.

Now, tear me to pieces Ed.

Renze
 
Referring back to post #58, have those who have seen the Nikon SE experienced 3D on a level equal to what's being reported with the Noctivid. I'm also curious as to how the Noctivid has such an aberration free image if CA control is no better or less good than the SV. Not arguing or being condescending, just curious.
 
Last edited:
Dalat, post 65,
I never observed a 3D effect with the Noctivid as described in examples 1-3 in my post 64, so I do not know what brings you to the statement, that I did see 3D with the Noctivid.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Referring back to post #58, have those who have seen the Nikon SE experienced 3D on a level equal to what's being reported with the Noctivid. I'm also curious as to how the Noctivid has such an aberration free image if CA control is no better or less good than the SV. Not arguing or being condescending, just curious.

I think the SE had more of this so-called 3D effect, as you'd expect with a Porro-prism. I don't really understand why people are saying the NV has such a strong 3D effect.

I didn't see the NV as aberration free; in fact, I didn't see it as a huge improvement from the HD+. It maybe was brighter and maybe a little more color neutral. I still saw CA higher than I'd like and the edge performance was not perfect unlike what you'll see in the SV (or EDG), or even as good as the SE I think. Control of glare/flare was superb, probably close to best in class.

It did have a very relaxing view as you'd expect with a Leica. I can see why people would like it, but like with all new binoculars that claim to be the ultimate option, I do not feel this is the case; it is just simply another good option among other good options. I still prefer the HT or even the newer models of the SVs I've seen.
 
...When I look through a binocular, even through a roof, I definitely see a stereoscopic effect. The effect is stronger in a porro than in a roof, even stronger in a stereoplotter (your example 3). But still it is there, and it is clearly different from a obvious two-dimensional image like the photo in post 4, where the 3D impression is created by perspective, and background out of focus etc, but not by real stereoscopy...

Agreed Dalat, I also see stereopsis effect in all binoculars, some greater than others. I have great depth perception acuity, passing 35 yrs of career vision depth perception testing (never missed a test point). However, using mono vision on the post #4 photo, I only see a simple 2-dimensional image. It takes My brain Both eyes to feel the perceived depth of this nicely taken 2D image...yep, we're all wired differently...FWIW.

One day, I like to try the very interesting Noctivid!

Ted
 
Dalat, post 65,
I never observed a 3D effect with the Noctivid as described in examples 1-3 in my post 64, so I do not know what brings you to the statement, that I did see 3D with the Noctivid.
Gijs van Ginkel

Sorry, my formulation ("I thought no one doubts that you see 3D through the Noctivid.") was probably not very clear. I did not mean you Gijs, but you as in "one" or "everyone, generally".

Of course I don't know what you can see or not.

In your post 64, last sentence, you seem to say that you don't see a 3D effect at all in the Noctivid. Seeing no 3D at all would be strange IMO, as I think that all people with normal eyesight can see such an effect in a roof binocular, even if less pronounced than in porros or other devices.
 
Dalat, post 72,
I have written in a much earlier post, when comparing the Noctivid with the Swarovski SLC, both 8x42, that I see no difference really except that the SLC is brighter. Both do not show the 3D effect as I have described in my post 64 under nrs. 1-3. So we are circling around the 3D effect without coming much further. I see probably the same as you through the Noctivid, but I do not descibe that as 3D.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Oh, oh, you sly... I believe I've entered treacherous territory here.

But here goes. What I meant was that the image of the Noctivid reminds me of what I see with the bare eye, my natural vision. The world is sharp in the center and gradually more out of focus when the angle widens. I'd say the periphery relative to the center is not becoming gradually more blurred or murky, it's still nicely illuminated and transparent, only somewhat unsharp. (Question: can we speak of transparency when (part of) the image is out of focus? For the moment I'd say we can).
Binoculars with field flatteners, ideally being sharp to the edge, have never really satisfied me. Not only because my eyes won't go there, toward the edge, but also because I experience their image as unnatural. I seem to like a modicum of gradual unsharpness.
Of course I know that a binocular offers only a part of the angle we see with the bare eye, and yes i do value a large sweet spot, but still. The Noctivid's view came to me as surprisingly natural.

Now, tear me to pieces Ed.

Renze

Nope, ain't gonna do that. I share your perspective regarding 'naturalness,' although in my case the 8x42 SLC-HD is my grail. Your observations were what got me to buy it, incidentally, and in good time too since they are no longer available. (And what a good price!)

It's hard to find words to express more agreement.

Sorry,
Ed
 
Both do not show the 3D effect as I have described in my post 64 under nrs. 1-3. So we are circling around the 3D effect without coming much further.

Hi Gijs, I have nothing to add any more, I can only repeat what I already said above, so ok, no more circling around... B :)
 
Dalat, post 72,
I have written in a much earlier post, when comparing the Noctivid with the Swarovski SLC, both 8x42, that I see no difference really except that the SLC is brighter. Both do not show the 3D effect as I have described in my post 64 under nrs. 1-3. So we are circling around the 3D effect without coming much further. I see probably the same as you through the Noctivid, but I do not descibe that as 3D.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,

May I suggest that you look through either instrument at an array of objects within 50m. Then cover one eye and assess whether the scene now appears more or less 3-dimensional. Most people would say it's less 3-dimensional because stereopsis was eliminated. The images were different in each eye, which is the essential requirement for stereopsis.

This is the opposite situation to looking at a photograph with two eyes and then switching to one. Viewing a photo with two eyes conflicts with normal stereopsis because the same image appears in each eye. Turning one eye off, eliminates the conflict.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Ed, post 67,
I will try your suggested experiment, but it has to wait until I start further investigation of the Noctivid (I do not have it at the moment and all models that were available when we had time went back to Leica, since they had problems with free play between both binocular tubes) and that will be in the beginning of March as it looks now, since other laboratory have a higher priority first,
Gijs
 
Ed, post 62,
Yes, I was analysing the picture, but I have also looked through the Noctivid and the view is quite different from the ones for example like:
-1-using a so-called Viewmaster were you get to see a picture with two eyes and the images are more or less a bit separated from each other, so you get the feeling as if you are walking into the scene.
-2- The same occurs when you visit a movie theatre where you get polaroid glasses to see a 3-D movie and it is as if you are part of the scene.
-3-Similar when you have to perform air reconnaissance with a camera from a plane. One makes two pictures which overlap a bit and when you look through a viewmaster type binocular you are in the midst of the scene. These examples is, what I call 3D and that certainly did not occur to me when I look at the picture we were discussing or when I look through the Noctivid.
Gijs van Ginkel

Now here we have a perfect example of the fundamental problem in this discussion, and so the reason for gross misunderstanding: lack of definition of our concepts. We're sloppy in specifying what we should call 3D, and what not.
This was exactly my motivation to start this thread and so I have to ask you to go back to post #1, just for a moment. Gijs, we will never come to agreement because you're are looking for phenomenon I find completely irrelevant. Because they belong to the realm of special effects. Gijs, there are no optical tricks built into the Noctivid, believe me. Leica is too serious and smart to fall into this trap.

Let's see if we concur on this: when we see the world with the naked eye we see 3D, when we put a binocular - any binocular - to our eyes we see enhanced 3D.

Now it's quite clear to me that some of us see even more enhanced 3D in the Noctivid. I believe this can be attributed to its excellent transparency. It's no miracle, it's naturally there.

Renze
 
if there is one solid observaion that does not confirm a working hypothesis, we must take into consideration that the working hypothesis is wrong.
Quite a few scientist were mad at him, but he is in my opinion correct.
Gijs van Ginkel

My middle son has red-green color blindness, so far he's not telling others they can't see it either. Certain hypotheses do lend themselves to single observation negation; others, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Something funny is going on in these threads. Let's not make it too complicated.

-some downplay or even ridicule the idea of 3D
-some say 3D in a roof is nonsense, thereby at least aknowledging the existence of 3D (!)
-some clearly see a marked 3D effect in the Noctivid 8x and a few other binoculars

I don't know what to say to the first group.
To the second group I can say: my Ultravid 8x42 is flat, so was my Trinovid 10x42. My Ultravid 10x50 has a marked Viewmaster 3D effect. How?

Some in the third group (Renze?) attribute 3D in the Noctivid to its high transparency. But how do you then explain that I see similar 3D in my 10x50 which is not so transparent as the Noctivid, more on par with my utterly flat Ultravid 8x42? For sure I think the transparency has something to do with it, but I think it's a combination of factors. See my previous post about distortion.
 
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