• 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)

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
 
Last edited:
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

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.
 
February 17
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.

February 16
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.

I find the view more immersive and more dimensional with my Noctivid 8X42 as compared to UVHD+ 8x42, Zeiss Marines, Swaro EL 8.5X42, Leica HD-B 10X42 (surprisingly darkest of everything here), EL Range 10X42. Everything mentioned was a direct comparison. The Zeiss Marines are an excellent set of 7x50 porro prisms and the only poros compared - they really lack the contrast of the NV perhaps muting other image qualities, but are very very nice otherwise.

I could live happily ever after with pretty much anything on this list, and it's certainly grand to have these kinds of choices.
 
Last edited:
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 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:D
 
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:D

I have seen reports here about the 10x50 SV showing "enhanced 3D".

There are a lot of things going on that makes the brain perceive 3D, this link shows a summary, there are both monocular and binocular cues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

I'm sure it's a personal thing how much 3D you can appreciate or discern through binoculars. And it might even be so that you can learn to see it. But I actually tried pretty darn hard to see it in the Noctivid...but it looks pretty normal to me...the Noctivid did not stand out to me, compared to others...

Note that I don't claim that anyone else shouldn't see any...
 
Last edited:
It all depends on your perception! :cat:

Agreed! :t:

No denial, we all have different eyes, brains, experiences and knowledge bases. If You "Don't See" the world through optics as you do with your unaided eyes, this is Okay and natural...for You! If You "Do See" the world through optics as you do with your unaided eyes, this is also Okay and natural...for You!

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)!

Ted
 
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)!

Agreed. 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. What I frustrating is that the folks who say they see enhanced 3-D are unable to describe what is different about the view that gives them this feeling. Also frustrating is that the folks who say they see enhanced 3-D have not pointed with any conviction to any of the monocular or binocular bases of depth perception (e.g. as listed in the Wikipedia article to which Vespobuteo provided a link, above) as contenders for designing differences among bins. 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?

So far, to my read of these threads, the best suggestions we have are as follows:

(1) that the Noctivid provides a really clean view, thus perhaps making the image seem a bit "sharper" to each side of perfect focus than it would otherwise (a topic Kimmo has discussed in past, especially with scopes, with respect to the additive nature of optical defects and atmospheric deterioration of the view) and also perhaps allowing for better ability to judge distance of near versus far objects (e.g. Troubador's near and distant islands) through enhanced ability to discern tiny differences in contrast due to increasing haze etc effects of atmosphere with distance.

(2) that the Noctivid uses curvilinear perspective to give feeling of position and movement through space. This seemed to be the main suggestion in the thread with discussion and links to videos about cine lenses and comparing the views through Cooke versus Leica movie lenses. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=336452 However, no one who sees enhanced 3-D has endorsed this explanation or described the Noctivid as having the curved field or barrel distortion that relate to these effects. I'm sure, that in a literal sense, I can't "look into it" because as I wrote in posts #2 and #24 on that thread, I can't see the effects that others apparently experience (I can see things and I can see differences, just nothing that yields differences in 3-D perception).

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

I think scientists would not argue against judging a tool successful if it delivers what is wanted, so I don't see any conflict with their taking impressions (i.e. those judgments) seriously. If the qualities that inform such an impression can be described, an explanation for the performance of the tool may be discovered. In this case of the impression of what some are calling greater 3-D, we don't even have a consistent description/account of what is being perceived as different between the Noctivids and other binoculars. Given that optics nuts, like wine tasters, have an extensive vocabulary (which does not, incidentally, include the words "sparkle" or "plasticity") for describing the bases of different performances, I find it frustrating that we haven't gotten anywhere in these threads. It will be interesting to see what is being said on this topic in another year's time. Some of the initial reactions to new exciting products seem to evaporate over time, or they live on in words that have no meaning (e.g. the often repeated completely backwards from reality descriptions of the performance of the variable-ratio focus of the Brunton Epoch binoculars in product literature and pseudo-reviews). That said, no biggie--I'm content to wait for answers as I have no interest in purchasing the Noctivid. I wouldn't turn down better contrast, but for birding, I'll take a wider and/or sharper-to-the-edges FOV over better 3-D perception every time.

--AP
 
Last edited:
To 3-D or Not To 3-D...Is this a question?

...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

Alexis,

What's in this "Noctivid" that seems to allow some viewers to see "3D"? The truth is, I certainly don't know (haven't seen one yet). Is it the power of manufacture advertising suggestions or little tweaks of a secret design advantage that some are more sensitive to...only Leica knows for sure (bet they are Loving this discussion thread)! Your self description of what you see\don't see in post #93 explains well your perception of 3D. It's all good, but to further clarify what I see, start with my post #101.

"I" describe a view as 3D when using binos that present similar visual clues, depths and acuity perceptions that define my "normal unaided vision" (eyes=2D + brain=3D). When a binocular presents its powered FOV to my eyes that is close or even equal to what I can see without it (with all of the same dimensions, depth and clarity), then it allows me to step into the scene and become immersed in the view as if I was standing, say 10X closer, into the scene. I call it a picture window view and it leaves me with a sensation of the same 3 dimensional space I would normal experience if I had walked 10X closer! I don't know if this makes any sense, but that is how I describe this powered effect (with the right optics).

Other than my large set OPD vs IPD porros (to me, exaggerated 3-D), I can see this natural pictue-window-view 3D effect in my 10X50SV (not any of the other EL's or SLC), my 7X42 FL and my 10X42L IS. I also experienced this in the 10x42 SF (not the HT). The 10X50 and 7X42 roofs have large EP's with objectives that are 5 to 9mm wider than their oculars. The porro-II 10X42L IS (with my IPD setting of 61), has +9mm wider objectives. The 10X42 SF simply has a wide and immersive FOV. All binos mentioned have for me, very easy sight pictures that lock in as soon as the eye pieces are up and offer plenty of comfortable eye roaming capabilities!

So, why do these particular instruments allow Me to feel as if I had just stepped up to a full picture window view as per my natural 3D vision? Maybe,

1. Wider OPD's?
2. Larger Exit Pupils?
3. Very Wide FOVs?
4. Field Flatteners? (except 7X42 FL)
5. Ease of View?
6. Perfectly Set IPD, Diopter, Focus, Eye Cups?
7. 20\15 vision with superb peripheral and depth perception acuity?
8. Individual Vision-Brain Physiology?

...are the culprits, a combination thereof, or possibly none of the above mentioned. Sorry, I can only describe what I see, not what you don't see. It may seem untrue, but seeing an optic 3D effect with binoculars is low on my priority list of important and desired performance. However, it seems when all other criteria fell into place, this realistic optical 3D view was also there for My enjoyment!

My 2 cents,
Ted
 
Last edited:
I am like some of the other users that have posted so far.

I have experience with some of the best porro, and roof models, and I have not
yet found the 3-D experience.

I find this "thing" largely unfounded, and would not place anything about this, into a decision
on purchasing a binocular.

Jerry
 
I was looking into the undergrowth of the woods behind my deck today with my Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL T* and I got a great 3-D view of the undergrowth when I used both eyes. When I shut one of my eyes the view became flat without depth!

I shut both eyes alternately like this:;)

Try it sometime and see if you lose 3D vision when you do.

Bob
 
Last edited:
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