Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Monday 5th January 2015, 06:09   #26
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Gainesville, Palo Alto, Uppsala
Posts: 490
Field flatteners and eye astigmatism

Hi Ed:

Of course the field flatteners (FF) do not correct my eye astigmatism (I wish they did...), but I submit that they help.
In binocs w/o FF my eye astigmatism coupled with binoculars' field curvature lead to a blurring of ,e.g., the lower part of the image, yet I can bring it into focus by turning the wheel towards infinity. I think this is typical for an astigmatic eye. For binocs w/ FF the curvature distortion is eliminated and I can see the full FoV clearly despite my eye astigmatism, as there is no bad combination between the field curvature and eye astigmatism. This is why I suggested that an extra correction lens might not be needed for binocs w/ FF despite user's astigmatism.

Peter
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 5th January 2015, 09:48   #27
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
On the subject of monopods, finnsticks, IS and the Orniwelt chest support, one observation. A simple monopod, stick or the chest support gives very good reduction of up and down movement and rotational movement around the optical axis. What it does not do and is even inferior to normal hand-holding is suppression of rotational movements around the vertical axis. For this reason, for many years now I have used a finnstick that has a crosswise handle attached to the lower end. There is a big difference in stability between holding the stick with both hands gripping the stick or one hand holding the handle. Also, when supporting the lower end of the stick against one's waist (or chest like in the Orniwelt design) it helps a lot if there is a transverse part against the body. Yesterday I was out with my binoculars and a finnstick that lacks this handle, and the view was noticeably less stable than what I'm used to unless I had one hand up at the binocular to suppress rotational movement. This means that the amplitude of residual rotational movement when both hands are holding a thin monopod only supported by the hands must have exceeded the 0.7 degree correction angle of the Canons for some amount of the time.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 6th January 2015, 23:33   #28
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
. From memory the Canon 1030 IS has one field flattener, but the more expensive models have 2 field flatteners. But I'm not quite certain.
The 10x30 IS has 2 field flatteners.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 08:42   #29
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
I had also thought that the 10x30 IS would have a single element field flattener, but Canon's website in Finland states that it has a doublet field-flattener.

Kimmo

Last edited by kabsetz : Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 08:49. Reason: correcting info
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 15:08   #30
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
I wonder if they have changed the specifications, as I recall that the Canon 1030 image stabilised binocular was advertised as having a single element flattener.
The instruction book I have for the second hand one that I bought is dated 1998.
I think that I bought my new one about the year 2000.

The edge of the field is not as good in my 1030 binoculars as in the 1850 and 1236 Mark one. In addition, the 1030 has a narrower apparent field of view than in the 1850 or 1236 Mark one. Again from memory, it is 60 against a measured 69.

I'm trying to recall whether the 1236 Mark one was advertised as having a one or two element field flattener.

So maybe they have changed the specifications, or some of the advertisements were or are incorrect or I have a faulty memory.

I don't know if the 825 has a field flattener or not.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 16:08   #31
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Just for information the Swarovski SV 8x32 uses 2 field Flatteners and the new Zeiss 8x42 SF only has one. Probably why the Zeiss doesn't have as sharp of edges.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 16:20   #32
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
.. If the present day Canon 1030 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0 real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed.

The reasoning why the Zeiss SF has a single element field flattener has been discussed here.
Every binocular is a compromise.
I have not tried any modern Swarovski binoculars so I cannot comment on them.
But I have some second hand Porro prism Swarovski binoculars which have been well used and unfortunately they are a pretty sorry sight and don't perform well at all.
Mind you I also have an abused classic Zeiss 10 x 40 and the view is awful.

It amazes me how badly some people treat their optics. My binoculars that have been bought new are usually optically as new, even if I've used them for years.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 21:12   #33
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,996
If you look at the specifications of the different models you will find three levels of eyepiece complexity: 4 elements, 3 groups (8x25), 5 elements, 4 groups (10x30, 12x36) and 7 elements, 5 groups (10x42, 15x50, 18x50). I'd be willing to bet that only the last three have doublet field flatteners in spite of what is stated under "Features".

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...age_stabilizer
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 21:36   #34
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
Henry,

I think you are right in being suspicious. A five element eyepiece does not have much of an eyepiece left once you count out the supposed doublet field-flattener. I'll see if I can try a 10x30 tomorrow, to check what the edge resolution performance looks like.

This would not be the first time that specifications are misleading or contradictory.

At least the site does not claim any special dispersion glass types for the 10x30 IS.

Another interesting detail was that for the 10x30, the IS correction angle was specified as 1.0 degrees while for the 10x42 it is given as 0.8.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 7th January 2015, 22:33   #35
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
.. If the present day Canon 1030 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0 real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed.

The reasoning why the Zeiss SF has a single element field flattener has been discussed here.
Every binocular is a compromise.
I have not tried any modern Swarovski binoculars so I cannot comment on them.
But I have some second hand Porro prism Swarovski binoculars which have been well used and unfortunately they are a pretty sorry sight and don't perform well at all.
Mind you I also have an abused classic Zeiss 10 x 40 and the view is awful.

It amazes me how badly some people treat their optics. My binoculars that have been bought new are usually optically as new, even if I've used them for years.
"If the present day Canon 1030 image stabilised binocular does indeed have a doublet field flattener and a 6.0 real field, then I would expect the star images at the edge to be essentially perfect if the binocular has been well designed."

The Canon 10x30 IS does have almost perfect star images at the edge. It is probably the best binocular in this respect. That is one reason so many astronomers use the Canon's. The IS system is actually more beneficial on the night sky actually especially at the higher magnifications than it is for terrestrial use.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 00:07   #36
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
If you look at the specifications of the different models you will find three levels of eyepiece complexity: 4 elements, 3 groups (8x25), 5 elements, 4 groups (10x30, 12x36) and 7 elements, 5 groups (10x42, 15x50, 18x50). I'd be willing to bet that only the last three have doublet field flatteners in spite of what is stated under "Features".

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...age_stabilizer
I can't imagine why Canon would lie about how many doublet field-flatteners they have in their lenses. Plus it is illegal and somebody could report them to the FTC. I don't think they are that stupid! Plus what have they got to gain? I don't think anybody is not going to buy their binoculars because they only use a single flattener lens versus a double. It is not logical.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 00:20   #37
etudiant
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n View Post
I can't imagine why Canon would lie about how many doublet field-flatteners they have in their lenses. Plus it is illegal and somebody could report them to the FTC. I don't think they are that stupid! Plus what have they got to gain? I don't think anybody is not going to buy their binoculars because they only use a single flattener lens versus a double. It is not logical.
Exactly as denco says, it is probably just sloppy work.
This is a peripheral product line for Canon, so the documentation for secondary aspects would not get any extraordinary scrutiny. Also, field flattener is a pretty abstruse term, there are probably not that many translators current in binospeak. Most likely they saw the 10x42 had two and concluded that was true for all ten power and up models.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 14:46   #38
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
. Dear all,

. Somewhere I have a brochure about 10 years old listing the various Canon image stabilised binoculars and I think that Henry is correct.
The only thing I cannot remember clearly is regarding the 12 x 36 Mark one. I think that it has a single field flattener, but it could be a doublet.

Indeed, the star images in the Canon image stabilised binoculars are very good inasmuch as they are very small and pack all the light energy in a tiny point like disc.
In my experience, the edge performance regarding star images is better in the 1236 Mark one and 1850 compared to the 1030.
The star images at the edge of the field in the 1030 are quite good but not perfect.

Regarding the 1850, when I have the stabiliser on I can pick up stars one magnitude or even 1.5 magnitudes fainter than with the stabiliser off. With the stabiliser on the faintist stars are indeed very tiny, much smaller than in any other binocular I have tried. I think that this is due to excellent design by Canon.

However, I was fortunate to catch a magnitude -5 fireball in the 1850 and it looked enormous because it was so bright and I think this was probably an artefact of the binocular.

Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.

All this is now automatic for me, but it did require a learning curve to use these binoculars to their best ability.

As to the notion that Canon may be lying etc. etc. In my opinion, somebody just made a mistake, and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.

Last edited by Binastro : Thursday 8th January 2015 at 14:48.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 17:31   #39
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
. Dear all,

. Somewhere I have a brochure about 10 years old listing the various Canon image stabilised binoculars and I think that Henry is correct.
The only thing I cannot remember clearly is regarding the 12 x 36 Mark one. I think that it has a single field flattener, but it could be a doublet.

Indeed, the star images in the Canon image stabilised binoculars are very good inasmuch as they are very small and pack all the light energy in a tiny point like disc.
In my experience, the edge performance regarding star images is better in the 1236 Mark one and 1850 compared to the 1030.
The star images at the edge of the field in the 1030 are quite good but not perfect.

Regarding the 1850, when I have the stabiliser on I can pick up stars one magnitude or even 1.5 magnitudes fainter than with the stabiliser off. With the stabiliser on the faintist stars are indeed very tiny, much smaller than in any other binocular I have tried. I think that this is due to excellent design by Canon.

However, I was fortunate to catch a magnitude -5 fireball in the 1850 and it looked enormous because it was so bright and I think this was probably an artefact of the binocular.

Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.

All this is now automatic for me, but it did require a learning curve to use these binoculars to their best ability.

As to the notion that Canon may be lying etc. etc. In my opinion, somebody just made a mistake, and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous.
"and the notion that somebody should take this up with Canon, perhaps in the Courts, is quite ludicrous."

The point is Canon has it circulated all over the internet that the 10x30 IS has doublet field flatteners and if it is untrue it is a blatant case of what they call "false advertising" which is serious and the Federal Trade Commission would be very interested and concerned about it if it was true. It is a common and serious advertising offense and the FTC would issue Canon a written warning and probably pursue litigation if they didn't correct their advertising. I actually contacted Canon and asked them if in fact they do use doublet field flatteners on the 10x30 IS and they said it was confidential information or they wouldn't tell me and I find that weird like they are trying to protect some patent secret or something. I think Henry could be correct though in his assumption. Personally though I have found the edge sharpness equally sharp among the Canon models except for the 8x25 IS which doesn't advertise a doublet field flattener and I have tried them all including the 18x50 IS. I have the 10x30 IS now and it's edges are as sharp if not sharper than my Swarovski 8x32 SV which does have doublet field flatteners. I notice no RB either on the 10x30 IS. That is a good tip on using the IS system to remove artifacts though and I use it quite often but your explanation of why it happens I think is accurate.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 17:43   #40
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
I had a brief indoor look with a 10x30 IS Canon today. The edge sharpness was very good, but not nearly as good as in the 10x42 IS L or the Swarovisions. There is a little bit of field curvature, so the edges of a centrally focused image could be made sharper still by focusing a bit more towards the infinity. But, even when the focus was set for optimum center sharpness, it was possible to resolve the largest patterns of the Edmund USAF card at the very edge. This was done at a distance of some 6-8 meters, don't know the exact distance.

Obviously, I cannot say anything definite about the optical construction of the eyepiece, but comparing it to other binoculars I have used with various types of eyepieces, the image looks like that of a singlet field flattener design such as those used by Nikon. The view is easy and natural, but not particularly bright.

The stabilizer engages in about a second, and stabilized very well. Bar code numbers on binocular boxes that could only be seen as numbers, but not read, with a 8x30 E II Nikon could easily and quickly be read with the Canon once the IS was depressed.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 18:01   #41
denco@comcast.n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
I had a brief indoor look with a 10x30 IS Canon today. The edge sharpness was very good, but not nearly as good as in the 10x42 IS L or the Swarovisions. There is a little bit of field curvature, so the edges of a centrally focused image could be made sharper still by focusing a bit more towards the infinity. But, even when the focus was set for optimum center sharpness, it was possible to resolve the largest patterns of the Edmund USAF card at the very edge. This was done at a distance of some 6-8 meters, don't know the exact distance.

Obviously, I cannot say anything definite about the optical construction of the eyepiece, but comparing it to other binoculars I have used with various types of eyepieces, the image looks like that of a singlet field flattener design such as those used by Nikon. The view is easy and natural, but not particularly bright.

The stabilizer engages in about a second, and stabilized very well. Bar code numbers on binocular boxes that could only be seen as numbers, but not read, with a 8x30 E II Nikon could easily and quickly be read with the Canon once the IS was depressed.

Kimmo
Good test. Henry's assumption does make sense because the Canon 8x25 IS doesn't state it has field flatteners at all and it has a 4 element eyepiece, whereas, the 10x30 IS and 12x36 II IS state they have doublet field flatteners but yet they only have ONE more element in their eyepiece at 5 elements. It is not till you get to the 10x42 IS L and the 15x50 IS and the 18x50 IS that the eyepieces have 7 elements. If the 10x30 IS and the 12x36 IS have a doublet field flattener they would have to have TWO more elements in their eyepieces than the 8x25 which has none. They would have to have 6 elements instead of just 5. I think Henry is correct. The 10x30 IS and the 12x36 IS have single field flatteners. You can always see more detail with a steady binocular. Either on a tripod or stabilized like the Canon IS.
denco@comcast.n is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 8th January 2015, 18:10   #42
kabsetz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Regarding the normal artefacts you see with these image stabilised binoculars, they are mainly due in my opinion to the rainbow or prismatic affects when the variable prisms go away from the centre and especially when they reach the end stops.
It is very simple to overcome this. You just release the button for one or two seconds and reapply after centring the object. If you pan smoothly or look at something carefully it is possible to keep the variable prisms more or less centre and then the star images, or in the daytime, terrestrial images look very good.
This is how I did it with the 15x50 and my first pair of 10x42 IS L. My second pair of the 10x42 tracks much better and its vari-angle prisms have almost no tendency to wander away from centered optical axis. The little bit they do, as soon as you stop the panning movement they re-centre again. Therefore, with this pair there is no need to switch off the stabilizer for centering. The only downside to this is that sometimes there is a slight jerk to the image when you start or stop panning, but these are so quick and brief that they do not bother me. The considerable upside is markedly reduced wedge artifacts.

Kimmo
kabsetz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th January 2015, 21:50   #43
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabsetz View Post
I had a brief indoor look with a 10x30 IS Canon today. The edge sharpness was very good, but not nearly as good as in the 10x42 IS L or the Swarovisions. <snip>
The stabilizer engages in about a second, and stabilized very well. Bar code numbers on binocular boxes that could only be seen as numbers, but not read, with a 8x30 E II Nikon could easily and quickly be read with the Canon once the IS was depressed.
I'm not worried about the edge sharpness myself, so I don't particularly care if they have 1, 2 or 5 field flatteners. Good edge sharpness, that's good enough for me. But the observations about the stabilizer, that's what makes the Canon so interesting.

Thanks, Kimmo.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th January 2015, 22:00   #44
OPTIC_NUT
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wilmington Mass
Posts: 1,894
That's the bottom line, the field.
Since the Nagler, telescopes have 'flattened' the field by dodging the level of abberation where that occurs.
The Plossl plays the curvature of two fields against each other to flatten the field...mostly.
A field flattener lens simply concentrates the job in one place, like in a field lens.
As the element count goes up it becomes less relevant. A 'flattener' or an 'aspheric' is supposed
to achieve great results without higher expense and weight. It is not the one reason for living,
just the latest trick. It's a 'flattener' when you spend more than $500 and an 'aspheric' if you spend less.
OPTIC_NUT is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th January 2015, 14:27   #45
akltsang
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 299
If you are using Canon IS II 10x30 and find it with insufficient diopter correction, you can adjust it. The following only works for the new (ie current) version!

When you take away the right rubber eyecup, there is a pin holding the eyepiece. You can take out the pin by pressing two flat head drivers on opposite sides of the pin, and then tweaking up several times. Then you can adjust the diopter position of the right eyepiece. After that, just put the pin back by pushing it down. A 10 minute fix.

Last edited by akltsang : Wednesday 14th January 2015 at 03:09.
akltsang is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th January 2015, 14:33   #46
akltsang
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 299
I have ever disassembled the Canon IS 10x30 completely. I removed the IS module and left with a 10x30 bins without IS. Gorgeous, the optics is wonderful. It is very bright and sharp, much better than the original bins with IS. However I can only barely focus it at infinity (I have perfect eyesight without the need of glasses at all). The IS module is a set of moving negative lenses. Without it, the focal length of the objectives reduced slightly.

See here:
http://www.astromart.com/classifieds...fied_id=838599

Last edited by akltsang : Wednesday 14th January 2015 at 03:08.
akltsang is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th January 2015, 17:29   #47
Stanbo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 174
[quote=akltsang;3149633]If you are using Canon IS II 10x30 and find it with insufficient diopter correction, you can adjust it. The following only works for the new version!



You seem to suggest by your numbering that there is a mark ll version.

Can you (or anyone else) provide some more details; such as the optical and physical differences, particularly how to tell the difference and the date of any change

I have read some reviews and it appears that there is possibly some problem with the body armour softening after a few year, so any information about that from anyone would also be helpful.

Stan
Stanbo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th January 2015, 18:23   #48
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by akltsang View Post
If you are using Canon IS II 10x30 and find it with insufficient diopter correction, you can adjust it. The following only works for the new version!
The new version? Do you know what they changed from the older to the current version?

Quote:
Originally Posted by akltsang View Post
When you take away the right rubber eyecup, there is a pin holding the eyepiece. You can take out the pin by pressing two flat head drivers on opposite sides of the pin, and then tweaking up several times. Then you can adjust the diopter position of the right eyepiece. After that, just put the pin back by pushing it down. A 10 minute fix.
That sounds like an easy fix. Thank you very much ... :-)

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th January 2015, 22:48   #49
akltsang
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 299
The new version I mean is the current version. The old version has hard eyecups. My fix dont work on older version.

Yes, the plastic case of the current version will become soft under heat etc.
akltsang is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th January 2015, 10:42   #50
Stanbo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by akltsang View Post
The new version I mean is the current version. The old version has hard eyecups. My fix dont work on older version.

Yes, the plastic case of the current version will become soft under heat etc.
Thanks for the clarification.

Do you know when the change from hard to soft eyecups was made.

Stan
Stanbo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
8x25 vs 10x30? keithdrengen Canon 6 Wednesday 18th May 2011 17:58
question about canon IS 10x30's distortion gwsudiro Canon 28 Friday 9th July 2010 00:14
More useful IS, 10x30 or 12x36 Robert Ellis Canon 3 Friday 5th August 2005 01:42

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.27335191 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.