• 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.

SV's didn't really blow the little BN's away! (5 Viewers)

Everyone:

I also enjoy the discussion of the binocular tests. I posted the link to the Europa study.

I was trying to imply this topic, could or should have its own thread, so that the
discussion is not buried in another thread.

No harm was meant, and I was not trying to pick on anyone.

Jerry
 
Would you mind integrating the Swift data over the various color bands to see what percentage differences there are among them?

Ed;

Not sure exactly what your looking for, but these figures match your chart above for the Swift referenced. The total was 61.58% for 380-780 nm. The 1931 x= .3533, y=.3455 and an approx. CCT of 4660K.

380-450nm 53.39
450-475nm 55.74
475-495nm 56.13
495-570nm 59.56
570-590nm 64.23
590-620nm 66.52
620-750nm 68.02

I am not sure what your looking for. Email me, curious about this.

Thanks, have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Ron,

Many thanks! That's great. :t::t:

I think you're using data for the 8.5x44 HHS, left side. (I would post left and right transmission charts if anyone were interested. Otherwise, I'll just blab on.)

Just to check first, I normalized the seven numbers you provided by the width of the frequency bands and calculated an overall average. This should correspond to the white value of 61.6. It came out to be 61.7, which is within rounding error.

=================================================================
Okay, so what does it all mean?

The numbers refer to the estimated brightness percepts of a standard observer when presented with the spectral energy emitted from the exit pupil of the binocular. Of course, this is only a sample binocular, so there will be inter-sample variations as well as inter-tube variation for the same instrument. Basically, the ubiquitous "daylight" value simply refers to the how bright our standard observer would think the image to be by comparison with the same image unfettered by the instrument, i.e., if he were m (= magnification) times closer and not using binoculars. It probably also corresponds with the impression of open field brightness with and without the instrument.

The additional day (photopic) color values speak to seven standard colors, and provide insight into how the standard observer would perceive color bias of the instrument. In this case, the emphasis would be in the orange-red area. It's only a benchmark, of course, because we each have different color perception.

If manufacturers were to provide these eight numbers (or something similar) for all models and upgrades, it would be a lot easier to make comparative evaluations by spec. Dream on, huh? :-O

I'm pretty much finished. It's been a great thread. And, by the way, this part of the discussion is extremely relevant to understanding why backa may not be so bad. Compare the numbers from the standard observer's perspective.

Ed

PS. The phrase "Standard Observer" has special meaning, which is described in the .pdf attachment. Unfortunately, we must enter this domain if we are ever to document, understand, and discuss relative image brightness and color tint distinctions between binoculars. Here are some extensions of standard observer technology for use with modern display equipment. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.139.4295 The author was a colleague of mine before I retired.
 

Attachments

  • Binocular Day Color bias.jpg
    Binocular Day Color bias.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 44
  • CIE Standard Observers.pdf
    410.1 KB · Views: 156
Last edited:
Everyone:

I also enjoy the discussion of the binocular tests. I posted the link to the Europa study.

I was trying to imply this topic, could or should have its own thread, so that the
discussion is not buried in another thread.

No harm was meant, and I was not trying to pick on anyone.

Jerry

Jerry,

I accept your explanation. Thanks. I'm pretty thin skinned. ;)

Ed
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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