-
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.
When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jremmons
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I'm not familiar with those two - the re-runs we got were rather hit and miss. I do remember getting Space 1999 and the top notch Blake's 7.
Yes, Gerry Anderson was brilliant - I loved the imagination and the view of the future from that time. The sound of those UFO's was mesmerising
The models and machines made for the Thunderbirds were outstanding! They stack up to HD viewing even today :t:Even now I will still watch an early am re-run
Chosun :gh:
I'm not familiar with those two - the re-runs we got were rather hit and miss. I do remember getting Space 1999 and the top notch Blake's 7.
Yes, Gerry Anderson was brilliant - I loved the imagination and the view of the future from that time. The sound of those UFO's was mesmerising
Even now I will still watch an early am re-run
Chosun :gh:
It was just the one show, the Mysterons were a race of Martians intent on destroying the Earth, Captain Scarlet their main protagonist! Made after Thunderbirds it featured more realistic, less caricatured puppets and was noticeably darker - catch it if you ever get the chance!
Space 1999 and Blake's 7 were both excellent as you say!
Chris
Seems there is an effort to do something different at the CES this year:
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/all-the-cool-new-gadgets-at-ces-2019/47/
https://www.cnet.com/news/doubletake-digital-binoculars-offer-a-whole-new-view/
The technology used remains under wraps and the firm's web site has a very promotional flavor, with no technical substance that was obvious, but the idea is intriguing at the very least.
https://www.nexoptic.com
https://www.cnet.com/pictures/all-the-cool-new-gadgets-at-ces-2019/47/
https://www.cnet.com/news/doubletake-digital-binoculars-offer-a-whole-new-view/
The technology used remains under wraps and the firm's web site has a very promotional flavor, with no technical substance that was obvious, but the idea is intriguing at the very least.
https://www.nexoptic.com
Lots of business and legal stuff, little actual information.. Must have lots of money looking at all those legal and business types involved. Couldn’t find any obvious patent details. Appears to be a novel way to get a very fast optic that will give bright images and hence short exposures, but potentially alignment and depth of focus issues. I guess it’s success or otherwise will depend on what it does, how well it does it, what it doesn’t do, how much it costs and how it ages.
Prototype looks quite fragile with those big flat bits of glass. Looking at their market aims, the smart phone lenses are already pretty fast, not sure how much of a game changer they could offer. And we know the consumer binocular market is full of different options with slightly different specs targeting different niches and preferences. Can a one size fit all work? Doesn’t look like they have stabilisation in the demo, which could be done in software with a big sensor and help with a device that’s held out in front of you which is less steady than pressed to your eyes.
Reminds me of a revolutionary camera that offered post depth of field customisation, Lytro, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro I have a colleague with an old model he’s playing with.
I like a wide field of view and am currently perfectly happy with my widefield 7xbins combined with my >20:20 eyesight giving me an immersive view with great detail. Let’s see what we’re using in a decade. Until then I await more details like the rest of us.
PEter
Prototype looks quite fragile with those big flat bits of glass. Looking at their market aims, the smart phone lenses are already pretty fast, not sure how much of a game changer they could offer. And we know the consumer binocular market is full of different options with slightly different specs targeting different niches and preferences. Can a one size fit all work? Doesn’t look like they have stabilisation in the demo, which could be done in software with a big sensor and help with a device that’s held out in front of you which is less steady than pressed to your eyes.
Reminds me of a revolutionary camera that offered post depth of field customisation, Lytro, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytro I have a colleague with an old model he’s playing with.
I like a wide field of view and am currently perfectly happy with my widefield 7xbins combined with my >20:20 eyesight giving me an immersive view with great detail. Let’s see what we’re using in a decade. Until then I await more details like the rest of us.
PEter
Finally, how this works, interesting concept using old fashioned glass rather than more novel concepts such as metameterials. Massively compresses long focal length optics.
https://www.photonics.com/AMP/AMP_Article.aspx?AID=62175
https://calgary.rasc.ca/nexoptic.htm
Spectrum Optix patents....
US9759900B2
US20180120481A1
Cheers
Peter
https://www.photonics.com/AMP/AMP_Article.aspx?AID=62175
https://calgary.rasc.ca/nexoptic.htm
Spectrum Optix patents....
US9759900B2
US20180120481A1
Cheers
Peter
Last edited:
Thank you for those links, especially the one from 'photonics.com', which clarifies the concept.
I understand how a plane wedge such as illustrated would compress the image in one dimension, but not how it does that in both. Maybe another wedge at right angles?
The discussion suggests that the telescope moon image was a composite,
built up of a several segments, with each segment getting computer processed. For a proof of concept prototype, that is quite acceptable imho, but it leaves lots of open questions on size, power use and time to market.
It should be noted that stock market observers have commented on the gap between the minimal financial and operational disclosure of the firm and its generous valuation. Clearly a lot of people, including myself, would really like this to become a reality.
wdc
Well-known member
Agreed. It is good to see that there is still ways of re-imagining optics. The idea of a square aperture collecting light, the incredibly compressed path to focus, are interesting, to say the least. I do wonder about field of view and 'close focus', neither of which seemed optimal for ground based viewing in the current incarnation of the product. Thanks for sharing the link!
-Bill
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Thanks for posting that information (and Steve for originally digging the concept prototype up) :t:
I agree with Etudiant, that for a proof of concept prototype it is quite acceptable. It provides an alternative digital pathway to the Sony DEV-50V, though without the 3D ability (I'd like to see an updated iteration of this Sony with all the latest computing power, 4K, 120Hz, 4.4MP EVF's, etc).
The "pull" for "millenials" who don't seem to be able to exist outside a "shared" (and highly edited/photoshopped) existence on the interwebs seems tangible.
The technology (optics system) could have quite big implications for the Smartphone industry.
After a quick squizz through their website, I am less clear on whether their AI processing offers an advantage over what anyone else is doing or even whether it is as good as the established players.
I note (with a few back of the envelope calcs) that the ~52mm square aperture of this device has about the same light gathering ability as conventional 42mm binoculars. Even though the depth dimension decreases, other dimensions increase.
Looking at the promotional video though makes my arm hurt! There's no way that I could hold my arm out like that for any length of time without shakes/pain setting in. I believe that would be the case for most people (even two handed).
The other thing I note is that the display is pretty much 5" HD Smartphone sized - perhaps it would be better (and more connected) to just slot one of these in its place. Though with either option, I can't imagine that the display in direct sunlight is anything other than woeful.
The biggie for me though when any digital vs classic analogue optics questions pop up though is that with the digital version you are just looking at a facsimile (a resolution and colour subset), flashed up multiple times per second to give the illusion of reality (in much the same way Television, Video, and Broadcasting operate). I'm not sure I want my eyeballs bombarded by even the best (8K, 240Hz+) of this technology which is yet to hit the market. There is something to be said for the more or less infinite (subject to multiple losses) representation of reality by classical optics.
Having said that though, when the display resolution and frequency does hit a point that is pretty much a good representation of reality that won't cause fatigue, spatial disorientation, 'fireflies' etc, then I could see some advantages not possible classically - safely represented vision into the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, enhanced brightness, colour and contrast in low light situations, spot zooming etc. Eventually it should be possible to exceed the capabilities of the human eye. All of this while offering the ID (visual, sound, location, AI recognition, etc), Mapping, and real time information input/output, recording, and streaming etc, that a wireless connected Smart device could offer.
Until then though, the ergonomics of the classical optical binocular will hold quite some appeal - particularly for those that treasure magic, mystery, solitude and quietude ......
Quite an interesting (though rather standard) disclaimer they list on their website under investor relations news:
Forward-Looking Statements
"This press release contains forward-looking information and forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws, including, but not limited to, statements with respect to expectations concerning the development of its sports-optic device and technology, and expected results, specifications, capabilities and applications thereof. The reader is cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions, and other factors which are difficult to predict and that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on the then current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about the business and the industry and markets in which the Company operates and are qualified in their entirety by the inherent risks and uncertainties surrounding future expectations, including, among others: risks commonly associated with the development of new technologies, including that the Company’s technology, product designs and prototype are at an early stage and additional work will be required to confirm potential applications and feasibility of its technologies or bring product designs to market; the Company may not be able complete product development as currently expected; potential applications of the Company’s technology are based on limited studies and may not be representative of the broader market; the risk that prototypes and designs may not achieve expected results; the Company may not be able to commercialize its technology; the Company may not be able to source components for its products on a cost-effective basis; the Company may not have access to necessary financing on acceptable terms or at all; pending or future patent applications may not be approved as contemplated or at all; and other risks inherent with technology and product development and the business of the Company. Such forward-looking statements should therefore be construed considering such factors. Other than in accordance with its legal or regulatory obligations, the Company is not under any obligation and it expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether because of new information, future events or otherwise.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release."
I still think the OP (and other discerning binocular users) are looking at around the ~10 year timeframe for a comparable/superceding, evolved, digital equivalent ....... these alternatives bear watching though
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Their knowhow is the optics to compress the length and enable larger aperture. The moon picture used a totally electronics free version of their tech, I think the same 3rd party camera was used to capture the image on both scopes. It seems you could have put an eyepiece in their Astro scope, which would have been interesting! The moon was a stitched shot as the field of view was less than the moon diameter and for both telescopes a large series of still images ere taken and combined to form the final image through “stacking”, but this is just what anyone taking his sort of image does to reduce the effect of the atmospheric turbulence. Personally I would have used wavelets rather than Lucy Richardson sharpening as I don’t like the “oversharpening “‘artefacts, but both images suffer the same.
Clever stuff, but the worry is that they are not an electronics, AI company. If their tech was applied with the right people and the platform open enough so that cloud AI could be used then we’d have an interesting product. Bit like Zeiss making lenses for other people. I wish them the best of luck and wonder if you could squeeze two of them
Together to actually give you real glass binoculars?!
Peter
H
Clever stuff, but the worry is that they are not an electronics, AI company. If their tech was applied with the right people and the platform open enough so that cloud AI could be used then we’d have an interesting product. Bit like Zeiss making lenses for other people. I wish them the best of luck and wonder if you could squeeze two of them
Together to actually give you real glass binoculars?!
Peter
H
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Peter,
Exactly!
Of course, it would be within the realm of possibility to have two objectives, whose images are combined to produce a truly three dimensional image on the screen. Alternately, one could put such a device on some kind of harness or mount and observe with a VR-like pair of wireless specs but would the advantages extend beyond recording what was observed?
Anyway I am resistant to the current improvement of stabilised binoculars because I do not want to be dependent on batteries, especially in cold weather. I am even upset that the current line of iMacs uses wireless keyboards and mice, since their rechargeable batteries have a limited life, even if the life may be years.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I'm not sure their claims of increased aperture really stack up. Within the same horizontal packaging real estate, they are only gathering the same amount of light as regular ×42mm bins, but without any scope for a slight 3D effect (such as you would get with A-K prisms).
Even though the depth of the device is reduced (it's major claim to fame) there is roughly twice the real estate of the square aperture taken up immediately next to it with what I take to be translation, focusing, and image sensing elements/components. It may be posibble to use a 45° prism or mirror to reduce that width enough to allow another aperture next to it, but that would increase the depth, thus kind of defeating the purpose somewhat. Probably of less of a concern with binoculars as opposed to Smartphone lens applications.
Perhaps some of the optics technology could be partially combined with existing optical design to improve upon the classical optical binocular - I'm thinking something like a hammerhead type Porro I, or combining it with dielectric mirrors etc, etc.
There are also questions over the fov, focusing ability, latency, refresh rate, and limited light transmission spectrum (unknown whether that was due to the coatings used, or some limitation of the optical design being able to converge the different wavelengths), and it would be interesting to know the weight of the prototype device. :cat:
As far as not being an electronics, AI company goes, the details were light on to non-existent, though there seems plenty of room to write better algorithms (look at the relative difficulties Nikon has had with the focusing performance of their new FF Mirrorless platform) - but that's hardly a unique protectable technology.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I would put an updated Sony DEV-50 in front at this point ..... maybe this will inspire Sony into action ? :cat:
Interesting times ! :eat:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
If the terrain won't let you get closer, just sit around an hour or two. It's most gratifying when that shape that looks right takes flight - though less so when you look away for ten seconds and find that it's Chosun that moment to Juan!
This thread has been quite an interesting read. My thoughts - for what they're worth - are that with the bulk of R&D almost certainly going into smartphones (especially) and cameras, binoculars as we know them will likely stay the same, or at least functionally very similar, for some time to come. Most every development in binoculars - multi-coating, ED glass, image stabilization - has showed up first in camera lenses, so I suppose lens technology today is the best guide to what might come in the future. But it's quite hard, for me at least, to see what might filter down to binoculars. Diffractive optics have helped make some long lenses shorter, but that's not such an issue in binoculars; and their apparently poorer light transmission would no doubt be seen as a negative. Image stabilization in a more user-friendly package could come along relatively soon, but if it's from one of the top manufacturers would almost certainly be extremely expensive. Electronic displays would be hard to make totally fieldproof; and today's electronic viewfinders are certainly good enough to use for photography but would need significant improvement to equal alpha image quality for long observing sessions. Frankly, I think the traditional alpha is going to lead the pack for some time yet. Which is in some respects a shame - it would not be a bad thing in my book for the experience of observing with high-end binoculars to be "democratized" in the way that the improving quality of smartphone cameras has done with photography.
Iirc, the WW2 Zeiss 8x60 submarine binoculars included hand figured aspherical components, so the concept is very well understood.
Dr Hans Seeger's monograph notes that the then Zeiss representative characterized this item as the 'tip of the flagpole' technically, so what was once the unique prerogative of state is now becoming accessible to the consumer.
Even so, for binoculars I'm not sure what aspherical adds practically. It does simplify zoom optical designs without excess cost, thanks to molded lenses. However, there are no alpha zoom binoculars afaik.
I am not sure what benefits aspherics could bring to binos but I find the following encouraging:
Aspherics are used in fixed focal length lenses as well as zooms and in fact the first lens I remember as having aspherics was a Canon 55mm way back in the early 1970s. I'm pretty sure I remember reading they can do a better job at bringing all wavelengths of light to a common focus than extra-low dispersion glass, as well as controlling spherical aberration better as well, and at the very least an aspheric can combine two conventional lenses so may allow a more compact and lighter design. Whether any of these is transferable to binos with sufficient benefits and at a reasonable cost is another matter.
Lee
Aspherical lenses would help in reducing aberrations, as Lee says, and are used in high-end astronomical refractors.
With binoculars, I don't see them coming soon, as most manufacturers seem to think that aberration levels can be rather high without anyone noticing. There's still a lot of room for improvement with just tighter quality control, without which aspherical lenses would not add anything meaningful anyway.
Kimmo
With binoculars, I don't see them coming soon, as most manufacturers seem to think that aberration levels can be rather high without anyone noticing. There's still a lot of room for improvement with just tighter quality control, without which aspherical lenses would not add anything meaningful anyway.
Kimmo