• 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.

Review Trinovid HD and Noctivid (1 Viewer)

Thanks you so very much for the detailed review/comparison including the Trinovid 10X42 HD. Mine arrives today and this is the first review of substance that I've had the pleasure to read. My only concern is the ratio of PC/globe effect. I appear to enjoy somewhat of a 50/50 style or thereabouts. A little PC w/little ripple in a pan/scan that maintains the integrity of rectangle shape in a horizontal pan whilst tilting the image in a vertical scan [tilting the top of the view towards me from horizon to zenith/away from me zenith to horizon].

Should the Trinovid 10X42 have less PC than the 10X40 Conquest it would provide a good start. If the HD has more PC than the 2009 Weaver Super Slam, that I purchased a few weeks prior, I will personally be disappointed.

At these prices it is a shame that bins are not rated on the accumulative effect of PC Vs. globe effect. Part of the problem being is that not all experience globe effect, yet all should see PC as I understand. Regardless, a ratio exists in every bin. I see globe effect/PC in varying degrees.

Speaking of, I look forward to your conclusion of Distortion/Rolling Ball of 4/5. I speculate that me sweet spot lies twixt there und 5-/3 of the Swaro. Was there a value to ' - ' as it only shows on the Swaro score?

ETA: I also enjoyed your earlier review of the Conquest HD 10X42 as it seems to share similar price/optical qualities.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you so very much for the detailed review/comparison including the Trinovid 10X42 HD. Mine arrives today and this is the first review of substance that I've had the pleasure to read. My only concern is the ratio of PC/globe effect. I appear to enjoy somewhat of a 50/50 style or thereabouts. A little PC w/little ripple in a pan/scan that maintains the integrity of rectangle shape in a horizontal pan whilst tilting the image in a vertical scan [tilting the top of the view towards me from horizon to zenith/away from me zenith to horizon].

Should the Trinovid 10X42 have less PC than the 10X40 Conquest it would provide a good start. If the HD has more PC than the 2009 Weaver Super Slam, that I purchased a few weeks prior, I will personally be disappointed.

At these prices it is a shame that bins are not rated on the accumulative effect of PC Vs. globe effect. Part of the problem being is that not all experience globe effect, yet all should see PC as I understand. Regardless, a ratio exists in every bin. I see globe effect/PC in varying degrees.

Speaking of, I look forward to your conclusion of Distortion/Rolling Ball of 4/5. I speculate that me sweet spot lies twixt there und 5-/3 of the Swaro. Was there a value to ' - ' as it only shows on the Swaro score?

ETA: I also enjoyed your earlier review of the Conquest HD 10X42 as it seems to share similar price/optical qualities.

Your post talks about distortion of optics, and that includes pincushion
distortion, the measurement of curved lines near the edges.

Allbinos has a nice way of scoring and measuring distortion of binoculars
and those are very useful.

Globe effect, rolling ball, is another thing entirely, as it is not measurable.
It has to do with human visual perception.

Jerry
 
PC is not limited to the edges. I see it dead center under movement though I am aware of the static measurements used by allbinos.

Allbinos nevah reviewed a Weaver SS. I await their review of the Trinovid HD hopefully 10x42.

Globe effect is not merely on or off. There are degrees to the effect dependent not only among individuals, but also the degree if you will of PC. I can see PC along w/partial globe effect in the same bin under certain conditions. The distortion of PC is evident, but if the PC is not overwhelming the view retains artifacts of globe effect.

Lack of PC will induce full blown globe effect on me. Howevah, if the designers do not go hog wild on PC I see the subdued globe effect as a ripple in a horizonal pan. In a vertical scan the view tilts towards me in the direction of motin/away from me the direction I came from. If I pan up the top comes to me whilst the bottom is pushed away. Just the opposite on the way down bottom half to me top half away.

As if the view is on a horizontal hinge tilting dependent on direction of vertical movement.

Too much PC and the trunk of a tree, dead center, stretches as I move up or down. Way too much PC, ZR 7x36, produces what I refer unto as the fountain effect under vertical scan. So much of a curved distortion over the wide view produces "fountians" on the left & right. The left side on upward vertical turns CCW the right side CW. These swap direction when I scan down. I do not know what it is I only know it is way too much distracting movement for me. I gave away the ZR because of that movement on the peripherals that I saw.

As always, YMMV ...
 
Last edited:
Nixtedermus,

The review is not by me (wish it was), but by a fellow countryman Jan Meijerink. His email address is mentioned at the bottom of the article. Just leave out DITNIET to get a correct email address.

George
 
I have seen pincushion distortion, however I have never seen rollin ball when I pan with glass - at least not yet anyway.

Andy W.
 
My mistake though perhaps misunderstanding is me only strength.
I did notice the link, but I was rushing through the review(s) a mite.
Thanks for the correction.

I have seen pincushion distortion, however I have never seen rollin ball when I pan with glass - at least not yet anyway.

Andy W.

You shouldn't see RB if enough PC is applied. It's my understanding that most do not recognize globe effect w/no PC.

That would make me a mental defect of sorts.
 
Last edited:

I think that bit needs some clarification. It has been Jan Meijerink's practice to derive his resolution in arc seconds from the number of lines per millimeter resolved on his chart. Most others use line pairs per millimeter, so his measurement of 2.28" should be read as 4.56" for comparing to others.

2.28" for a 42mm objective lens is really too good to be true since the diffraction limit for a 42mm lens using line pairs per millimeter is about 2.76". 4.56" is just OK by binocular standards, but not very impressive and indicates something is a bit off with the barrel that he measured.
 
Last edited:
I mostly agree with Nixterdemus' explanation of "rolling ball". But I would add that it's the presence of angular magnification distortion that causes the effect, not the absence of pincushion. There is no such thing as a distortion free FOV. As pincushion decreases and lines become straighter AMD increases and causes the shapes of objects to compress radially toward the edge of the field. A small circle at the field center becomes an oval when moved to the edge. When panning, that change in shape mimics the change in shape of a small circle on the equator of a globe as it rounds the edge when the globe is rotated.

Some binoculars, like the SV and SF, have a compound distortion sometimes called "mustache distortion" because of the way it causes lines to bend like a handlebar mustache. In that case pincushion increases normally across the inner part of the field, but then reverses in the outer part, causing AMD to develop abruptly near the field edge.
 
Last edited:
Henry, always a pleasure for you to share your expertise. My lack of optic knowledge is only surpassed by inept attempt in using a page to express a paragraph that at best is a ballpark figure.

In the sub-alpha bins it seems they are in one camp or another being "all" AMD or PC more or less. I oft wonder why not more of middle of the road. Then again if only a relatively small percentage are adversely affected by Globe effect why bother?

I noticed in the linked review the Noctivid was scored a mite different in the Distortion/Globe effect [4.5/4.5] than the Trinovid [4/5]. By contrast the Swarovski EL 10X42 came out 5-/3. [not sure if the '-' was a typo] Grade rating 1=bad, 2=moderate, 3=fair, 4-good, 5=excellent.

I realize you were not the author of review, but do you feel that distortion in the grade is a reference to PC? [taking into account Google translation Dutch/English] The EL is known to induce globe effect in some, so in Globe effect it is only rated as fair, in what I conclude, to be control of Globe Effect then excellent, again in what I conclude, in PC. That seems to be the explanation of the grading.

Which brings me back to the Noctivid rating that presume to imply half a grade better than the Trinovid in PC control whilst being half a grade worse in globe effect control.

In taking the long way around it appears the alpha Leica shows less pincushion w/flatter field compared to the Trinovid. Which perhaps is the view I seek though costing south of a grand.

Have I come full circle in answering me own inquiry in that I need to pay more for the view I want?

ETA: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

I went back for a refresher course. Perhaps I'll quit referring only to PC as distortion. It would seem I prefer light barrel distortion. That would explain me disdain for very the heavier doses of pincushion.

Apologies for drifting off the review.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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