Resolution vs Sharpness (2 Viewers)

A2GG · Feb 11, 2019

Hey Binastro (post 20),

When following fast moving birds you rarely can acquire perfect focus, so you must rely on a general impression and this is where good ID skills come in.

This is why I like lower powered binoculars b/c you get a slightly less shaky image. You can't look for warblers with a tripod obviously but you could do this for ducks and geese in fields; static type of birding. When IS bins are improved enough to the point where they work great with glasses, are lighter and better ergonomically and have super long battery life I would consider buying one.

james holdsworth · Feb 11, 2019

Don't forget most of what is being discussed is completely individual - how steady are your hands, how skilled are you at subject acquisition, how smoothly can you pan and scan? etc. etc.

And, of course, none of this considers the skill and experience of the observer in interpreting and understanding what they see....

elkcub · Feb 11, 2019

Gilmore Girl said:
Hi Ed (post 15),

Isn't acutance essentially apparent sharpness? I'm familiar with the term from reading about optics online, but I always interpreted it as apparent sharpness. When we use the term 'edge contrast' when referring to binocular images I think of edge contrast relating directly to apparent sharpness. Is it not enhanced edge contrast that can render an image sharp when viewed through a binocular ? I may be conflating all these terms, but think when attempting to describe quality of images through binoculars edge contrast would be the approx or appropriate term to gauge or evaluate perceived sharpness which is subjective form user to user. The original article I posted illustrates a difference between sharpness created by edge contrast (how I understand it) to be different from resolution. Edge contrast i understand to mean the boundaries between two tones (lighter/darker) to be distinct making the tones easier to differentiate.
So in everyday language, when referring to images from cameras or binoculars, the general term "sharpness" is used in place of more specific terms like acutance.
I may be getting all this wrong. When responding please remember I'm not a scientist and to "dumb" it down a bit if you don't mind

Hi GG,

No need to dumb anything down. The way I'd put it is that sharpness is the perceptual response to acutance, which is a measurable property of the image. But, as the quote in #15 states, increased acutance (resulting in increased sharpness) isn't necessarily accompanied by increased resolution. Edge contrast is a good descriptor for acutance so we're in perfect agreement. :t:

Thanks,
Ed

A2GG · Feb 11, 2019

elkcub said:
Hi GG,

No need to dumb anything down. The way I'd put it is that sharpness is the perceptual response to acutance, which is a measurable property of the image. But, as the quote in #15 states, increased acutance (resulting in increased sharpness) isn't necessarily accompanied by increased resolution. Edge contrast is a good descriptor for acutance so we're in perfect agreement. :t:

Thanks,
Ed

ok got it...thanks for the clarification Ed

typo · Feb 12, 2019

elkcub said:
David,

Although I'm not steeped in the visual motion detection literature, what you're saying doesn't correspond with my general understanding as reflected in the attached not-so-recent articles. I'd be very interested to read an article showing that "...our perception of sharpness is believed to [do] with how fast our brains process different levels of visual information."

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

I’ve now had a more detailed look at those two papers. They exploring the computational models for the popular theories of movement detection. Although I mention ball catching, that wasn’t the issue I was addressing. I know motion is rather more complex. The publications ignore the contrast and spatial frequency parameters. However the Borst and Englehaaf paper does draw attention to the need for temporal gating (which I called frame rate) as a prerequisite for movement detection and velocity determination, as it is for scenario I pieced together.

As I mentioned earlier I my understanding was built up in fragments gleaned from weeks of browsing to build up a relevant interpretation. Unfortunately that was about 4 years ago, and I’m struggling to relocate some pieces in the puzzle now. Particularly the older work that identified the contrast of the 5 to 10 arcminute frequency range as most critical for sharpness perception. I’ll let you know when I find it.

While I was trying to track down those missing pieces, I found a paper I hadn’t seen before that I thought might interest you. In it’s introduction, it looks like it cites some of the studies I looked at before, which mostly used black and white targets. It goes on to investigate aspects of spatial and temporal frequency, in addition to contrast on vision sensitivity using more natural visual information. It covers a lot but doesn’t paint the complete picture. I’m still struggling on some parts of the paper, but haven’t found anything yet that appears to contradict the main thrust of what I said. However it does shift things around quite a bit. I need to go through it again to figure out the implications.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612947/#!po=41.4894

Cheers,

David

jremmons · Feb 12, 2019

Beth,
This thread goes to show just how different each person's eyes are when it comes to binoculars. I really like the Ultravid HD 7x42 I bought recently, but have never been a fan of the 8x30 CL Companion (original version), as I found it not particularly sharp, weak against the light, and narrow ("tunnel-vision"). Resolving power may be fine but to me, that generally doesn't mean as much in the field as apparent sharpness (which is a personal issue based upon resolution, control of astigmatism, color bias, perception of CA, hand/eyes of the user, etc.).

Justin

A2GG · Feb 12, 2019

jremmons said:
Beth,
This thread goes to show just how different each person's eyes are when it comes to binoculars. I really like the Ultravid HD 7x42 I bought recently, but have never been a fan of the 8x30 CL Companion (original version), as I found it not particularly sharp, weak against the light, and narrow ("tunnel-vision"). Resolving power may be fine but to me, that generally doesn't mean as much in the field as apparent sharpness (which is a personal issue based upon resolution, control of astigmatism, color bias, perception of CA, hand/eyes of the user, etc.).

Justin

Hi Justin,

Of course my 7x42 HD+ is clearly on another level optically, but I have no issues with the old CL. I certainly don't ever think it sucks or is unsatisfactory in comparison to the Ultravid. I see a clear difference, yes, but I think it still has a nice view in its own right. Do wish the FOV could be wider, but I also don't experience the type of tunnel-like constricted view you saw in it. I think the huge sweet spot helps. I noticed when trying 10x42 couple years back, the models with larger sweet spot felt more comfortable since the true FOV is narrow in 10x42's. For example Nikon SE 10x42 was more a comfortable view than Vortex Razor 10x42 which has a much wider FOV. The Nikon has a huge sweet spot and I think has field flatteners in it. CL doesn't have a flat field, but I find the it has a large area of focus.

The CL suffers a bit at long range with sharpness, but I find closer and middle distances good with the CL and colors and overall image pleasing. It's really a more casual binocular for me and will be used for walks in the neighborhood, lunch breaks in my car at the local park and that type of thing. I don't see significant CA in the CL (I do seem some degree of CA at times) and find the colors to be towards neutral and quite bright for 30mm.

Reading old reviews of the original CL it seems a polarizing bino. Lots of users not at all happy with the view while others like it or even love it. Reading back to 2011 posts, members seemed to like it quite a bit when it was first introduced and then slowly it turns sour over time with different users it seems. There's quite a range of opinion on it and obviously I think it's pretty good. It's not top tier view, but it's pleasing to me. I'll get more time with it this weekend.

A2GG · Feb 12, 2019

p.s. I had my eye exam on Sunday and have a new prescription (minor change), but thinking both binos should look even better when I get the new glasses. o

Getting new, thinner titanium frames which should make the view through the 8x30 a little more comfortable compared to my current thicker plastic frames.

jremmons · Feb 12, 2019

Gilmore Girl said:
p.s. I had my eye exam on Sunday and have a new prescription (minor change), but thinking both binos should look even better when I get the new glasses. o

Getting new, thinner titanium frames which should make the view through the 8x30 a little more comfortable compared to my current thicker plastic frames.

Funny, I just did the same. My prescription changed and I got thinner frames as well. I've often wondered how much the ergonomics and lens qualities effect the view through binoculars. I know my old ornithology professor would always push his glasses up when using his Trinovids.

Re: your comments on the CL, it again just shows the differences we all see. I thought the CL was clearly inferior to the mid-range options such as the Meostar and Conquest HD as well as even the Viper HD. This is why I preface all my reviews/reports/comments on optics with "to my eyes...".

Justin

A2GG · Feb 12, 2019

jremmons said:
Funny, I just did the same. My prescription changed and I got thinner frames as well. I've often wondered how much the ergonomics and lens qualities effect the view through binoculars. I know my old ornithology professor would always push his glasses up when using his Trinovids.

Re: your comments on the CL, it again just shows the differences we all see. I thought the CL was clearly inferior to the mid-range options such as the Meostar and Conquest HD as well as even the Viper HD. This is why I preface all my reviews/reports/comments on optics with "to my eyes...".

Justin

You're not alone in your views of the original CL. I've seen more than a few bad reviews of it. But, I've seen some good ones too by some respected members here, but you have to sort of go back a way to find those on the forum. Main issues seems to be the pricing which should have been a bit lower from the start, FOV and some users finding the image not sharp enough. Like I mentioned, I think resolution is high, but edge contrast which renders an image sharp a little lower. I still think it's sharp enough for me, but the UVid+ I consider very sharp and there's an obvious difference. I think my expectations of it are just not as high as others.

I'm more impressed with its ergonomics, design and build which are all up to Swaro standards (excellent). I think it gets the job done good enough optically for my purpose (casual observation). Ergonomics, size and weight are high priority in this case, as I needed a small/light, alternative to the Lecia 42mm. It won't be used quite as much as the 7x42. I'll see how I like it as I continue using it.

A2GG · Feb 12, 2019

When trying to decide between FL and CL recently, some posts by Gijs helped me to place the order for the CL and at least see if I could still be pleased with it. I bought my first one in 2013 and never had any issues with the view:

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361839

wachipilotes, post 14,
The new CL is better than the former one in a number of aspects, see my test reoprt on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can get an old one for a reasonable price: do not hesitate, since it is small, light weight and of enough optical quality to enjoy it.
Gijs van Ginkel

In this thread Gijs confirmed, in a few posts, what I always thought about the CL 8x30 (pretty bright):

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=300771&page=2

NDhunter · Feb 12, 2019

Gilmore Girl said:
When trying to decide between FL and CL recently, some posts by Gijs helped me to place the order for the CL and at least see if I could still be pleased with it. I bought my first one in 2013 and never had any issues with the view:

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=361839

wachipilotes, post 14,
The new CL is better than the former one in a number of aspects, see my test reoprt on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor. If you can get an old one for a reasonable price: do not hesitate, since it is small, light weight and of enough optical quality to enjoy it.
Gijs van Ginkel

In this thread Gijs confirmed, in a few posts, what I always thought about the CL 8x30 (pretty bright):

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=300771&page=2

GG:

You are not alone in your respect for the CL. I have had one from the start,
June, 2011 and while I don't use it often, I have posted like Torview did in your link above.
It is a quality Swarovski binocular, and it is bright, and offers a very nice view.

It is one of the smallest of any quality 8x30 available, and still is today.
I have tried the new CL, and it seems larger in size to me, but I could not
see much in a store setting.

That is why it may be a better choice than any of the new pocket binoculars
available today. By pocket binoculars I mean 8x25 or smaller. It certainly gives a better an easier view.

Jerry

A2GG · Feb 13, 2019

NDhunter said:
GG:

You are not alone in your respect for the CL. I have had one from the start,
June, 2011 and while I don't use it often, I have posted like Torview did in your link above.
It is a quality Swarovski binocular, and it is bright, and offers a very nice view.

It is one of the smallest of any quality 8x30 available, and still is today.
I have tried the new CL, and it seems larger in size to me, but I could not
see much in a store setting.

That is why it may be a better choice than any of the new pocket binoculars
available today. By pocket binoculars I mean 8x25 or smaller. It certainly gives a better an easier view.

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

When I was searching old comments and reviews about the original CL, I saw a couple from you about how you liked it.

Yea, the new CL seems like it has slimmer barrels, but longer. I prefer the look and size of the original CL. I didn't want to spend 1200 or so for the new one and I really liked the original when I had it back in 2013, so I decided to go with it again. I bought it from a store I stumbled upon while searching online, Nichols Outfitters in Alabama. The guy there, Parker, was helpful and had it laying around for a good price still new in box. The focus is better than my previous one. The old one had a couple gritty spots, but the new one is smoother and has no issues. Previous one was 2012 production date while the one I have now is 2015.

Yes, agree about easier view going up to 8x30. I didn't want to go any smaller than this.

Maljunulo · Feb 13, 2019

Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".

NDhunter · Feb 13, 2019

Maljunulo said:
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".

Don't be troubled, much of this is personal opinion. Just remember that.

Jerry

A2GG · Feb 13, 2019

Maljunulo said:
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".

You're not alone. I've read about this subject online before and my pea brain hurt, but the article I referenced in this thread simplifies it with pictures. I need pictures to understand this stuff

As Jerry says, our assessment of image quality in binoculars is ultimately subjective/opinion anyway.

aCuria · Feb 13, 2019

Kevin Conville said:
Thanks for that David.
I am a little familiar with MTF charts and how they can be useful for analyzing both camera lenses and sport optics.

My point is that with photography there is a product, digital file or print, and this is where the pixels, or lines, or DPI (print) comes in.

No pixels or dots with a live view.

Our eyes perceive in terms of dots too, there are a finite number of cones/rods (biological pixels) in your eye.

Troubador · Feb 13, 2019

Maljunulo said:
Topics like this make my brain hurt, because I just cannot grasp such a concept as "low resolution (but) high sharpness".

I am guessing this means the bino has high contrast making the separation of light and dark markings easy to see even if under a critical examination they do not reproduce the finest details.

Lee

Chosun Juan · Feb 13, 2019

NDhunter said:
Don't be troubled, much of this is personal opinion. Just remember that.

Jerry

Jerry,

I think you're going to have to science the sh*t out of this !
https://www.google.com/amp/s/strong...-to-have-to-science-the-shit-out-of-this/amp/

Chosun :gh:

Binastro · Feb 13, 2019

I use the expression 'unaided eyes' as the alternative can lead to trouble on some internet sites.

My brain also hurts sometimes.

My head also hurts sometimes, and Migraleve pink seems to have vanished because of some licensing dispute.
I don't know if it is available anywhere?
Buclizine?

Resolution vs Sharpness (2 Viewers)

Beth

Consulting Biologist

Silicon Valley, California

Beth

Well-known member

Wildlife Biologist

Beth

Beth

Wildlife Biologist

Beth

Beth

Experienced observer

Beth

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Beth

Well-known member

Moderator

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread