Copyright of optical system? Why no replicas of high grade binos? (1 Viewer)

[Trinovid]

I didn't remember this technical term, 'Optical train'...

Going back the watches for a second, there's the gear train at the heart of the movement...

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Several years ago, perhaps about 2010, I was in Kunming and had a conversation with one of the local binocular manufacturers. Among other things, I asked the manager whether it would be possible to create a clone of one of the classic binoculars, such as the Zeiss 8x60 or the SARD 6x42, upon request. He said no problem, if I arrange one original sample and add about 120.000 Euro, then within a couple of months they could design a prototype as closely as possible to the original (they would have to use modern glass types with similar properties as the vintage optical glasses, which are no longer made, and then re-compute the optical design). After the prototype is done, it would be up to me how to proceed. If I were willing to take something like 100 samples at least, they would start serial production, but the prices would turn reasonable only if 500 or more samples were made. In case the management would like the performance of the prototype and see some potential for a mass production, they would also consider to reimburse the initial investment and produce and distribute larger numbers on their own.

I guess that one should better have something close to half a Million $ available when embarking on such an adventure. Perhaps one could try a crowdfunding, but then, how many people would be crazy enough to go for it? If you find 100 participants, then you may still end up with something of the order of 5.000$ per sample, which would be on a similar level as the Nikon WX.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Binastro]

I suppose the original glass may have had lead, arsenic or other material in it, so it wouldn't be the same.
I don't think that the Sard or Zeiss contained thorium glass.

The Hassleblad wide cameras were stopped because of tiny amounts of lead solder, and millions of older cameras used mercury batteries.
There are replacement batteries, but they are not the same.

My guess of £6,000 wasn't bad.

There are many Chinese multi millionaires, and if one wanted to make these binoculars, a half million dollars would be easily found.

Regards,
B.

 

[Patudo]

Holger, can you shed some light on how expensive (and indeed possible) it might be to get uncoated and single-coated lenses/prisms multi-coated? How much tailoring of the coatings is needed to match the properties of the glass (and any existing coatings)? Would existing coatings need to be removed? I remember reading somewhere (but cannot recall the source - apologies) that going from single to multi-coatings helped increase brightness, but made things like chromatic aberration and colour rendition more challenging. I'd be really grateful for more insights into this.

 

[Binastro]

Uncoated lenses and prisms can be multicoated but the surfaces probably need light polishing first.
This needs a specialist who knows what he is doing.

Single coated surfaces can be multicoated in theory, but are rarely in good enough condition for this to work.

Leica lenses were frequently repolished and single coated in the past.

Multicoating can be done in Britain, although sometimes the work is sent to China.

It probably is never cost effective.

B.

 

[jring]

Hi,

patenting optical designs is certainly possible, but most binoculars hitting the market will not be be issued a patent due to prior art... for example the perger prism was patented and the patent was bought by Leica and mostly hidden in a drawer, except for the geovid series... might be expired now...

As Holger described, re-engineering a classic design is certainly possible with a fair bit of effort - I would the result to be at least as good as the original regardless of slightly different non-leaded glasses being used - also it will probably have modern multicoatings which is literally night and day, especially when the original was uncoated.

Applying multicoatings to uncoated optics is possible if you find somebody with the necessary equipment willing to do a one off job... not so easy with singlecoated optics as the old coatings need to be removed and I only know the method of polishing them off very carefully so not to change the lens data too much.

Joachim

 

[Elkhornsun]

The optical system in binoculars is easily visible in images and in cut through samples. And it's just to x-ray the tube to see how the optical system is designed.
Therefore, it should be easy for any manufacturer to copy any binocular they want. Is the exact optical design copyrightable? And if so: how closely is it permissible to imitate?
And why do we not see chinese replicas of the european and japanese high grade models, when luxuary watches of all brands are replicated?
I think it should have been juridical processes about this. Or?

The differences are in the lenses themselves and these can be replicated. The problem is the perceived value of a Vortex as compared to a Swarovski/Leica/Zeiss binocular. Most people are not in a position to compare multiple binoculars before buying and it is safer to buy a top tier or a bottom tier binocular. In the middle ground are the Vortex binoculars that are made in Japan, Philippines, China, Taiwan and Korea, for this USA based company.

As an ocean sailor doing boat deliveries I needed a chronograph and the $20 digital watches were far more accurate than the Rolex watches that cost thousands of dollars. Most guys will buy the less accurate Rolex to have a status symbol on their wrist.

 

[Trinovid]

Some guys will buy the less accurate Rolex to have a status symbol on their wrist.

Now it reads a little more accurately. Regardless of common misperception, no matter how many people buy things for appearance sake, there still remain many who don’t care what others think, with many of them still buy the nicer product, be it a car, house, watch or binoculars.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Holger, can you shed some light on how expensive (and indeed possible) it might be to get uncoated and single-coated lenses/prisms multi-coated? How much tailoring of the coatings is needed to match the properties of the glass (and any existing coatings)? Would existing coatings need to be removed? I remember reading somewhere (but cannot recall the source - apologies) that going from single to multi-coatings helped increase brightness, but made things like chromatic aberration and colour rendition more challenging. I'd be really grateful for more insights into this.

I don't know who would be doing such a recoating and what it might cost. Existing coatings would have to go, and the coating process may take place at temperatures which cemented lenses won't survive, so there would be lots of extra efforts to get it done. Finally, to have really efficient coatings, the recipe has to be optimized to the refractive index of the individual glass type. Not impossible, but it won't be cheap.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Charlie Yardbird]

In the near future, it will be possible to train a robot to disassemble vintage binoculars. Perhaps they could remove the original glass and insert modern glass with better properties. But would that have any appeal? The fun in vintage is the workmanship that you can feel when using the tool. But the buttery smooth re-greased focus wheel would remain; so would the ergonomics.

The cost of such robots will fall drastically once they are being made by other robots. Will they fall to the price of a professional grade 3D printer - say $10,000 ? Will an enthusiast buy one & let it chug along for a reasonable price? Will an enthusiast do the programming to teach it the skill - or set up the Artificial Intelligence app to discover the skill?

How close are the tolerences for classic Porros, with respect to how far apart each optical element needs to be from the next? How many 1000ths plus or minus? How did they machine the body & prism plates to get close enough? I suppose better grades have screw adjustments, or putting shims under prisms (so the designed prisms would be "short" since lengthening is all you can do with a shim).

I've read some history of 20th Century optical glassmaking. Currently, how many makers of optical glass are there? How many firms buy the glass & fashion it into lenses & prisms? Do they have a catalog of standard designs, or is it all bespoke specifications for binocular assemblers ? There are many custom lens makers for astronomy, but I don't think there are any small makers of prisms (unless they buy a larger one & grind it down).

Is there any New Old Stock of chunks of optical glass in formulas no longer made, such as leaded or thorium ?
What do they make Crown Glass out of now? Its still the standard against all other Abbe Values AFAIK.

 

[exup]

Several years ago, perhaps about 2010, I was in Kunming and had a conversation with one of the local binocular manufacturers. Among other things, I asked the manager whether it would be possible to create a clone of one of the classic binoculars, such as the Zeiss 8x60 or the SARD 6x42, upon request. He said no problem, if I arrange one original sample and add about 120.000 Euro, then within a couple of months they could design a prototype as closely as possible to the original (they would have to use modern glass types with similar properties as the vintage optical glasses, which are no longer made, and then re-compute the optical design). After the prototype is done, it would be up to me how to proceed. If I were willing to take something like 100 samples at least, they would start serial production, but the prices would turn reasonable only if 500 or more samples were made. In case the management would like the performance of the prototype and see some potential for a mass production, they would also consider to reimburse the initial investment and produce and distribute larger numbers on their own.

I guess that one should better have something close to half a Million $ available when embarking on such an adventure. Perhaps one could try a crowdfunding, but then, how many people would be crazy enough to go for it? If you find 100 participants, then you may still end up with something of the order of 5.000$ per sample, which would be on a similar level as the Nikon WX.

Cheers,
Holger

You describe what is typical for most products..... Non- recurring costs upfront that need to be amortised over the early units.

A commercial aircraft costs about $12Bn-15Bn ( probably more now in 2024!) to deliver a certified and thus sellable product; break even is typically about 450 units or perhaps as much as 10 years in some cases.

With consumer optics, no certification or costly highly specialised skills/knowledge/ equipment are needed (major barrier of entry to aerospace market). Kunming and probably many others could produce premier products if desired by a customer by the sounds of it..... But is there a market?

 

[Maljunulo]

Better things cost more to make than cheap things.

A cheap knock-off will never be the same as the real thing.

Better glass, better coatings, better materials, tighter tolerances and so on.

 

[exup]

Better things cost more to make than cheap things.

A cheap knock-off will never be the same as the real thing.

Better glass, better coatings, better materials, tighter tolerances and so on.

Cheap Chinese Conquest HD Vs a Japanese Opticron Aurora or GPO HD....

What has the Better glass, better coatings, better materials, tighter tolerances and so on ......?

 

[Maljunulo]

Cheap Chinese Conquest HD Vs a Japanese Opticron Aurora or GPO HD....

What has the Better glass, better coatings, better materials, tighter tolerances and so on ......?

I have no clue, nor am I ever likely to.

The principle still stands.

 

[Binastro]

Thorium glass stocks were disposed of by the British firms and the premises cleaned up.

Military thorium lenses were withdrawn and destroyed somehow.

There are now regulations regarding thorium lenses and existing units cannot officially be worked on by grinding etc.

There are also limits to how many thorium lenses can be stored together.

Horace Dall had a large slab of glass that was his optical flat.
It was grey and looked suspicious to me.
Next time I visited I monitored it and it was thorium glass.
It didn't bother him at all and remained on his work bench.

Crystal glass was 24% lead.
I don't know how modern crystal glass is made.
It was soft and easy to cut.

Old large magnifying glasses look green side on.

Regards,
B.

 

[exup]

Thorium glass stocks were disposed of by the British firms and the premises cleaned up.

Military thorium lenses were withdrawn and destroyed somehow.

There are now regulations regarding thorium lenses and existing units cannot officially be worked on by grinding etc.

There are also limits to how many thorium lenses can be stored together.

Horace Dall had a large slab of glass that was his optical flat.
It was grey and looked suspicious to me.
Next time I visited I monitored it and it was thorium glass.
It didn't bother him at all and remained on his work bench.

Crystal glass was 24% lead.
I don't know how modern crystal glass is made.
It was soft and easy to cut.

Old large magnifying glasses look green side on.

Regards,
B.

Sounds like my Canon fast prime lens from the 70s/ 80s might be ☢️!

 

[Patudo]

remove the original glass and insert modern glass with better properties. But would that have any appeal? The fun in vintage is the workmanship that you can feel when using the tool. But the buttery smooth re-greased focus wheel would remain; so would the ergonomics.

It certainly would, to me at least - and I suppose the extent of that demand can be seen by the complete lack of coating/re-coating services, lens/prism kits, etc. But surely I'm not the only one who has looked through some of the great classics of the past, and wondered what they'd be like with even just the addition of modern coatings? Modern glass/coatings won't (or shouldn't) change the binocular's handling or mechanics.

How close are the tolerences for classic Porros, with respect to how far apart each optical element needs to be from the next?

Probably a good deal less than modern roofs, frankly.

 

[wllmspd]

You’d need to know the exact dispersion of the glass with surface form in order to reverse engineer properly, to understand the chromatic and off axis performance. An c-ray image won’t cut it. The reason no one revolts optics is that if the coatings have gone on reasonably, the only way to get them off is destructive, which will likely degrade the glass you got them off.
Better would be to use old designs as inspiration, maybe with more modern eyepiece designs, which is sort what companies (the ones who still make porros) do anyway.

Peter

 

[Elkhornsun]

Lens optical designs for binoculars and scopes and telescopes have not changed much in the past 100 years. What has changed is the coating on the lens surfaces.

I wish there was a way to do blind testing of binoculars and scopes and provide an unbiased assessment. No doubt most people would ignore the testing and still buy the status brand.