dalat
...
Indeed.
I really thought it was undisputed that binoculars let us see 3D. After all, this is one of the main reasons to use binoculars instead of monoculars. Or so I thought, until this thread :-O
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Leica's Noctivid and 3D (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Renze de Vries
- Start date
Indeed.
I really thought it was undisputed that binoculars let us see 3D. After all, this is one of the main reasons to use binoculars instead of monoculars. Or so I thought, until this thread :-O
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Anthon,
My definition of 3D vision is being capable of experiencing space and depth, being able to estimate distance etc. How this works and how to point this out is complicated -3D vision is a very subtle phenomenon. But anyway, our world is not flat, it's not a 2D picture. Agreed?
When I look through a binocular, the view is still 3D, but slightly exaggerated, enhanced. Question: has your view of the world through a binocular suddenly become flat?
Some binoculars seem capable of enhancing the enhanced. It's puzzling to me why your 10x50 Ultravid is better in this respect than others. What I see through my Noctivid is that it's capable of this as well. There's nothing spectacular about it, but it's there. I believe that its transparency accounts for this. Not completely of course, because Leica will have done other things, as yet largely unexplained, but to me it's explanation enough, for the moment.
Renze
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
FOV and mainly Apparent FOV is probably of importance here.
Also how much of the FOV you actually can see without moving the bins around. That will depend on effective eye relief and your facial geometry, if you wear glasses etc.
Also observation distance and the scene will be of importance. The longer distance, the flatter the image will appear. Perspective is really just about distance to subject.
You mentioned the 10x50 UV, for me the ER is not enough so I don't get any good view or 3D feel with it. But I don't doubt the large AFOV will be very nice and give an immersive view if you don't need the long ER I do.
The NV 8x42 on the other hand gives, thanks to the long effective ER (probably one of the best together with the Zeiss SF), a much more immersive and "3D" like view for me. The DOF is good also, but I really can't see any difference from the SF.
Perhaps the slightly fuzzier edges in the NV makes objects pop out a bit more, which might fool the eye a bit.
Presumably there is much more to it how the eye/brain will perceive the image, contrast and low optical aberrations have been mentioned. On that account, I can confirm that the NV does not have the lowest CA of the alphas.For some it might distract the naturalness of the view, others won't notice it.
People tend to see different things, I think we will have to live with that...maybe we should start that discussion on color casts again...or perhaps not..
Last edited:
wdc
Well-known member
If you're looking with both eyes, properly aligned, at true spatial relationships, you should be seeing in 3d whether you are looking through binoculars, glasses, or your naked eyes. I think the shallow depth of field of a binocular can enhance the 3d effect, by artificially separating objects/spatial planes in a manner that our eyes can't. There is also an effect I've noticed when viewing sometimes where the motion of my eyes in the image field will show a mild parallax effect, where closer objects in the field shift a bit against further ones, without moving the binocular.
Only relatively speaking. Before stumbling across the 3D picture of my Ultravid 10x50 I would never have described the view through my other bins as flat. Every binocular changes our perspective. Some more than others as you mention below. I'm not sure I could accurately judge distance though. But what I see is that there is a marked separation between objects closer and farther away and that this effect is enhanced in my 8x Noctivid and 10x Ultravid.
Agree. I'm not really too bothered as to how or why. It's just there and I love my 10x50 for it and I bought into the Leica marketing regarding the Noctivid. Zero regrets so far after a month of use (3D is just one of the reasons why).
This is exactly what I tried to explain in my post yesterday. It's almost as if you can see around objects in the foreground by slightly moving your eyes through the field, even though the objective (and the bin) itself is steady. This effect seems more pronounced in the Noctivid, but as I'm on holiday I can't compare with my other bins. I'm sure this effect adds to the 3D effect as it separates objects from their background.
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Anthon, wdc,
Thanks, it always nice to experience better understanding, vice versa.
wdc's suggestion that eye movement could play some role is intriguing. Next to transparency it's the Noctivid's ease of view (in my humble definition, the freedom of the eyes to roam about in the viewing circle) that impress me. So improving ease of view could be beneficial to a more vivid, lifelike, spacious image? Very attractive suggestion indeed.
Renze
Thanks, it always nice to experience better understanding, vice versa.
wdc's suggestion that eye movement could play some role is intriguing. Next to transparency it's the Noctivid's ease of view (in my humble definition, the freedom of the eyes to roam about in the viewing circle) that impress me. So improving ease of view could be beneficial to a more vivid, lifelike, spacious image? Very attractive suggestion indeed.
Renze
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
In my post 64 I have given three examples of 3D observations and if we look at the definition of 3D in the Oxford dictionary, it says:"having or appearing to have lenght, breadth and depth".
The unaided eye, being on average 65 mm apart, takes care of observations that have a 3D structure (Ed has tried to make that clear already). When I wrote, that I did not see 3D with the Noctivid I mean that it does the same as the unaided eyes, not more and the Noctivid was as far as I could see not different from other roofs I had at my disposal when I had the opportunity to look through them.
For those readers who want to go in depth with regard to 3D vision, I can recommend the following sources:
-1- "The book of Photography", ed. Paul Hasluck, Cassell and company ,1905 (for the older readers), page 612-637
-2- "The focal encyclopedia of photography", Focal press, London 1976, pag 1462-1464
-3 "The eye and visual optical instruments", George Smith and David A. Atchison, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pag 304-312 and 728 (in a discussion some time ago, Ed had recommended this book and it is agood source of insight how the eye by itself and in combination with optical instruments work).
Gijs van Ginkel
In my post 64 I have given three examples of 3D observations and if we look at the definition of 3D in the Oxford dictionary, it says:"having or appearing to have lenght, breadth and depth".
The unaided eye, being on average 65 mm apart, takes care of observations that have a 3D structure (Ed has tried to make that clear already). When I wrote, that I did not see 3D with the Noctivid I mean that it does the same as the unaided eyes, not more and the Noctivid was as far as I could see not different from other roofs I had at my disposal when I had the opportunity to look through them.
For those readers who want to go in depth with regard to 3D vision, I can recommend the following sources:
-1- "The book of Photography", ed. Paul Hasluck, Cassell and company ,1905 (for the older readers), page 612-637
-2- "The focal encyclopedia of photography", Focal press, London 1976, pag 1462-1464
-3 "The eye and visual optical instruments", George Smith and David A. Atchison, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pag 304-312 and 728 (in a discussion some time ago, Ed had recommended this book and it is agood source of insight how the eye by itself and in combination with optical instruments work).
Gijs van Ginkel
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Just talked to the Leica Lawyers, and they say "we don't claim 3D", but "almost like in 3D"...so if you see real 3D...please contact nearest hospital...your medication might need some adjustment.
"The latest optical calculations in sophisticated combination with state-of-the-art baffles and premium glass materials ensure image plasticity almost like in 3-D. Thanks to superior contrasts and uncompromisingly large depth of field, fast focussing, wide eye relief and generous eyepieces, you will experience a new way of viewing."
https://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Noctivid
"The latest optical calculations in sophisticated combination with state-of-the-art baffles and premium glass materials ensure image plasticity almost like in 3-D. Thanks to superior contrasts and uncompromisingly large depth of field, fast focussing, wide eye relief and generous eyepieces, you will experience a new way of viewing."
https://en.leica-camera.com/Sport-Optics/Leica-Birding/Binoculars/Leica-Noctivid
Last edited:
dalat
...
Puzzle solved then :t:
But please, if you mean to say you can see something, don't write that you can't see it, this confuses people like me
Gijs, could you please explain then why I see far more 3D in my 10x50 than in my 8x42 Ultravid and 10x42 Trinovid to such an extent that I would call the view in those last two flat?
You seem to say there is 'nothing special to see here, move on'. Then what is it that I see?
You seem to say there is 'nothing special to see here, move on'. Then what is it that I see?
That's just for the folk who put their cat in the microwave as well, or those that really expect a cinematic experience.
I'm not afraid to use the word 3D. The crappy little Habicht I owned for a short while had one good thing about it: fantastic 3D, a step better than the Noctivid.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
I might fall into this category. I'm disturbed that no one can properly explain what they mean by the special 3-D view of the Noctivid. It's a conventional optic. Given all the optics that have ever been produced, this phenomenon should be familiar from some others and language should exist to describe and explain it. For me, the issue is that the only sort of 3-D that makes sense is that inferred by the brain from the different perspectives provided by the two eyes in stereo vision, or that can be inferred from differences in focus distance or from apparent movement of foreground vs background (when the observer is moving). I don't understand what anyone means by 3-D in a static 2-D image except with respect to out of focus foreground and background versus sharply focused midground subject. When it comes to seeing in 3-D through bins, I see more in those that provide more separation between the objectives (e.g. regular porros as compared to roofs or reverse porros). I don't get an enhanced feeling of 3-D through any roof or reverse-porro. In fact, I don't get much of a 3-D feel from the view through any bin, except at close range, because the difference in perspective from the oculars isn't very different when viewing distant objects. Another issue for me is that I don't think I react much to 3-D. It isn't critical to my sense of being immersed in the world. For example, when watching movies, I find it much more immersive to watch a 2-D movie while sitting at a distance close enough that the screen fills much of my peripheral vision (often about 5th row in modern theaters) than to watch a 3-D movie at the distance necessary for "optimal" viewing (often about 10th row). I'm never bothered by the "flat" view of a 2-D movie up close, but I do detest watching an exaggerated 3-D movie where the screen is way off in the distance so everything is happening within a rectangular frame within my central vision. Maybe this accounts for my love of the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV. I don't find the view artificially "flat"--just seems a normal binocular view to me, except that (unlike many other bins), I am free to dart my eyes around to look at the scene without refocusing or repositioning the bins. To me, that feels much more natural than having to keep my eyes locked on the center axis of the bins for a clear view, or having to refocus every time I move my eyes around the scene even when everything I'm viewing is at approximately the same distance.
--AP
At least we share the same cinematic taste in that I can't stand 3D in a movie and like you I prefer to sit close to the screen to be immersed in a 2D view of the movie. But even cinematic 3D is a trick of the brain, you are looking at a flat 2D screen and your brain is fooled into seeing 3D. So in a sense you answer your own objections when you say that you don't understand 3D from a 2D source.
I find 3D in a movie distracting because I have no idea what to focus on. In a binocular however...
I find 3D in a movie distracting because I have no idea what to focus on. In a binocular however...
PeterPS
MEMBER
If you're after a 3D view here are the bins for you:
http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/first-light-with-the-prototype-8x42-space-walke-r3042
http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/first-light-with-the-prototype-8x42-space-walke-r3042
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Interesting, some quotes from the comments in that page:
"How is the 3D achieved? Through parallax. Your natural vision shows you 3D via the parallax produced by the separation of your two eyes. But since things are so far away in astronomy, the eye separation is insufficient to produce enough parallax of the image for your brain to translate it into 3D. The array elements in the LOA produce a parallax offset that is great enough for your brain to interpret as parallax and then trigger the 3D translation. So it is *simulated* parallax.
Now is this entertaining? Well, it is as or more entertaining as the artificial positional relationships shown in wide field eyepieces. Yes, when the off-axis has Rectilinear Distortion, as all wide fields do, then angles become incorrect and the relative position of stars to each other become incorrect and not actual. So the price one pays for a wide field, is an incorrect and distorted view. Entertaining? Yes wide fields are! The 3D relationships in this view are also simulated rather than actual. Is it entertaining? Actually I would say more awesome than entertaining.
This really is an interesting point though, as when we look at any FOV, we are looking at multiple objects at all different distances away, so within a single FOV some of the things we are looking at may be their view from hundreds of years ago, and others the view from thousands of years ago. So looking at a FOV of stars is about as correct temporally as a photo of a family where we would paste a picture of the children when they were older than the picture of the parents. So nothing in the FOV is really temporally correct or positionally correct if the AFOV is wider than 58 degrees, colors and brightnesses are not correct due to interstellar dust. So really, just the fact that the object is what it is is about the only thing correct about the view. "
Might indicate that 3D actually would be possible to enhance...by distortion, field curvature etc.?
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Renze,
There is some chance that the 10x50 has a greater inter-objective distance (IOD) than the x42 or x32 models, i.e., creating more retinal disparity. For monocular cues, 3-D perception is also enhanced by greater FOV, other factors held constant. [See my experiment 12 yrs. ago.]
Incidentally, did you ever measure your NV's IOD when the instrument is set to your IPD? Whenever (IOD — IPD) > 0.0, the 3-D effect is enhanced.
Although I've never considered transparency being an aid to 3-D before, it is possible that it allows greater impact of subtle visual gradients. Certainly, as opacity increases gradients become less visible and depth perception would diminish. The general hypothesis would need to be studied in greater detail experimentally.
Ed
Last edited:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
I don't know what to say to this, except that I find this very, very beautiful prose.
Thanks.
Renze
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
But of course, we should take measures. With my IPD of 68 the Noctivid's IOD is 68.2 mm. In comparison, my Trinovd 8x32 BA has an IOD of 68.7 mm. Should I see differences in 3-D effect? Now what a sad test instrument am I?
Renze
Last edited:
OK Alexis let me have a try.
Take a look at the pic below. It is of part of the British Bird Fair and shows part of Rutland Water, a huge freshwater reservoir that the Fair looks over.
Go to the bottom left-hand corner and the large white building stretching away from us is in fact the main optics marquee and the Leica booth is in the end furthest away from us and extends to the right-hand side of the marquee where it is open to give a view of the lake.
Starting just to the right of 'Leica Corner' you can see a series of islands in a broken row stretching across the water.
Standing in the Leica booth and looking out at the nearest three of these islands I was far more aware of the distance between the islands when looking through the Nvid 8x42s than I was through other roof bins. It felt almost as though the islands had been moved further apart. With other bins I could see that there was a small channel between them but with the Nvids I felt that there was room to fit 2 or 3 boats between the islands.
On the nearby corner of the Swaro stand was a pair of Habicht porros and I quick look through them, then back to the Nvids, then back to the Habichts (7x42s) I could see the effect was significantly more pronounced with the Habichts.
In short the Nvids made the front to back dimension, the depth in other words, more perceivable.
Lee
