Leica's Noctivid and 3D (1 Viewer)

[Theo98]

I find this "thing" largely unfounded, and would not place anything about this, into a decision
on purchasing a binocular.

Jerry

Agree Jerry. My optic purchases and current ownerships were for other reasons. I'm sensitive to it and just happens it appeared (to me) in some of those choices I mentioned in post #159. Most quality binoculars I've either glassed with or use to own have great 2D FOV presentations, that's all I usually expect and consequently, discover! However, if you see it..good. If Not...Still Good! :t:

Ted

 

[jan van daalen]

I was looking into the undergrowth of the woods behind my deck today with my Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL T* and I got a great 3-D view of the undergrowth when I used both eyes. When I shut one of my eyes the view became flat without depth!

I shut both eyes alternately like this:

Try it sometime and see if you lose 3D vision when you do.

Bob

Yes, but that's the effect that looking with both eyes realizes.
For me, I see the same with or without abinocular (only 8 x closer).
Do I now have to praise the bin for it's 3D effect?

B

Jan

 

[Anthon]

I was looking into the undergrowth of the woods behind my deck today with my Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL T* and I got a great 3-D view of the undergrowth when I used both eyes. When I shut one of my eyes the view became flat without depth!

I shut both eyes alternately like this:

Try it sometime and see if you lose 3D vision when you do.

Bob

Would it matter? Some bins will still allow me to see/experience/dream up/encounter/imagine 3D in a way that my other bins do not. Wether with one eye or two eyes. So there is more going on than just one eye/two eyes.

Whatever causes this additional 3D effect, wether it's real or distortion, wether it's contrast or always present, it doesn't matter. Some bins have it, some don't. Some people seem to be sensitive to it, some not.

 

[Canip]

:t:

Would it matter? Some bins will still allow me to see/experience/dream up/encounter/imagine 3D in a way that my other bins do not. Wether with one eye or two eyes. So there is more going on than just one eye/two eyes.

Whatever causes this additional 3D effect, wether it's real or distortion, wether it's contrast or always present, it doesn't matter. Some bins have it, some don't. Some people seem to be sensitive to it, some not.

:t:

 

[ceasar]

Yes, but that's the effect that looking with both eyes realizes.
For me, I see the same with or without abinocular (only 8 x closer).
Do I now have to praise the bin for it's 3D effect?

B

Jan

Jan,

It works that way for me too!

So, no!:t:

Bob

 

[Troubador]

wine tasters, have an extensive vocabulary (which does not, incidentally, include the words "sparkle" or "plasticity")

--AP

I once had some red wine in Turin that tasted plasticky.
The seafood I had eaten might have had something to do with it.

Lee

 

[Theo98]

Yes, but that's the effect that looking with both eyes realizes.
For me, I see the same with or without a binocular (only 8 x closer).
Do I now have to praise the bin for it's 3D effect?

B

Jan

Great question Jan. IMHO, yes!

Our unaided eyes see 2-D, and our brains interpret what we see (perception) in 3-D (our normal vision with height, width, depth). For me, most binocular optic views do not present their powered magnifications in the full depth and breath of my normal vision. These optics present what I can see with one eye, just a relative flat 2-D image that seems to try and "hint" at spacial depth. Those few optical instruments that go beyond, rendering spacial clues that allow my "perception" as per normal unaided vision, I call 3-D.

In My reality (my head), the large offset porros (50+mm differential between objectives and oculars) present an exaggerated 3-D that doesn't look or feel natural (similar to my experience in a 3-D movie theater). Nice effects, but not how I normally perceive the world.

Seems we both are "seeing" the same way (just 8X to 10X closer), just calling it differently. Semantics...should 3-D be used in the same sentence with binocular optical instruments that present accurate powered views of the world as per our unaided visionary perceptions? Or, should 3-D entitlement just be reserved for devices that accentuate the normal human visions of our dimensional world?

Ted

 

[Torview]

When users refer to 3d in the NV, are they talking about the subject being very definitely delineated from the background, or are they referring to a sense of space around and between the subject and the background ?

The latter to me is 3d, the former a result of great definition and contrast.

 

[Anthon]

Both Torview. Both deliniation and a sense of space. The contrast and sharpness surely contribute to the sense of 3D. But there is also a definite sense of space, airiness, dimensionality. The sense of space is not as dramatic as in the Habicht you mentioned earlier but still beautifully noticeable.

Habicht 3D jumps right out at you. Noctivid stops just short of jumping.

 

[Torview]

OK, for me the former, delineation, is not 3d, nor would I describe it as 3d when trying to convey the view, only the sense of space and clear separation between the subject and the background constitutes 3d in a view for me.

 

[Anthon]

Some insist that that's all there is to it, if anything at all...hence this 'heated' debate!

 

[Torview]

Some insist that that's all there is to it, if anything at all...hence this 'heated' debate!

I`m not suggesting I`m correct, but it does explain to me why I see no significant 3d in the NV compared to others.

 

[SuperDuty]

Isn't the Noctivid plasticity-3D discussion in reality a discussion about the way they render contrast ? What concerns me about the Noctivid is CA control, if they show more of it than an SV I couldn't get along with them. They are apparently standard setting as far as lack of most distortions, but I find anything other than superb CA control at the $2500+ level unacceptable, if they had FL-SF level CA control I would be ordering in a pair to look at. For those that are immune to CA, I'm sure they are wonderful, unfortunately that ain't me.

 

[Robert Moore]

I just traded a 10x42 Swarovision for a Leica 8x42 hd+ and I can see more of a 3 d view in the Leica compared to the Swarovision. It has more ca in the outer edges of the view but I am really enjoying this binocular for its size and I can hold it perfectly still for long periods of time. There is something about the view in the Leica I really like. Can't quite put my finger on it but it is really something special. I would love to look through a noctivid if it is even better.

 

[Tobias Mennle]

People these days are used to the flat compressed space in the images of flat field bins. The Noctivid probably attracts new users which have not been interested in Leica bins before. Hence the discussion. Which is good, because IMO flat field is a big mistake and we need a choice of premium bins which are not flat field.

I compared Nikon EDG 7x42 vs Ultravid Plus 7x42 the last days. EDG has a really awful flat rendering of space. Ultravid looks wonderfully 3D. Stereo base is identical.

Curved field is the basis. Leica glow makes the rest. Control of aberrations could be important, too, anyway 7x42 Ultravid looks much more 3D than 8x42 Ultravid.

 

[Rathaus]

Any chance of a 7x42 Noctivid?

 

[elkcub]

People these days are used to the flat compressed space in the images of flat field bins. The Noctivid probably attracts new users which have not been interested in Leica bins before. Hence the discussion. Which is good, because IMO flat field is a big mistake and we need a choice of premium bins which are not flat field.

I compared Nikon EDG 7x42 vs Ultravid Plus 7x42 the last days. EDG has a really awful flat rendering of space. Ultravid looks wonderfully 3D. Stereo base is identical.

Curved field is the basis. Leica glow makes the rest. Control of aberrations could be important, too, anyway 7x42 Ultravid looks much more 3D than 8x42 Ultravid.

IMO2 :t:

Ed

 

[Loud Green Man]

I smuggled my 8X56 Zeiss Night Owls into Leica's Mayfair Boutique last week and compared the view of their café opposite (darkest recesses through two plate glass windows) with the larger Noctivid. There was no stepping into a tardise-like experience and I’m happy to confirm I will be sticking with my lead glass weighted bricks.

There is no doubt the Noctivid is very, very good and ergonomically pleasing but they do not offer in terms of image quality anything that has not already been done.

LGM

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I smuggled my 8X56 Zeiss Night Owls into Leica's Mayfair Boutique last week and compared the view of their café opposite (darkest recesses through two plate glass windows) with the larger Noctivid. There was no stepping into a tardise-like experience and I’m happy to confirm I will be sticking with my lead glass weighted bricks.

There is no doubt the Noctivid is very, very good and ergonomically pleasing but they do not offer in terms of image quality anything that has not already been done.

LGM

Not the best target to check 3D.

Better to look along the streets with different targets at different distances.

I had time ago the night owls 10x56 and is a very nice binocular but not anymore competitive with the last offers, after buy the SV 10X42 i sold the Zeiss after couple of days checking them on field.

But if your are happy with them and serve you well keep it

 

[ceasar]

The best place to check depth of field is by following birds with your binocular which are flitting through the branches of nearby trees like the ones I have in the back yard off my deck. The trees are at a distance of 10 feet to 60 feet or so from my deck. 7x42 binoculars excel here. I've been able to follow Golden Crowned Kinglets through the foliage with my 7x42 Victory FL even in the evening.

8x binoculars are not as good for this kind of use and 10x binoculars are nearly impossible to use unless the trees have no foliage.

Bob