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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="typo" data-source="post: 3523093" data-attributes="member: 83808">When I tried the Noctivid back in August I found them subtlety better than the UV+, ELSV and HT in the way they allowed me to interpret the view. The outlook from BirdFair marquee includes banks of reeds in the fore and middle ground and I felt I was seening not only better definition of each reed but also a much clearer interpretation of where each was in relation to the next and where that reed bunting was in that complex swaying mass of vegitation. So I though the spacial positioning was better, even if, in the true sense, the depth of field and stereopsis was probably no different from the others. I can't say I thought to try one eye onthat occasion but I suspect it would have made little difference. The question is, how is this possible? Is it the elimination of aberrations or optimising field curvature? Those may be well be part of the story, but I suspect they have also optimised the MTF (contrast) at the optimal spatial frequence for sharpness perception. They simply made the view easier to interpret, spatially and otherwise. When I asked Meopta about their sharpness optimisation they sent me MTF values for multiple wavelengths for an apparent frequency of 10 lp/degree. The frequency where our brains can optimally interpret visual detail. That 12x50HD I reviewed had excellent resolution results, but I suspect it was the high contrast at lower spatial frequency which really gave the view the visual impact.Just speculation, but I think the Noctivid's MTF 10 lp/degree values might just the best on the market at the moment.David</blockquote>

Verification