Optical Performance (1 Viewer)

[Renze de Vries]

Steve,

Thanks. Now you have me convinced that there is a place indeed for an Overall performance category. Presence!

This is a concept widely used in hi-fi audio to denote the character of the sound presentation: more up front, or more laid back. I think it's akin to more or less 'fast' or 'in your face'. Also, I think it's what I had in mind when including 'immediacy' in the Object performance category. However, I now see it doesn't really belong there because it's a combination of factors from different categories.
Presence is probably what people on this forum often call ‘snapping into focus’ or ‘vivid’. In my experience the concept is made up of brightness, contrast, sharpness and color tone, adding up to an impression that can be more or less appealing to the individual.

In the last couple of months I have extensively compared the new Swarovski EL SV and SLC HD to my Zeiss 8x56 FL, Swift Audubon 804ED and Leitz 8x30 Binuxit. To my surprise I found very little to choose between the two Swarovski’s and the Zeiss when comparing them on Object performance. At some point I even entertained the idea of selling the Zeiss and live with the SLC. Why? Because the SLC seemed ever so slightly faster, snappier. Really beautiful. Then it occurred to me that with prolonged viewing the Zeiss essentially gave me the same information, maybe even a bit more. And I decided to keep the Zeiss. Why? Because its slightly slower presentation (I’d now call it more laid back presence) suits my personal character and style of birding just a bit better.
I have discussed the Zeiss Fl’s object presentation, notably its contrast, with people missing something on this aspect. I still believe there’s nothing wrong or missing in the Zeiss’ transmission of contrast. However, I seem to know what they’re talking about. It’s the FL’s presence, being not exactly suited to their expectations, their taste, eyes, brain or style of birding.
Taking my other reference binoculars into the comparison, my impression is that coating, baffling and color tone are very much responsible for differences in a binocular’s presence. Both the Swift and Leitz’s presence is less immediate than the Zeiss’ or Swaro’s. It would be a mistake however to write them off on this aspect. And not only because they’re superb on other aspects (I’ve yet to see a binocular bettering them on center field resolution) but also, and probably more importantly, because their presence is a matter of taste.
And we definitely need to talk about taste when evaluating binoculars. As clear and specific as possible, please. So I’ll gladly include Presence and Overall performance in the vocabulary.

I’ll make a new vocabulary, including a few new aspects which have occurred to me in the process. See below.


Renze


PS. As we’re discussing optical performance here, and not evaluation of binoculars in general, it should be noted that yet another category is not accounted for. Of course aspects like build quality, finish etc. can’t be missed.

 

[Renze de Vries]

Object Performance

Sharpness (retrieval of fine detail, resolution)
Contrast
Color representation


Field Performance

Brightness
Transparency
Sweet spot
True field of view
Apparent field of view
Depth of field
3D-effect
Color tone (fidelity)
Flare, ghosting
Vignetting


Practical Performance

Balance
Focusing
Eye comfort
Weather performance


Overall Performance

Presence

 

[David Swain]

Ah, I see where you are going, Renze. "Presence" reminds me of the Italian courtly concept of sprezzatura, or "artful artlessness," the art of making difficult things seem effortless, of never letting you see sweat.

 

[Renze de Vries]

David,

Sprezzatura!
Beautiful. I'd like see that in a review. Very enlightening, if you know the meaning.
However I'd use this quality for the Zeiss 8x56 FL, more than for the Swarovski SV and HD. You see, it's all a matter of taste.

Also,
you know how it is with converts, they'll easily get overly enthousiastic. How about adding Consistency to Overall performance?

Renze

 

[Nick Elliston]

Renze, I like your categories. Regardless of the various performance fields though, the binoculars have to "feel" right when you use them. Someone can find object, field etc outstanding, but if they don't like the feel of the binoculars will you get as much pleasure from them as binoculars with slightly less performance but that you love using? I think I would sacrifice (some) excellence in your categories for binoculars that I love using and am really comfortable with.
Not sure you can really define "feel" though, although you will know it when you experience it!

 

[Renze de Vries]

Nick,

Aw shucks, you're not asking me to discuss peoples's feelings, are you?

(More serious now) but of course we have to discuss feeling. And I agree to the full with your opinion. However I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'the binoculars have to feel right'. Is it the handability, how your hands (and face, eyes) seem to like them? Or is it the view (of which people also like to say that it feels right)?
If it's the latter expression I'm afraid I won't go further, because I think there are better, more specific terms available for the experience.
If it's the former I'll think something useful should be added to the Practical performance category.

Renze

 

[FrankD]

Hmmm,

In one sense I like where this thread is going and in another sense I think I might not have explained myself well enough when it comes to both "Object performance" and "Overall performance".

Object performance was the best term I could come up with to describe the difference between paying attention to the image quality of the object in the center of the field of view versus paying attention to the edges of the image in addition to the center of the field of view (Overall performance). To take a somewhat extreme example (and, for the moment, ignoring the differences of a opinion on a particular model)...lets consider my impressions of the performance of the Nikon SE 8x32 versus the Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42.

In my experience the centerfield performance of the Legend Ultra is very, very good. The color representation is neutral. Apparent sharpness in the center of the field is excellent as is CA control and contrast. The Nikon SE shares these attributes in the center of the field. So, both binoculars have "high scores" for object performance. An object placed in the center of the field of view looks "good".

Now, looking at the edge of the field of view in both optics provides a vastly different experience in my opinion. I don't like the image outside of the sweet spot in the Legend Ultra 8x42. The distortions/aberrations, and whatever else, are not pleasing to my eyes. The SE, on the other hand, is the polar opposite. The edges are almost as pleasing as the centerfield performance. So, to then to summarize...the SE has excellent "Overall performance" because the sweet spot is large and the edges are as sharp and as pleasing as the center. The Legend Ultra does not have good Overall Performance because the edges are not sharp and the sweet spot is not large (again in my opinion and not to discount other opinions of the optical performance of this bin).

My point in creating two separate categories for this was to clarify an issue. Many individuals are entirely happy with a binocular that delivers excellent "Object performance" regardless of the "Overall Performance" of the image. They center everything in the field of view and their eyes don't roam around the image. Other folks aren't happy unless the entire field of view is sharp and in focus.

Having said all of this I think the term "Overall" isn't the best one for what I am trying to convey. I wanted to then say "Field Peformance" instead since we are concerned with the performance not just in the center of the field of view but on the edges of the field of view as well but then I used Field Performance to relate how the width of the field plays just as much of a role. If someone else has a suggestion for a term for what I am trying to describe for the category which includes the sharpness of the edge of the field of view (regardless of how wide the field of view is) then I would love to hear it.

 

[Renze de Vries]

If someone else has a suggestion for a term for what I am trying to describe for the category which includes the sharpness of the edge of the field of view (regardless of how wide the field of view is) then I would love to hear it.

Frank,

My suggestion is to use the term Transparency (= sharpness across the field of view) which is an aspect of Field performance.
Another aspect of Field performance is real or apparent field of view (expressed in meters, yards or degrees).

So an evaluation of the Nikon 8x32 SE would go like this: very good object performance, very good transparency, normal field of view, fine ergonomics. A well balanced design.

Note that all four categories are accounted for.

Renze

 

[FrankD]

Renze,

Ok, since good apparent sharpness across the full field of view definitely adds to a more transparent image I would agree that "transparency" is a good way to represent what I was referring to as "Overall Performance" previously. Does "transparency performance" sound right to you though? Maybe having two "field performances" would be in order "Full Field Performance" to categorize how the edges perform/how wide the sweet spot is and "Wide Field Performance" to categorize how wide the field of view is in terms of the grand scheme of things.

So then we would have "Object Performance", "Full Field Performance", "Wide Field Performance" and "Practical Performance".

 

[Steve C]

Renze,

So then we would have "Object Performance", "Full Field Performance", "Wide Field Performance" and "Practical Performance".

No. You have started this with a good idea. Keep it simple. I see no reason not to take full field and wide field performance and just use field performance. Within the Field Performance category the wide field aspects can be commented on.

Likewise, ergonomics and construction can go into Practical Performance.

 

[FrankD]

Steve,

A big part of my primary reason for starting this was trying to differentiate between binoculars that have a very satisfying view in the center of the field (compared with the Alphas for example) but may not have quite the edge performance. Others may have a wider field of view but don't necessarily have the best object performance. I was trying to classify those types of differentiations.

 

[Steve C]

Steve,

A big part of my primary reason for starting this was trying to differentiate between binoculars that have a very satisfying view in the center of the field (compared with the Alphas for example) but may not have quite the edge performance. Others may have a wider field of view but don't necessarily have the best object performance. I was trying to classify those types of differentiations.

Frank,

I see what you are doing. Whatever is done, subjective differences between users will always creep in. When we split something, it is inevitable to split something else. All I'm saying is that pretty soon the concept is unworkable. Maybe seperate full field performance into wide field vs center field observations, I think it is all part and parcel of Full Field Performance.

 

[elkcub]

Just popped in for a moment. It might be worthwhile reviewing how the word "presence" is used in related areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presence_(telepresence)

I agree with Tom Sheridan's explanation: "...that the term refers to the effect felt [i.e., a sensation] when controlling real world objects remotely as well as the effect people feel when they interact with and immerse themselves in virtual reality or virtual environments." (my insertion)

The term was arguably in use well before Minsky's 1980s research on telepresence, however, and was actually adapted (hijacked?) from the subjective sensation birder's reported with wide field binoculars, usually of the Porro variety. In his 1964 book Binoculars and All-Purpose Telescopes, Dr. Henry Paul connects this elusive sensation with the apparent field of view: "...the apparent field value is quite important because the larger it is the the more nearly a glass is truly a wide-field or wide-angle type, regardless of power. (his italics) The larger this value, the more you have the feeling of being 'right out in the scene' when you look through the binocular." (p. 50). In other words, presence is the sensation of "being right out there in the scene." Personally, I think a large AFOV is necessary to experience presence but not completely sufficient.

To me this implies a major distinction might be made between between views eliciting an experience of "being in the scene" vs just "looking at the scene."

Merry Xmas to all,

Ed

 

[Nick Elliston]

Renze

I am not talking about view, but more about the ergonomics and pleasure of using the binocular. For example, before buying my main binoculars I tried various models in the shop. I tried the Zeiss FL and the view was excellent, but I didn't like the ergonomics and despite the view, knew I would not be happy using them on a regular basis.

It is difficult to define and I have probably not made a good job of doing so. Some people like large binoculars, some small, some roof and some porro etc etc. If the ergonomics/feel are not good though I don't think you can really love a certain binocular, regardless of the view.

Christmas and New Year wishes to one and all.

 

[Renze de Vries]

Nick,

Ergonomics can be of great consequence to the pleasure of using binoculars, and even to the quality of the view. There's nothing vague about it, certainly not in your description.
I have a pair of Leica Trinovid 8x32 BA because I once had them in my hands for only a few minutes and after several years still remembered the excellent grip. Of course the optics are very good too but the foremost reason I bought them were the ergonomics. The Trinovid is a bit egg-shaped and balance and mass just seem exactly right. A true classic birding binocular.

Merry Christmas to you as well.


Renze

 

[FrankD]

Nick,

I can certainly relate to where you are coming from. Ed's suggestion of presence is certainly applicable here. The tactile sensation associated with good ergonomics certainly plays a part in the overall experience that an optical instrument generates.

My thoughts in initially starting this thread were strictly to differentiate between binoculars that had positive attributes in specific but different optical performance areas. However, I just had a thought after reading your post. A binoculars' "appeal" comes from not only the optical performance characteristics and ergonomics but also the experiences we associate with them.

For example, lets say you just bought a new binocular that meets all of your immediate needs in the optical and ergonomic categories. On the drive home from the "optics store" you happen to swing by one of your favorite local birding spots. Upon pulling into the parking area you immediately notice a purple-bellied, bull-necked, Robertson's warbler. It is extremely rare and you have been after it for many years. Putting those binoculars up to your eyes and seeing it generates an emotional response. Excitement...pleasure....contentment....enthusiasm to share the find with others. All of those feelings are now associated with that binocular.

So, if you were satisfied with the binocular before finding the rare bird then you will now be particularly enamored with it both on a conscious and subconscious level.

Just something to think about....in a somewhat extreme example.

 

[Renze de Vries]

There's a truism among fishermen that the best lure is the one you caught your first good fish with. As you will continue appplying this lure you will be even more succesful with it, it will become your favorite and you may get to the point where you're led to believe that no other can be as good etc.

I believe the same reasoning applies to birding sites where once a good bird was spotted. Birders will return to this same place again and again and would you believe it, time and again lots of good birds are spotted right there.

There's a psychlogical term for this reasoning, which I won't disclose. It's too disappointing.

Renze

 

[Stet]

I find this happening before the fact also. Imagination is a grand thing and if done vividly enough the mind experiences it as an actual event and creates associations along with it. Reading rave reviews about a binocular, conjures up some powerful imaginings, and the subsequent daydreaming about how great the binocular will be reinforces those. To the point that I find I am predisposed to a fondness of a particular binocular and as long as I am happy with the real performance of that binocular, that fondness remains associated with that binocular. Which is fine by me, as long as it's influence does not become strong enough that when in comparing other binoculars, I refuse to see what is actually there. Which is the type of dynamic that creates the fanboy syndrome you see sometimes.

John

 

[Renze de Vries]

Just popped in for a moment. It might be worthwhile reviewing how the word "presence" is used in related areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presence_(telepresence)

I agree with Tom Sheridan's explanation: "...that the term refers to the effect felt [i.e., a sensation] when controlling real world objects remotely as well as the effect people feel when they interact with and immerse themselves in virtual reality or virtual environments." (my insertion)

The term was arguably in use well before Minsky's 1980s research on telepresence, however, and was actually adapted (hijacked?) from the subjective sensation birder's reported with wide field binoculars, usually of the Porro variety. In his 1964 book Binoculars and All-Purpose Telescopes, Dr. Henry Paul connects this elusive sensation with the apparent field of view: "...the apparent field value is quite important because the larger it is the the more nearly a glass is truly a wide-field or wide-angle type, regardless of power. (his italics) The larger this value, the more you have the feeling of being 'right out in the scene' when you look through the binocular." (p. 50). In other words, presence is the sensation of "being right out there in the scene." Personally, I think a large AFOV is necessary to experience presence but not completely sufficient.

To me this implies a major distinction might be made between between views eliciting an experience of "being in the scene" vs just "looking at the scene."

Merry Xmas to all,

Ed

Ed,

I notice your concept of presence is quite different from the way it is used in hi-fi audio.

In audio presence is described as a property of the object (i.e. sound, being more or less immediate). If the music sounds forward and in-your-face, it is said to have great presence. If the music sounds more laid back and gentle, it is said to have less presence.
The interesting thing is that the experience of presence is related to dynamics and spatial information. In the way that when the sound (music) has a small dynamical range and transmission of reverberation and space is limited, presence will increase. While the sound (music) with great dynamical range and lots of spatial information (audio buffs say: more air) will be experienced as more distant, i.e. less present.

See, more space, less presence. How about that?


I’d like to say here though that presence (in audio) of whatever magnitude doesn’t seem to be related to the subject’s involvement.


Renze

 

[Stet]

Renze,

When mixing down audio tracks you can give a certain instrument more presence in the mix by reducing it's perceived spatial qualities. Which has the effect of seperating it more clearly from the other instruments and making it stand out more. More in your face. Also increasing it's perceived spatial qualities would make it move into the background and have less presence.

Yet to me, when someone says that these particular brand of speakers exhibit great musical presence, the quality I believe they are refering to is the speakers ability to clearly differentiate each instrument and place them in their proper place in the audio space. (this is also similiar to transparency) Which gives you the experience of actually being there, surrounded by musicians, as opposed to just listening to an audio track. In this respect I think it is quite similiar to what Ed was refering to when he says about "being in the scene" vs "looking at the scene".

When a speaker is said to have great presence, he has the ability to engage the audience, to draw them into the experience, to involve them. I think the same can be said about a binocular. If it has great presence, it has the ablility to engage the user and draw them into the experience of the scene.

John