Transparency vs light transmission (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

In the world of binoculars, we often use metaphors to share with others our subjective visual experiences related to preferences and taste. Sharing our experience with others is very subjective and has more to do with aesthetic perception than technical laboratory measurements...

 

[henry link]

Late to the party, but I don't have anything much to add. I can't think of any reason why the NL image should appear more transparent than the HT, except sample variation. The HT's axial aberrations should be just as low or lower than the NL. The only possible advantage I can think of for the NL is better color accuracy.

 

[Ted Y.]

Lichttransmission

www.plexiglas.de

"The light transmission of a material indicates how well it transmits incident light. Light transmission is, therefore, the technical term for transparency to light. Light-transmitting materials may be transparent or translucent: When viewed through transparent materials, contours are sharply defined; in translucent materials they are indistinct."

It seems a definition from the industry, not from a dictionary. It is industry talk versus linguisitc talk. I always prefer a well known dictionary.

 

[Conndomat]

I always prefer a well known dictionary.

What is the difference between transparency and transmission for you?

At best, transmission should be nothing more than the measured value of transparency.
"The binocular is very transparent, the transmission is XX%"

Andreas

 

[Ted Y.]

What is the difference between transparency and transmission for you?

At best, transmission should be nothing more than the measured value of transparency.
"The binocular is very transparent, the transmission is XX%"

Andreas

I use the definitions to understand the two. No need for my personal opinion here.

 

[Conndomat]

I use the definitions to understand the two. No need for my personal opinion here.

Well then, without personal opinion, what are the differences between transmission and transparency, , I still don't understand?!

Andreas

 

[henry link]

I guess I will add one thought about this.

I see light transmission as simply the percentage of photons that make it through the binocular without being internally absorbed by glass or rejected at the glass to air surfaces. Even if a photon is transmitted, however, it may not wind up focused where it's supposed to be on the retina because of high aberrations.

High spherical aberration, for instance, allows some photons from the inner part of the objective to reach focus on the retina while simultaneously spreading the photons from the outer part of the objective into a haze of unfocused light. It causes the image of a centered star to look like a focused point imbedded in a hazy disc of light. Lots of photons may strike the retina if the transmission is high, but the image won't look transparent if too large a percentage of the transmitted light is not well focused. So, I guess for me high transparency requires both high transmission and low aberrations, something you just can't count from every binocular or from every specimen even when a binocular model is capable of it.

 

[Troubador]

I guess I will add one thought about this.

I see light transmission as simply the percentage of photons that make it through the binocular without being internally absorbed by glass or rejected at the glass to air surfaces. Even if a photon is transmitted, however, it may not wind up focused where it's supposed to be on the retina because of high aberrations.

High spherical aberration, for instance, allows some photons from the inner part of the objective to reach focus on the retina while simultaneously spreading the photons from the outer part of the objective into a haze of unfocused light. It causes the image of a centered star to look like a focused point imbedded in a hazy disc of light. Lots of photons may strike the retina if the transmission is high, but the image won't look transparent if too large a percentage of the transmitted light is not well focused. So, I guess for me high transparency requires both high transmission and low aberrations, something you just can't count from every binocular or from every specimen even when a binocular model is capable of it.

Hi Henry
Silly question: when you were composing this post, did your thoughts travel as a wave or a particle?

Lee

 

[Robert Moore]

P

The glare from the NL would be the antithesis of transparency. 😂😂

But what if you don’t see any glare😉

 

[Troubador]

P

But what if you don’t see any glare😉

This means you are not pointing your NLs anywhere near the sun

Lee

 

[Ted Y.]

Well then, without personal opinion, what are the differences between transmission and transparency, , I still don't understand?!

Andreas

The light is transmitted through windows glass. Depending of the glass; transmission is a measure of what proportion of light is transmitted.
Light is attenuated due to different factors, like absorption in the glass, or scattering, or ...
Basic windows glass induce low scattering of light and it is very transparent.
Privacy glass distorts views and is not so transparent.

 

[Loud Green Man]

The only way to be certain of 101% transparency & light transmission in a pair of binoculars is to await the next Summer Solstice and as the sun risers over your chosen cleaved rowan tree pass through it naked and with your chosen barrels of leaded crystal about your person.

Works every time. Trust me!

LGM
😁

 

[Tot]

On occasions while using the NL 8x42 I have had the experience of just being there, I would describe it as if there was no glass between me and what I am looking at. I haven't had that with any other binocular, not quite to the level of the NL anyway.
This interests me greatly as it is a wonderful experience for the user.

It's like looking through a car window then looking through with window down think a lot comes down to correct colour of coatings. Zeiss sf are brighter than nl but there greenish cast makes them murky