Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

LOA 3D-Binocular

  • Please log in to reply
319 replies to this topic

#1 Jawaid I. Abbasi

Jawaid I. Abbasi

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2007
  • Loc: LEVITTOWN, PA

Posted 15 November 2015 - 06:19 PM

Are we ready.. then get ready for Denk Binocular. Its not just binocular but 3D binocular. I am thinking to get one and evaluate.

Thank you,



#2 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 15 November 2015 - 08:05 PM

I think they are EPs for binoviewer

 

edk



#3 Jawaid I. Abbasi

Jawaid I. Abbasi

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2007
  • Loc: LEVITTOWN, PA

Posted 15 November 2015 - 08:08 PM

No. it is actually a binocular and he is taking pre-order for 8x42 (initial price is $299.00)



#4 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 65856
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 15 November 2015 - 08:22 PM

No. it is actually a binocular and he is taking pre-order for 8x42 (initial price is $299.00)

 

Binoculars are inherently 3 dimensional devices because they provide parallax to the eyes which the brain can interpret.  At infinity, there is no three dimensionality because parallax is not possible..  These binoculars simulate three dimensions but it is artificial.. 

 

Jon


  • Dinosour23 likes this

#5 Jawaid I. Abbasi

Jawaid I. Abbasi

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2872
  • Joined: 19 Jun 2007
  • Loc: LEVITTOWN, PA

Posted 15 November 2015 - 08:42 PM

 

No. it is actually a binocular and he is taking pre-order for 8x42 (initial price is $299.00)

 

Binoculars are inherently 3 dimensional devices because they provide parallax to the eyes which the brain can interpret.  At infinity, there is no three dimensionality because parallax is not possible..  These binoculars simulate three dimensions but it is artificial.. 

 

Jon

 

Yes. But the eyepieces used or will be used are new LOA which is mentioned in many post. Read the binoviewer secetion. Those eyepieces only for binoviewer and create  a different image. I know, some do not like the way it shows but the eyepieces have totally new technology that RUSS brought it into the amateur astronomy.

 

The Binocular incorporated the same eyepieces which I believe it. Denkmeir or its representative can tell us



#6 junomike

junomike

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 12369
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 15 November 2015 - 09:22 PM

Denks 3D Space Walker.

 

Mike


  • Dave Mitsky likes this

#7 Mike Harvey

Mike Harvey

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1509
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2004
  • Loc: Melbourne Beach, FL.

Posted 15 November 2015 - 11:27 PM

The 3-D binoculars are a totally different product.

They are NOT the LOA eyepieces, which are designed to be used in binoviewers.

 

Russ demoed them at the Chiefland Star Party this past week. To say that they caused a sensation among the folks who tried them is an understatement.

 

These are going to be "must-haves" for outreach and for those who enjoy sweeping the skies from a lounge chair!



#8 Mad Matt

Mad Matt

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Joined: 20 May 2003
  • Loc: Frankfurt, Germany

Posted 16 November 2015 - 12:37 AM

WOW, I've been on the fence with the LOA's but a dedicated 8x42 at that price would definitely get me off the fence!

#9 SMark

SMark

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3117
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 01:02 AM

Any details or specs available? 



#10 edwincjones

edwincjones

    Close Enough

  • *****
  • Posts: 11592
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2004

Posted 16 November 2015 - 11:38 AM

as much as I like two eyed viewing

I rarely have true 3D views

if they really give consistant 3D views

$300 would be a very good deal

 

but, do they, will they??

 

edj



#11 Mad Matt

Mad Matt

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Joined: 20 May 2003
  • Loc: Frankfurt, Germany

Posted 16 November 2015 - 12:13 PM

as much as I like two eyed viewing

I rarely have true 3D views

if they really give consistant 3D views

$300 would be a very good deal

 

but, do they, will they??

 

edj

 

I imagine this will use the same trick that the LOA eyepieces uses that put the center objects either in the foreground or background. I have never looked though one but I understand that It is not real 3D, more of an optical illusion.  



#12 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 65856
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 12:18 PM

 

 

Yes. But the eyepieces used or will be used are new LOA which is mentioned in many post. Read the binoviewer secetion. Those eyepieces only for binoviewer and create  a different image. I know, some do not like the way it shows but the eyepieces have totally new technology that RUSS brought it into the amateur astronomy.

The Binocular incorporated the same eyepieces which I believe it. Denkmeir or its representative can tell us

 

I understand that. I have been following some of those threads.  I just wanted to make it clear that binoculars are capable parallax and therefore true 3-D imagines though only at short ranges and that this new technology does not provide true 3-D images, it is artificial...  

 

It seems many find them enjoyable..

 

Jon


  • Sarkikos and aa5te like this

#13 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16662
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 01:16 PM

I can't wait to try them :grin:   Russ was already thinking about incorporating his 3D array technology into binoculars when he was still creating the LOA21s.  So glad he finally got it implemented.  A few nights ago I was completely wowed with M42 in my 6" Apo with the LOA21s...actually focuses your attention better for studying targets I have found (when you foreground the central target).  I think placing the technology in an 8x42 binocular should be quite spectacular.



#14 *skyguy*

*skyguy*

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3084
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2008
  • Loc: Western New York

Posted 16 November 2015 - 01:30 PM

Sounds like a lot of sizzle and no steak!


  • Sarkikos and C.Hay like this

#15 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 02:34 PM

On board...... :cool:



#16 Carl Wright

Carl Wright

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2004

Posted 16 November 2015 - 03:36 PM

Well,I finally got home from the star party at CAV. I had the opportunity to spend quite a few nights with Russ and his new 3D binoculars. They are very comfortable and lightweight, showing pinpoint stars with exceptional contrast. The views on the open clusters were incredible and panning around was jaw dropping. Many that looked through them were pleasantly pleased with the views and signed up on the waiting list. Don't hesitate to long, the list is going to get long. Thanks Russ. Had a blast. Congrats on a new perspective of viewing the night sky wonders....Carl


  • crazyqban likes this

#17 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 03:45 PM

 

Its not just binocular but 3D binocular.


My ordinary binoculars give me perfectly good 3D views - of terrestrial objects.

The nature of distances involved in astronomical objects is such that
you could never see them in 3D unless the separation of our eyes
were a considerable fraction of a light year.

Even if you could be in a spaceship floating outside of M13, to your
eyes it would appear completely 2D because of the distances involved,
the stars in M13 are on average 1 light-year apart.

It is just a limitation of the nature of reality.

In the imaging forum there was a thread on when image processing crosses
the line into fakery.

To me, "simulated" 3D views of astronomical objects are visual fakery.

 

 

To me, vision is slight of hand.....anything that can enhance my aesthetic appreciation of views is welcome.

 

Go ahead, fool me.   ;)


  • crazyqban, Vondragonnoggin, Mike G. and 1 other like this

#18 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16662
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 03:52 PM

 

To me, "simulated" 3D views of astronomical objects are visual fakery.

 

Well...realize that when one introduces rectilinear distortion into an eyepiece to keep the star points pinpoint in the off-axis of a wide field design, that your view is now skewed and distorted from reality as the view lost it correct positional relationships it no longer being orthoscopic.  So the vast majority of eyepieces would also fall into the "visual fakery" classification.  Indeed the human perception system alters much from the "real" view so really, lots of what you see is visual fakery imposed by the adjustments that your perception system does.  No one "sees" things as they actually are...it we did then we would see all the spectrum available to register. We can only really "imagine" the actual reality around us as our senses are ill equipped to register all.


Edited by BillP, 16 November 2015 - 03:53 PM.

  • Mr. Bill, Jawaid I. Abbasi, Vondragonnoggin and 1 other like this

#19 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 03:55 PM

Well, to me that speaks volumes about where amateur astronomy is headed.

It used to be about scientific accuracy. Now it seems to be merely entertainment.

 

I'ts always been entertainment to me....it's a hobby.


  • 39.1N84.5W, Tom McDonald, dyslexic nam and 3 others like this

#20 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:12 PM

 

Well...realize that when one introduces rectilinear distortion into an eyepiece to keep the star points pinpoint in the off-axis of a wide field design, that your view is now skewed and distorted from reality as the view lost it correct positional relationships it no longer being orthoscopic.

 

I can accept that as a limitations of optics - no optical system is perfect. But when

you deliberately introduce it, that is a different matter.

 

 

 

 

it's a hobby.

 

Yes, but unlike most other hobbies it is grounded in a well-established field

of science.

 

 

No argument there, but there are lots of ways to enjoy it.....different strokes, etc.



#21 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16662
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:21 PM

 

I can accept that as a limitations of optics - no optical system is perfect. But when

you deliberately introduce it, that is a different matter.

 

 

But RD is deliberately used in the eyepiece!  So if one is really interested in doing "science" and needs an accurate view of what they are observing or studying, then then should be using an older Abbe design eyepiece and nothing modern.  Heck, even the current day Abbes have been modified to the point that they show some RD since they are built to work on very fast f/4 systems.  So just making point that if science is the goal, then wide field eyepieces should not be used as they introduce fakery.

 

In all honestly, I would posit that probably more than 90% of amateur astronomers do the hobby for entertainment and self gratification, not science.  I think it has been like that for at least the past half century.  Real science has so far past what can be done at the amateur level that the process that amateurs use for astronomy, which is mainly visual observing with small aperture optics, is a process that "science" left behind more than a century ago. So anything we are doing today was perhaps a good scientific process in the 1800's, but by today's standard it is not at all (there are a few exceptions of course like amateur contributions in variable and double star astronomy - but that is a small group that does that).

 

IMO the "science" in amateur astronomy is more in the reading and studying that many do to educate themselves on the various astronomical objects and phenomena.  The equipment to look at it or take pictures of it is more like a field trip and not "science".  FWIW, I have been observing now for almost 50 years, and I have to say that observing an object in the simulated 3D of the LOA21s really brings to forefront that a dimensional nature of the object exists.  In traditional flat-viewing this aspect of the object is often forgotten and overlooked.  So really, seeing it in a 3D view, even though it is artificial, triggers curiosity about the target that motivates one to see if we have hard science on the object that reveals its true 3D nature.  So as example, when was the last time you looked at M13 and wondered exactly which of the more prominent stars in the Glob were in the foreground vs background?  You cannot tell this by brightness because the brighter foreground star may well be just a more luminous star deeper in the cluster.  So looking at M42 in the LOA21s last evening for the 1st time, it really began to spur my curiosity to begin to study and memorize the depth relationships of that nebula so when I observe it in the future, I can try to use that knowledge to imagine it in proper 3D space.  I never was motivated to do that at all with traditional observing...but the new LOA21s have sparked that curiosity.  So of course there is an entertainment component to the LOA21s and the 3D binoculars, but there is also that component to the traditional flat-view monoviewing, and since most folks observe with wide fields and not Abbe Orthos, really all the viewing we do is not showing us the reality of what is up there.  Heck, I ditched the 82 degree EPs because I was fed up with how distorted lunar features were in the off-axis...I just do not want to look at such overt features and watch them change shape and orientation when the drift from edge to center...it's like viewing the Moon in a fun house mirror!  From a scientifically correct view standpoint, I think the wide field eyepiece is the biggest offender because the marketing is silent to that reality, whereas at least on the new 3D technologies Denkmeier has been forthright saying it is simulating 3D and not real.  Honest.


Edited by BillP, 16 November 2015 - 04:27 PM.

  • Jawaid I. Abbasi, Mike G., C.Hay and 2 others like this

#22 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:43 PM

Agree with BillP...."In all honestly, I would posit that probably more than 90% of amateur astronomers do the hobby for entertainment and self gratification, not science."

 

My "serious" involvement in astronomy is a scholarly interest in late 19th- early 20th century American astronomy.

 

The time at the eyepiece(s) is purely aesthetic/spiritual enhanced with a technical appreciation of what I'm viewing.


  • nicknacknock likes this

#23 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16662
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 04:54 PM

My "serious" involvement in astronomy is ... enhanced with a technical appreciation of what I'm viewing.

 

That is really the key IMO.  All "visuals" are inaccurate for a myriad of reasons (telescope distortions, eyepiece distortions, perception system modifications, limitation of the human eye, insufficient visual information to make any valid depth or proximity guestimations, etc.), so all you can do is research and study the technical info available on any object, then view it with that "technical appreciation" so you can better "imagine" it properly since you will never see it properly.



#24 Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8734
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • Loc: Northeastern Cal

Posted 16 November 2015 - 05:11 PM

See.....Suiter's "wobbly stack."

 

 

My "serious" involvement in astronomy is ... enhanced with a technical appreciation of what I'm viewing.

 

That is really the key IMO.  All "visuals" are inaccurate for a myriad of reasons (telescope distortions, eyepiece distortions, perception system modifications, limitation of the human eye, insufficient visual information to make any valid depth or proximity guestimations, etc.), so all you can do is research and study the technical info available on any object, then view it with that "technical appreciation" so you can better "imagine" it properly since you will never see it properly.

 

 

See.....Suiter's (Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes) "wobbly stack" Page 36 my edition. 

 

:imawake:


Edited by Mr. Bill, 16 November 2015 - 05:14 PM.


#25 SMark

SMark

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3117
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 November 2015 - 06:22 PM

Exactly where does one find the waiting list?




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics