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

Lederman Optical Array (L-O-A) 3-D binoviewing

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 VVObserve

VVObserve

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2014
  • Loc: Central Pennsylvania

Posted 22 June 2022 - 10:00 PM

Does anyone have experience Bino-viewing with a set of Lederman Optical Array (L-O-A) eyepieces?

 

The advertising touts dramatic illusion of 3-D images of deep sky objects.  

Sounds very cool...but at $300+ for a pair of 32mm L-O-A eyepieces I would like some feedback before I bite.   The 21mm LOA pair is $600.

 

Are L-O-A's useful for lunar and planetary viewing or just deep sky stuff like nebulae, clusters, and galaxies?

 

Here is a dumb question...can an eyepiece be modified to get this effect?

 

 



#2 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,944
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 22 June 2022 - 10:56 PM

Have you read this : https://www.cloudyni...pth to the view!

It might help..



#3 santafe retiree

santafe retiree

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Santa Fe, NM

Posted 22 June 2022 - 11:06 PM

IMHO CN member Eddgie wrote one of the better posts on these EP's:

 

https://www.cloudyni...eces/?p=9728584

 

Cheers,

 

Tom



#4 Finbarius

Finbarius

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Atherton Tablelands, Far North Queensland, Australia

Posted 23 June 2022 - 01:52 AM

Not for lunar use, though it can be weirdly interesting, nor for planets. It is a novelty item for a curious and fun effect on clusters and denser fields, but after a few times I no longer use it.

 

I got mine second hand, optionally included with the 21mm pair along with the Binotron itself, but in hindsight would not have done so.

 

Cheers,

Barry



#5 VVObserve

VVObserve

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2014
  • Loc: Central Pennsylvania

Posted 23 June 2022 - 02:50 AM

Thanks for feedback.

Yes I did find previous posts upon further search.

A bit too novel for me.

I will stick to my Don Yier Vernonscope Bino and Brandon eyepieces.

That combo already delivers an illusory 3-D view without extra mirrors to create a seemingly parallax effect.



#6 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,557
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 23 June 2022 - 11:08 AM

I personally really like the 3D eyepieces and have written extensively on them here.  

 

They start with excellent eyepieces that have been gimmicked to produce a 3D effect.    I find I can modulate the degree of the 3D effect in either the "near" or "far" modes. 

 

Subjectively, I, and others, have noticed that with some objects, the isolation of the "target" (near or far) allows me  to study it more as it's easier to observe as it stands in relief.   That was unexpected, but very real for some of us.  

 

But the LOAs are for me and others, just flat out fun to use.  I can make M13 and M5 into balls of stars that look like balls.  I can look down into the Trap, or have it sit over the nebula (I prefer the former).  The wild duck cluster is amazing sitting in front of the "background" milky way but also dimensional.  I can have M57 stand forward as well.  One member of Albireo forward of the other.  Have Uranus and Neptune forward against the "background" stars.  Ditto with Jupiter and Saturn at low powers.   But forget the Moon,. which is crazy looking...but also kind of cool.  

 

So you get the idea.

 

But the other thing is that I find the LOA neutral eyepieces (both the 21mm and 32mm) to be just excellent eyepieces in their own right. In fact, I much prefer the 32mm Plossl (in terms of sharpness, contrast and comfort) to the TV 32mm Plossl despite the LOA's slightly smaller FOV.  And NO STINKING UNDERCUTS!!!!!

 

If you get the  chance, try them out, if anything, just for the fun of it  Then consider the price.  That's my experience and advice.

 

Jeff 


Edited by Jeff B, 23 June 2022 - 11:11 AM.

  • George N, faackanders2, VVObserve and 1 other like this

#7 junomike

junomike

    ISS

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 22,145
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 02 July 2022 - 02:00 PM

IME the 3D effect is distinctly noticeable in BV, however slightly strong in a Binoscope (for some reason).


  • George N and Jeff B like this

#8 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,557
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 03 July 2022 - 08:51 AM

IME the 3D effect is distinctly noticeable in BV, however slightly strong in a Binoscope (for some reason).

Yes!  And especially with Jupiter and its moons as the moons can seemed spaced out (no pun intended) with the strong impression one or more are in front of/behind the others or Jupiter with the planet looking like a ball I could peek around. 

 

The other really crazy 3D effect is "lunar inversion"  where craters look like plateaus and mountain ranges valleys. 

 

I've never looked through a good sized bino scope before and would love to.

 

Jeff  



#9 George N

George N

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,226
  • Joined: 19 May 2006
  • Loc: Binghamton & Indian Lake NY

Posted 03 July 2022 - 09:52 AM

IME the 3D effect is distinctly noticeable in BV, however slightly strong in a Binoscope (for some reason).

A friend has an ATM 6" F/4.5 bino-scope - great views, but his IPD adjustment, while it works, takes some fiddling - and our two adjustments are far apart. The thing is easy enough to deal with at that size, but massive compared to a simple 6" Dob. Bottom line: great '3D' views! While he has several scopes, including a 10" -- I mostly see him observing with the binoscope.

 

I've spent some time comparing solar H-Alpha PSTs - bino-viewer vs Howie Glatter's bino-scope rig. While either is better than 'mono' the bino-scope clearly provided better views that the single tube with bino-viewer. However, the "Howie rig" does require some fiddling to get the IPD properly set.

 

Getting back to the subject -- I *do* have a <false> sense of '3D' using a bino-viewer - especially with globular star clusters - however - the effect is far greater using Russ's LOA eyepieces. It's a really fun effect. They are on my 'buy list' someday - I'm only a little concerned by a friend who when nuts with them, and then has mostly lost interest - going back to a pair of 24P's in his bino-viewer - or even mono with Ethos.


Edited by George N, 03 July 2022 - 09:53 AM.


#10 munirocks

munirocks

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Bourne End, UK

Posted 05 August 2022 - 12:35 AM

I have sometimes wondered if you can get the same effect by mixing two different brands/designs of eyepieces that have a different amount of pincushion/barrel distortion, or by using two zooms at a slightly different setting. The effect, if exists , would be continuous rather than in distinct concentric  zones. I have a zoom pair and other "pairs" of mixed manufacture. I'll have to try this.


  • Roman M likes this

#11 Roman M

Roman M

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2021
  • Loc: Украина

Posted 08 August 2022 - 01:37 PM

I have sometimes wondered if you can get the same effect by mixing two different brands/designs of eyepieces that have a different amount of pincushion/barrel distortion, or by using two zooms at a slightly different setting. The effect, if exists , would be continuous rather than in distinct concentric zones. I have a zoom pair and other "pairs" of mixed manufacture. I'll have to try this.

Be sure to try it and let us know about the results of your experiments.
I tried using two eyepieces at the same time 18mm and 20mm. There was a 3D effect, but probably due to the large difference in the focal length of the eyepieces, it was difficult to blend the image for a clear view.
I don't have a pair of zoom eyepieces, but I think it's possible to achieve a 3D image with them using the slight difference in magnification between the right and left eye.

#12 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,557
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 08 August 2022 - 03:45 PM

I suppose you could try it with two zoom eyepieces.  



#13 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,552
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 08 August 2022 - 09:09 PM

I have sometimes wondered if you can get the same effect by mixing two different brands/designs of eyepieces that have a different amount of pincushion/barrel distortion, or by using two zooms at a slightly different setting. The effect, if exists , would be continuous rather than in distinct concentric  zones. I have a zoom pair and other "pairs" of mixed manufacture. I'll have to try this.

Probably give you a headache from your brain attempting to merge both eye images into one.



#14 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,552
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 08 August 2022 - 09:21 PM

Does anyone have experience Bino-viewing with a set of Lederman Optical Array (L-O-A) eyepieces?

 

The advertising touts dramatic illusion of 3-D images of deep sky objects.  

Sounds very cool...but at $300+ for a pair of 32mm L-O-A eyepieces I would like some feedback before I bite.   The 21mm LOA pair is $600.

 

Are L-O-A's useful for lunar and planetary viewing or just deep sky stuff like nebulae, clusters, and galaxies?

 

Here is a dumb question...can an eyepiece be modified to get this effect?

Russ modified one eyepiece with 5 arrays to give the 3D effect when used with an unmodified eyepiece.  The 21mm LOA3D eyepiece works well to get artificial 3D fot open clusters, milkyway and lots of stars, and is different and alot of fun to use!.

 

P.S.  Caution - Not recommended on Full Moon or you will figure out how it works, and be unable to unsee the arrays afterwards.



#15 munirocks

munirocks

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Bourne End, UK

Posted 12 August 2022 - 12:05 PM

I finally got to try the two-zoom binoviewer method last night on the full moon, which is probably the best way to isolate the issues without the lighting direction on the terminator interfering with the brain's interpretation. I tried various moon locations, zoom settings, and zoom differences. The effect was mostly just weird rather than 3D as my two eyes battled it out at the binoviewer. I never thought of a barf bag as being an telescope accessory but the thought crossed my mind more than once.

 

There was one combination, however, that had a genuinely interesting effect. Zooming in on the right-hand half of the moon (as seen through the eyepiece) and zooming in slightly more (about 2 mm) with the right-hand eyepiece gave the appearance that the moon was a flat sloping board with the left side (center) of the moon nearer and the right side farther away. Presumably this is caused by the slightly increased distance between moon features in the right eye being interpreted by the brain as the right eye seeing "the board" more face-on than the left eye. 

You could get a similar effect by zooming in on the left half of the moon (as seen through the eyepiece) and zooming in slightly more with the left eyepiece. But the effect was subtle. 

 

Some zoomed-in views made the eyepiece FOV look a bit like the inside of a concave bowl. The experiment continues. 


  • Jeff B and Roman M like this

#16 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,552
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 13 August 2022 - 03:19 PM

I finally got to try the two-zoom binoviewer method last night on the full moon, which is probably the best way to isolate the issues without the lighting direction on the terminator interfering with the brain's interpretation. I tried various moon locations, zoom settings, and zoom differences. The effect was mostly just weird rather than 3D as my two eyes battled it out at the binoviewer. I never thought of a barf bag as being an telescope accessory but the thought crossed my mind more than once.

 

There was one combination, however, that had a genuinely interesting effect. Zooming in on the right-hand half of the moon (as seen through the eyepiece) and zooming in slightly more (about 2 mm) with the right-hand eyepiece gave the appearance that the moon was a flat sloping board with the left side (center) of the moon nearer and the right side farther away. Presumably this is caused by the slightly increased distance between moon features in the right eye being interpreted by the brain as the right eye seeing "the board" more face-on than the left eye. 

You could get a similar effect by zooming in on the left half of the moon (as seen through the eyepiece) and zooming in slightly more with the left eyepiece. But the effect was subtle. 

 

Some zoomed-in views made the eyepiece FOV look a bit like the inside of a concave bowl. The experiment continues. 

Rather than get sick or headaches; why not just buy Denkmeier's LOA 21mm 3D eyepiece pair (and possibly an extra non 3D epepiece for when you want to binoview withot 3D). LOA 21 3D is both proven and fun!


  • lookoutmtn17 likes this

#17 Roman M

Roman M

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2021
  • Loc: Украина

Posted 15 August 2022 - 03:23 AM

Rather than get sick or headaches; why not just buy Denkmeier's LOA 21mm 3D eyepiece pair (and possibly an extra non 3D epepiece for when you want to binoview withot 3D). LOA 21 3D is both proven and fun!

I didn't like the LOA 3D eyepieces.
I read a lot of amazing reviews about them and dreamed of buying them for several years. And when my dream came true, it became one of the biggest disappointments. I tried to force myself to love them, used them both in my 10" telescope and in 18" with different settings and as recommended under a very dark sky, but I could not see the smoothness of the transition in the three-dimensional image. Yes, the 3D effect is certainly present, but it highlights the square of the plane, which by itself no longer has an volumetric image. The visible field of the eyepiece is simply divided by squares that are closer and which are further away. I can see the boundaries of these squares very well both by double stars on the border of arrays and by a clear line in the difference between distant and approximate stars.
Globular clusters were not voluminous. I didn't see the shape of a ball in them, there was only a square of the plane in the center of the globular cluster, which was either closer or further away depending on the setting. But there was no shape of the ball. There was also a 3D effect on planetary and small ones, but again, the nebula stood out closer or further against the background, but there was no volume. I also looked at the large Orion nebula, which filled the entire visible field, and also noticed that it was simply divided into squares, some of which were closer and others farther away, but these were exactly flat, square parts, and not smooth transitions of depth.
As a result, I sold these eyepieces.
I liked the view much more through a couple of ordinary 32mm Plössl eyepiece on scattered clusters and nebulae, and with them I just noticed a small volume and that the stars are really some closer and others farther away. This was most noticeable in the double cluster.

Edited by Roman M, 15 August 2022 - 03:56 AM.


#18 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,557
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 15 August 2022 - 11:55 AM

Yup, for some folks, the 3D eyepieces produce an aesthetic they just don't like.  

 

I am curious as to how you liked the eyepieces as a "neutral" pair.  I have found the 21mm and 32mm Neutral pairs to be excellent eyepieces all on their own, with a nice AFOV, nice eye relief, "neutral" or "cool" color tint, light weight, well made, low scatter, barlow very well with the Denk power switch & Baader GPCs, and NO STINKING UNDERCUTS.  I find the 32mm a particularly sharp, neutral eyepiece, preferring my pair to of my since departed TV 32 and Brandon 32mm pairs.  

 

Jeff



#19 munirocks

munirocks

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Bourne End, UK

Posted 16 August 2022 - 02:14 PM

Another option, of course, is to buy Brian May's 3D books -- one on the moon and one on cosmic clouds. If you thought his guitar work for Queen was the epitome of intellectual stimuli, you ain't seen nothin' yet.



#20 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,552
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 16 August 2022 - 05:57 PM

I didn't like the LOA 3D eyepieces.
I read a lot of amazing reviews about them and dreamed of buying them for several years. And when my dream came true, it became one of the biggest disappointments. I tried to force myself to love them, used them both in my 10" telescope and in 18" with different settings and as recommended under a very dark sky, but I could not see the smoothness of the transition in the three-dimensional image. Yes, the 3D effect is certainly present, but it highlights the square of the plane, which by itself no longer has an volumetric image. The visible field of the eyepiece is simply divided by squares that are closer and which are further away. I can see the boundaries of these squares very well both by double stars on the border of arrays and by a clear line in the difference between distant and approximate stars.
Globular clusters were not voluminous. I didn't see the shape of a ball in them, there was only a square of the plane in the center of the globular cluster, which was either closer or further away depending on the setting. But there was no shape of the ball. There was also a 3D effect on planetary and small ones, but again, the nebula stood out closer or further against the background, but there was no volume. I also looked at the large Orion nebula, which filled the entire visible field, and also noticed that it was simply divided into squares, some of which were closer and others farther away, but these were exactly flat, square parts, and not smooth transitions of depth.
As a result, I sold these eyepieces.
I liked the view much more through a couple of ordinary 32mm Plössl eyepiece on scattered clusters and nebulae, and with them I just noticed a small volume and that the stars are really some closer and others farther away. This was most noticeable in the double cluster.

I believe you are asking for too much out of artificial 3D eyepieces.  This is why I do not recommend using thm on a full moon (or any moon), or in daylight; because once you figure it out you can't undo it.  The arrays were supposed to provide a randomness of 6 depths, and by rotating the "3D" eyepiece 180 you make the center array switch from nearest to furthest, and the others switch as well.

 

Technically he could have made the arrays in concentric rings with the center being closest to the outer furthest, which may have made the sun and moon appear more 3D spheical, but it would still be stairstepped.  But it would make star clusters and milkyway 3D look less random.



#21 Roman M

Roman M

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2021
  • Loc: Украина

Posted Yesterday, 10:25 AM

I believe you are asking for too much out of artificial 3D eyepieces. This is why I do not recommend using thm on a full moon (or any moon), or in daylight; because once you figure it out you can't undo it. The arrays were supposed to provide a randomness of 6 depths, and by rotating the "3D" eyepiece 180 you make the center array switch from nearest to furthest, and the others switch as well.

Technically he could have made the arrays in concentric rings with the center being closest to the outer furthest, which may have made the sun and moon appear more 3D spheical, but it would still be stairstepped. But it would make star clusters and milkyway 3D look less random.

I've read recommendations about not looking at the moon and planets and I've followed them. In fact, I never once looked at the moon or planets through these eyepieces and never used them in moonlight or during the day. Even before I sold them I had no desire to break the recommendation.
The disappointment of what I saw under the dark sky was enough for me.
Perhaps I really wanted to see something closer to reality, but it was all very artificial in my opinion.
I really wanted to see ball-shaped clusters, as described by many respected astronomy enthusiasts... but no, I didn't see it. It wasn't like that at all. I even thought for a moment that there was something wrong with my eyesight, or maybe I had broken eyepieces...
I experimented, tried different settings, scrolling the eyepiece to different positions, but I could not hide this artificiality. I did not achieve lightness and naturalness.
Yes, it was the stepping that was annoying, which was noticeable on the border of the arrays by a sharp change in depth and double stars.

Edited by Roman M, Yesterday, 11:15 AM.



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