From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT (SPECIFICALLY, GOGGLES)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
In article <email@example.com> kozowski@ohsu.EDU
(Eric Kozowski) writes:
#In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com
(John Chertude) writes:
##I'm looking into purchasing a set of NVG's. I don't want 're-conditioned' tub
##but instead I am looking into a brand new set. Does anyone have any informati
#After having used both types for at least 50 hours each I can expertly
#say that depth perception in both models suck.
Nice turn of phrase there. 8-) Actually, I'm not too surprised that NVGs
cause poor depth perception. Depth perception requires extreme resolution.
In fact, those few lucky folks who have the best-developed depth perception
are able to resolve differences in depth which imply that their resolution
in this mode is better than their resolution in conventional terms by a very
large factor. The best conventional resolution of the eye runs around 30
seconds of arc. The best stereo resolution (and also vernier resolution,
for that matter) runs around 2 or 3 seconds of arc. This paradox is well
known and has long been recognized.
I know absolutely nothing about NVGs but assume they are based on microchannel
plate or perhaps ISIT technology. Neither of these approaches can possibly
give adequate resolution for depth perception in a reasonably-sized package.
Just think of how many lines the ISIT camera would have to have or how many
holes per unit area the microchannel plate would have to have!
JHBercovitz@lbl.gov (John Bercovitz)