From: bercov@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (John Bercovitz)
Subject: Re: NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT (SPECIFICALLY, GOGGLES)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <39447@mimsy.umd.edu> kozowski@ohsu.EDU 
(Eric Kozowski) writes:
#In article <39435@mimsy.umd.edu> smu!letni!ataritx!jgc@uunet.uu.net 
(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)