Index Home About Blog
From: (John Bercovitz)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <> kozowski@ohsu.EDU 
(Eric Kozowski) writes:
#In article <> smu!letni!ataritx! 
(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!  
    (John Bercovitz)

Index Home About Blog