SCOPE CLARITY???????????
- Thread starter 2muchgun
- Start date
Irish_80
New member
Originally Posted By: 2muchgun"As a general rule light transmissions over 85% are considered to be transparent".
Almost every scope out there has a LT of over 85%. Which would make them ALL transparent, according to your article. Again, proving my point.
Dude cmon, really. That thing is talking about how see-through a piece of plastic is. Has nothing to do with optical grade glass.......
why do you keep editing your post? It said sporting optics at another point.
Almost every scope out there has a LT of over 85%. Which would make them ALL transparent, according to your article. Again, proving my point.
Dude cmon, really. That thing is talking about how see-through a piece of plastic is. Has nothing to do with optical grade glass.......
why do you keep editing your post? It said sporting optics at another point.
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: pahntr760Originally Posted By: CatShooterOriginally Posted By: pahntr760I think clarity gets confused with image sharpness. A "clear" scope provides a crisp image with clear resolution.
JMO on how I personally view this topic.
A scope can be clear and have poor resolution.. and it can not be clear and have good resolution - they do not have any connection with each other.
Please elaborate...
There should be no need to elaborate - it should be obvious!!
Resolution is a scientific term that has universal meaning - telescopes are measured in arc-seconds. No matter where you go, a scope that has 2 arc-seconds of resolution has a specific meaning to those that use them.
If the main mirror of a scope is squeekie clean, it will have clarity (a non-scientific term). If the telescope is used in an urban environment, after a while, there will be a fine coat of oil fumes on it (like the ones that form on your rear-view mirror). The telescope will still have the same resolution, but it will not have clarity - the view will be a bit hazy.
You can see well through a dirty window and still read the street sign on the corner - but you cannot read through a piece of rippled "decorative" glass, even though it is squeekie clean.
What is so hard about understanding that??
.
JMO on how I personally view this topic.
A scope can be clear and have poor resolution.. and it can not be clear and have good resolution - they do not have any connection with each other.
Please elaborate...
There should be no need to elaborate - it should be obvious!!
Resolution is a scientific term that has universal meaning - telescopes are measured in arc-seconds. No matter where you go, a scope that has 2 arc-seconds of resolution has a specific meaning to those that use them.
If the main mirror of a scope is squeekie clean, it will have clarity (a non-scientific term). If the telescope is used in an urban environment, after a while, there will be a fine coat of oil fumes on it (like the ones that form on your rear-view mirror). The telescope will still have the same resolution, but it will not have clarity - the view will be a bit hazy.
You can see well through a dirty window and still read the street sign on the corner - but you cannot read through a piece of rippled "decorative" glass, even though it is squeekie clean.
What is so hard about understanding that??
.
2muchgun
New member
Originally Posted By: Irish_80Originally Posted By: 2muchgun"As a general rule light transmissions over 85% are considered to be transparent".
Almost every scope out there has a LT of over 85%. Which would make them ALL transparent, according to your article. Again, proving my point.
Dude cmon, really. That thing is talking about how see-through a piece of plastic is. Has nothing to do with optical grade glass.......
why do you keep editing your post? It said sporting optics at another point.
Yes it did. But same meaning. Just trying to CLARIFY. I'm not talking about diamonds or plastic, which can also be "clear". But if you want to talk in terms of how "clear", or how good something is optically, other terms are needed to accomplish this task. "Clear" is a given.......
Almost every scope out there has a LT of over 85%. Which would make them ALL transparent, according to your article. Again, proving my point.
Dude cmon, really. That thing is talking about how see-through a piece of plastic is. Has nothing to do with optical grade glass.......
why do you keep editing your post? It said sporting optics at another point.
Yes it did. But same meaning. Just trying to CLARIFY. I'm not talking about diamonds or plastic, which can also be "clear". But if you want to talk in terms of how "clear", or how good something is optically, other terms are needed to accomplish this task. "Clear" is a given.......
2muchgun
New member
According to Webster: "clear" means easily seen through.
I can easily see through a Tasco as easily as I can see through a Schmidt and Bender. But one is obviously better than the other, optically. Why? This is where terms like contrast, resolution, color rendition, brightness, etc. come into play. The term "clarity" cannot be used to describe these differences. It tells you nothing of any specifics.........
I can easily see through a Tasco as easily as I can see through a Schmidt and Bender. But one is obviously better than the other, optically. Why? This is where terms like contrast, resolution, color rendition, brightness, etc. come into play. The term "clarity" cannot be used to describe these differences. It tells you nothing of any specifics.........
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunAccording to Webster: "clear" means easily seen through.
I can easily see through a Tasco as easily as I can see through a Schmidt and Bender. But one is obviously better than the other, optically. Why? This is where terms like contrast, resolution, color rendition, brightness, etc. come into play. The term "clarity" cannot be used to describe these differences. It tells you nothing of any specifics.......
That is because "Clarity" is not a specific term - it will NEVER tell you anything.
Clarity is a subjective term, like beautiful, or tasty, or polite.
My friends beautiful wife is a dog in my eyes.
.
I can easily see through a Tasco as easily as I can see through a Schmidt and Bender. But one is obviously better than the other, optically. Why? This is where terms like contrast, resolution, color rendition, brightness, etc. come into play. The term "clarity" cannot be used to describe these differences. It tells you nothing of any specifics.......
That is because "Clarity" is not a specific term - it will NEVER tell you anything.
Clarity is a subjective term, like beautiful, or tasty, or polite.
My friends beautiful wife is a dog in my eyes.
.
Irish_80
New member
It's pretty obvious you are just trolling and trying to get some entertainment going around here. You've done a pretty good job so far and I imagine there are a few people eating a little popcorn right now.
I'm surprised you are still going on about this. Bottom line is scope clarity is a perfectly acceptable term to use when talking to most normal people that don't nitpick just for the fun of it.
I guess I'll give you another one to read, given it is a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_meter
I'm surprised you are still going on about this. Bottom line is scope clarity is a perfectly acceptable term to use when talking to most normal people that don't nitpick just for the fun of it.
I guess I'll give you another one to read, given it is a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_meter
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: Irish_80It's pretty obvious you are just trolling and trying to get some entertainment going around here. You've done a pretty good job so far and I imagine there are a few people eating a little popcorn right now.
I'm surprised you are still going on about this. Bottom line is scope clarity is a perfectly acceptable term to use when talking to most normal people that don't nitpick just for the fun of it.
I guess I'll give you another one to read, given it is a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_meter
Oh, yeah... that's a real winner!!
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. (September 2008)
This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2012)"
It's called a LOOSER!!!
I'm surprised you are still going on about this. Bottom line is scope clarity is a perfectly acceptable term to use when talking to most normal people that don't nitpick just for the fun of it.
I guess I'll give you another one to read, given it is a Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_meter
Oh, yeah... that's a real winner!!
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. (September 2008)
This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (March 2012)"
It's called a LOOSER!!!
Irish_80
New member
Yeah that's why I said given it's a wiki article. I added more than enough links on the subject.
I actually don't get it 2muchgun. I still don't get how someone using a word that most if not all people understand when talking about optics bothers you so much. I do understand there are a plethora of words that could be used to describe the image quality seen through a scope but "this new scope is really clear" seems to sum it up.
I actually don't get it 2muchgun. I still don't get how someone using a word that most if not all people understand when talking about optics bothers you so much. I do understand there are a plethora of words that could be used to describe the image quality seen through a scope but "this new scope is really clear" seems to sum it up.
2muchgun
New member
I understand that when they say that, that clear=good. But it does nothing to explain why, and is useless for comparison's sake.
It is a generic term. Without specifics, comparisons/opinions are useless to me.
If "clear" is all good optics had to be, they would not need to spend the time/money/research/development they do on improving image quality. This money is spent on improving brightness, contrast, color rendition, etc. Not "clarity".
Again, "clear" tells me nothing.......
It is a generic term. Without specifics, comparisons/opinions are useless to me.
If "clear" is all good optics had to be, they would not need to spend the time/money/research/development they do on improving image quality. This money is spent on improving brightness, contrast, color rendition, etc. Not "clarity".
Again, "clear" tells me nothing.......
CatShooter
New member
Originally Posted By: Irish_80So if I were to tell you a scope was distorted around the edges would that mean anything?
Yes...
... It would mean that in your opinion, the scope was distorted around the edges.
If said that you tested it on an optical bench, it would mean that the scope was distorted around the edges.
.
Yes...
... It would mean that in your opinion, the scope was distorted around the edges.
If said that you tested it on an optical bench, it would mean that the scope was distorted around the edges.
.
Irish_80
New member
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunClarity is simply NOT a term people in the optics industry use. With good reason.
When someone speaks in terms of color rendition, contrast, flatness of image, image resolution, edge to edge clarity, brightness, abberation, etc. I know what they mean. When they say "My scope is really nice and clear" it really means NOTHING. It's like describing water as being wet.......
I'm pretty sure the word clarity is used in the hunting optics industry. They may use other terms along with it but the term clarity is used. I'll go ahead and stop now since this thread should have never made it past a couple posts.
When someone speaks in terms of color rendition, contrast, flatness of image, image resolution, edge to edge clarity, brightness, abberation, etc. I know what they mean. When they say "My scope is really nice and clear" it really means NOTHING. It's like describing water as being wet.......
I'm pretty sure the word clarity is used in the hunting optics industry. They may use other terms along with it but the term clarity is used. I'll go ahead and stop now since this thread should have never made it past a couple posts.
doggin coyotes
Well-known member
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: CatShooter
My friends beautiful wife is a dog in my eyes.
.
This thread is worthless without pictures!!
Clear pictures with no distortion around the edges!!
My friends beautiful wife is a dog in my eyes.
.
This thread is worthless without pictures!!
Clear pictures with no distortion around the edges!!
2muchgun
New member
Originally Posted By: Irish_80I'm pretty sure the word clarity is used in the hunting optics industry.
Actually, no, they don't. And if they did, it would be as a marketing ploy, and not talking to one another. it is NOT a scientific term.
Read this. Another poster mentioned Zeiss, so I looked them up. I see some of the terms I mentioned like sharpness of image, contrast, light transmission, and brightness. No "clarity".........
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_de/riflescopes/all-riflescopes.html
Actually, no, they don't. And if they did, it would be as a marketing ploy, and not talking to one another. it is NOT a scientific term.
Read this. Another poster mentioned Zeiss, so I looked them up. I see some of the terms I mentioned like sharpness of image, contrast, light transmission, and brightness. No "clarity".........
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunting/en_de/riflescopes/all-riflescopes.html