Swarovski BTX - Dual eyes

[brocksw]

That isn't what I said. What I said is the brain is still getting two images from two different eyes, so it gets the benefits of combining them, including higher perceived resolution and brightness.

The brain is "fooled" into thinking it is a stereoscopic instrument because the viewer IS viewing it stereoscopically.

The brain is still combining a left eye and right eye image, and those eye's individual recording of the image.

Edit to add:

I am not saying the benefits are equal to those of a true stereoscopic instrument.

In order for an instrunent to be stereoscopic or to view something "stereoscopically" there must be two DIFFERENT images created, there is no exception. Google "stereo pair", this is a good example of how minutely different the images are, but also highlights that they are indeed different.

The BTX is presenting the exact same image to both eyes, this means by definition, it is not a stereoscopic instrument and cannot produce a stereoscopic image. The only reason that stereoscopic or stereo microscopes were created was for depth in your field of view, an apparent 3 dimensional image. Presenting the same exact image to both eyes does not fool your brain into anything... It just allows you to view the image with both eyes instead of one. This is exactly why binoviewers were created for compound microscopes... To gain comfort... If they could replicate what the stereo microscope could do then it would eliminate the need for stereo microscopes all together, and revolutionize the optical industry.

I agree the perceived resolution does go up, as does light transmission, however these are subject to individual perception and perceived is quite a different beast than actual. There is no doubt two eyes are better than one when the brain is involved. However, the Bottom line is that the BTX is not a stereoscopic instrument, rather it is very similar to a compound microscope equipped with a binoviewer.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

Sorry for my clumsy explanations...

I am not arguing the BTX is a stereoscopic instrument. I am not arguing a binoviewer replaces a stereoscopic instrument or is superior to one.

I am arguing that viewing with two eyes (which I probably incorrectly called stereoscopic viewing) is better than one eye and provides a better perceived image and more natural, comfortable viewing.

Binoviewers and stereoscopic instruments share some advantages over a single eyepiece in that one eye can compensate for deficiencies in the other and as we both mentioned, improve the perceived image.

Not to get too philosophical, but one could argue perception IS reality.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Nerds...

IMO, If you pack it and use it. You will spot more animals at longer ranges than with a spotter and that's all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

Sorry for my clumsy explanations...

I am not arguing the BTX is a stereoscopic instrument. I am not arguing a binoviewer replaces a stereoscopic instrument or is superior to one.

I am arguing that viewing with two eyes (which I probably incorrectly called stereoscopic viewing) is better than one eye and provides a better perceived image and more natural, comfortable viewing.

Binoviewers and stereoscopic instruments share some advantages over a single eyepiece in that one eye can compensate for deficiencies in the other and as we both mentioned, improve the perceived image.

Not to get too philosophical, but one could argue perception IS reality.

Haha, that is whole different ballgame.

I am excited to take a peak through the BTX. My local store is expecting to see one in may, so we are getting close.

However, I'm a little concerned that looking through the BTX is not going to make my decision any easier. The only thing that is pushing me towards the 15s is the fact that digiscoping with my dslr will be easier and quicker with an ATX attached to my objective at all times. Also, most of the mule deer country I glass does not require a 30x magnification... I think a 15 would be fine until I spot something, at that point it's time to whip out the spotter for a close look or a picture. I'll definitely have some gear envy if I elect to go with the 15s over the BTX.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

Nerds...

IMO, If you pack it and use it. You will spot more animals at longer ranges than with a spotter and that's all I need to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How was the eye relief of the BTX? Did you use the forehead pad? I know when I use my ATX it seems like I'm never really touching the scope unless I need to adjust it. Do you find yourself wanting to hold the BTX like a pair of binos to get the eye relief correct and maximize your field of view?

I'm obviously overthinking this... But at this point, since I can't look through one, all I can do is over analyze how I'd use it and what the pros and cons would be.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

Haha, that is whole different ballgame.

I am excited to take a peak through the BTX. My local store is expecting to see one in may, so we are getting close.

However, I'm a little concerned that looking through the BTX is not going to make my decision any easier. The only thing that is pushing me towards the 15s is the fact that digiscoping with my dslr will be easier and quicker with an ATX attached to my objective at all times. Also, most of the mule deer country I glass does not require a 30x magnification... I think a 15 would be fine until I spot something, at that point it's time to whip out the spotter for a close look or a picture. I'll definitely have some gear envy if I elect to go with the 15s over the BTX.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I went back and forth glassing with the 15s, BTX65s and the ATX95s. I glasses up a Black Buck in the brush at around 2500-3000 yards. While I could see it with the 15s I might have missed it too. With the BTX I would not have missed it.

Going back and forth with the ATX and BTX, I notice the BTX with 30 power seems much closer with both eyes open. It looks more like 45-50 power.

I do have the same issue as you Brock. I like to Digiscope with my spotter...... what to do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matt Cashell]

You could digiscope with one eyepiece while viewing through the other!

 

[Ryan Avery]

How was the eye relief of the BTX? Did you use the forehead pad? I know when I use my ATX it seems like I'm never really touching the scope unless I need to adjust it. Do you find yourself wanting to hold the BTX like a pair of binos to get the eye relief correct and maximize your field of view?

I'm obviously overthinking this... But at this point, since I can't look through one, all I can do is over analyze how I'd use it and what the pros and cons would be.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I thought the forehead pad was kind of stupid until I used it. If you take the time to adjust it, you can just place your head on it with the eyecups up or down and be in perfect eye alignment. Adjusting the eyecups to fit the width of your eyes is quick and simple and even fits this cyclops.

I fully admit I went into this thinking the BTX would only be used by a small segment of hunters. But now I think anyone who glasses big country for long periods of time would benefit from using the BTX65s. I still think the BTX95s are a niche piece, for outfitters and people not taking long walks with it. Not to say the BTX95 isn't awesome. But I'm not backpacking with it.

One side note, the BTX65 will work with the Outdoorsman's pistol grip..... The bears are in so much trouble

 

[307]

You could digiscope with one eyepiece while viewing through the other!

Will my stereo still work if I do that?

 

[svivian]

I thought the forehead pad was kind of stupid until I used it. If you take the time to adjust it, you can just place your head on it with the eyecups up or down and be in perfect eye alignment. Adjusting the eyecups to fit the width of your eyes is quick and simple and even fits this cyclops.

I fully admit I went into this thinking the BTX would only be used by a small segment of hunters. But now I think anyone who glasses big country for long periods of time would benefit from using the BTX65s. I still think the BTX95s are a niche piece, for outfitters and people not taking long walks with it. Not to say the BTX95 isn't awesome. But I'm not backpacking with it.

One side note, the BTX65 will work with the Outdoorsman's pistol grip..... The bears are in so much trouble

The forehead thing I also thought was a dumb gimmick but honestly after using it was really nice. I made me realize how much I hover over the eyepeice when I use my spotter.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Swarovski BTX Quick Review - YouTube

[video=youtube_share;8Nj1BleyM5o]https://youtu.be/8Nj1BleyM5o[/video]

 

[jaxdialation]

I would say they solve a very big problem. Ever tried to look through one eye for hours on end? Not pleasant

Of course I have! At magnifications from 5x to 1500x using Apertures as big as 36".

The scopes will transmit less light to the eyes.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

Nerds...

IMO, If you pack it and use it. You will spot more animals at longer ranges than with a spotter and that's all I need to know.

^agreed

I don't have experience with this unit....but have used Swaros old 30x bino.

Advantages; that extra magnification is amazing. Bino vs one eyepiece is a game changer....it increases your effective glassing 10x IMO

Disadvantages; Heavy...though this unit is lighter than the old box unit. Field of view is small. Having a tripod with one of those gear driven heads could be an advantage with these as when you move it a tiny bit you are off the spot. The addl magnification amplifies environmental factors in the air; pollution, heat waves, moisture, etc- that dulls the image. On a hot day they are not very effective.

When Swaro discontinued that 30x bino I had the chance at the shotshow to pick one up for $1200 about 20 years ago. I'm wishing I did just to have them.

Personally, I have a good 15x bino and may try a 20x....which I think is probably the happy medium in magnification.

 

[Bubblehide]

...

I agree the perceived resolution does go up, as does light transmission, however these are subject to individual perception and perceived is quite a different beast than actual. There is no doubt two eyes are better than one when the brain is involved. However, the Bottom line is that the BTX is not a stereoscopic instrument, rather it is very similar to a compound microscope equipped with a binoviewer.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

From my perspective, a psychologist, the advantage here is that in engaging both eyes, you also engage both sides of the brain, from a neurological perspective. As such, much more of the brain is engaged, subsequently one can presume one's perception is increased. this is backed up by MDR therapy, and by visual processing theory. Clearly we know that specific types of information are processed by specific parts of the brain. Visual processing theory breaks it down to Visual discrimination, memory, sequencing, closure, spatial relations and figure ground. So depending on which eye your glassing from, you will only be engaging some of these. But if you are glassing with both eyes, you engage all of them. In short, I'll use visual closure as an example; imagine only seeing a part of an animal, say a single leg. Without visual closure and visual memory, you would not necessarily be able to know/identify that the leg, was a leg, or what type of animal it belonged to. Figure ground is another, it allows us to identify animals that blend into their environment, such as being able to see a polar bear in a snow filled environment; or what many have seen, the drawings/paintings of multiple hidden horses, Indians... within a piece of art.

My point here is that purely from a theoretical perspective of visual processing, we are clearly better off engaging both eyes when possible. from the visual processing perspective, it doesn't matter if the image is the exact same image or not. Additionally, true depth perception requires both eyes. So, clearly something(s) are lost when we limit are viewing to a single eye. Does than make any sense?

 

[brocksw]

....Does than make any sense?

I don't think anyone here would disagree with your perspective, theoretical or not. In fact, I believe there are multiple instances in this thread where we can find agreement among multiple members that the use of two eyes are better than the use of one, probably for multiple reasons but especially in regards to the brain.

However, I am not quite sure how EMDR therapy would relate to the portion of our conversation where depth perception and stereoscopic instruments come into play. I was under the impression that EMDR therapy was a form of trauma therapy (popular for PTSD) and is used for rewiring the brain to see historical traumatic events in a different light. It attempts to complete this objective by using eye movements to reduce the intensity of disturbing thoughts, under certain conditions. This form of therapy, to my knowledge, can actually be performed with the eyes being closed while focusing on this particular stressful or traumatic events. I'm not aware that this theory has any relevance in the real world perception of the depth of anything in our environment through a stereoscopic or non stereoscopic instrument. I'm also not aware of the relationship, at least as it applies to our conversation, between EMDR and visual processing theory. By definition, they seem to be 2 different animals regarding two different theory's of thought on 2 different subjects. One is based off historical, stressful/traumatic events with the intent of rewiring the brain to react to them differently and the other based on perceptual experience of our environment in the here and now. I would presume that the visual processing portion of your perspective is completely relevant while the EMDR portion is almost completely irrelevant. Perhaps I am wrong.

Regardless, I will reiterate my stance that the BTX is not a stereoscopic instrument, period. Regardless of this fact, it is proven fact that both eyes are better than one, no one here that I can see, refutes this. However, if I perceive your point correctly, which is to say that stereoscopic instruments are not superior to compound ones as they relate to depth perception, and in fact it "doesn't matter". I would refute that statement directly. I would think the very existence of the stereoscopic microscope, stereo pair images and their use in 3-diminsional visualizations, and the field of optical engineering would also refute that point.

Would I acknowledge or concede that using two eyes out of compound instrument instead of one will help you more accurately perceive depth in your field of view? I suppose I would.

 

[Bubblehide]

brocksw, your correct about EMDR. However, the theory of how it works directly relates to engaging both sides of the brain, i.e., the emotional side and the analytical side, thus providing us a conduit to process the impeding emotion involved in the trauma. I used EMDR as an example of the obvious benefits of engaging both sides of the brain, and not as a means of processing trauma. I was boiling it down to the basic therom of the left side of the brain being responsible for the right side of the body, and vice versa; and the left eye information being processed by the right side of the brain, vice versa...

 

[Beendare]

Interesting hypothesis Bubble....I wonder to what degree.

I sure FEEL smarter with both eyes open......<grin>

 

[307]

Binocular Viewing VS The Single Eye - YouTube

Pretty good video explaining bino viewers.

 

[brocksw]

Just got to look through the BTX for the first time... It certainly didn't make a decision between it and the 15x SLCs any easier. Still thinking about it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[338edge]

I thought the forehead pad was kind of stupid until I used it. If you take the time to adjust it, you can just place your head on it with the eyecups up or down and be in perfect eye alignment. Adjusting the eyecups to fit the width of your eyes is quick and simple and even fits this cyclops.

I fully admit I went into this thinking the BTX would only be used by a small segment of hunters. But now I think anyone who glasses big country for long periods of time would benefit from using the BTX65s. I still think the BTX95s are a niche piece, for outfitters and people not taking long walks with it. Not to say the BTX95 isn't awesome. But I'm not backpacking with it.

One side note, the BTX65 will work with the Outdoorsman's pistol grip..... The bears are in so much trouble

That's great news with the pistol grip. I'm getting the btx65. Thanks for your no BS opinions Ryan!! Anyone want to sell there's I'll take it!!