Optics thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why not just make a scope that collects a lot of light and funnels it down to more concentrated light? Wouldn't that be better than night vision for most circumstances? You could easily amplify light by a large multiple while retaining a clear direct scope sight picture.
Also how can I never parallax again?
You should send that design to Keltec
>>29832155
normal scopes already do that. this is why larger objective lens exist - they allow more light to enter and in turn allow better vision at the ocular lens.
passive night vision also works along the same principle, by massively amplifying existing light - they've been doing that since the late 40's.
the problem is that to collect a significant amount of light would require significantly large apertures for ingress, and you would purposely narrow your field of vision in order to avoid distortion. likewise another issue is sheer size and weight.
you can avoid parallax by only using one eye. you sacrifice some depth perception for this.
>>29832185
What he said. Just get a bigger front lens. Only problem is that it's not really practical or feasible to have a 100 mm objective lens. If they could it would be prohibitively expensive. Not many people would drop 10 large+ on a scope
>>29832267
Wouldn't it be cheaper because no electronics?
Couldn't they just use mirrors to get the proper cheek weld height?
>>29832185
>you can avoid parallax by only using one eye
You're telling me you can't have one eyed parallax?
>>29832299
>You're telling me you can't have one eyed parallax?
no, i'm saying you can avoid parallax by using one eye. the amount of offset you would have to do to have significant parallax with one eye (or if you use both eyes and can have two different depth stops) would involve moving your entire head.
eye relief also plays a part - the goal of parallax avoidance is keeping your eye centered in the ocular lens so that your zeroed crosshair does not move in relation to the target despite any head movement on your part. a longer eye relief makes this harder to accomplish and a shorter eye relief makes it easier.
if you use only one eye, people have a tendency to center the one eye more consistently than using two eyes and depending on "concentrating" on the image from the eye in front of the ocular. this is why many people reflexively limit the light entering one eye (or closing it entirely) so that they can "center" themselves behind the ocular.
>>29832299
>Wouldn't it be cheaper because no electronics?
>Couldn't they just use mirrors to get the proper cheek weld height?
yes it would be, absolutely cheaper. it would also have very poor amplification in starlight or other conditions where moonlight is dim or obscured, it would be extremely large and heavy, and your "mirrors" would also necessitate a complex arrangement adding more bulk and weight to the system not to mention if you're using it to sight stuff in, then those mirrors would need to be precision made and adjustable to keep a zero.
night vision has come a long way since the 1950's, and an IR illumination with passive amplification to a tube CCD is currently the best there is barring doing something like false imaging (thermal, x-ray, et c).
>>29832299
making big pieces of glass costs a lot of cash
Google "Supermoonlighter"
I used them back in the 80's. Nice low light capibility using 62mm objective and very clear glass but not a patch on the Image Intensifying sights around now days, the useful range is just too short for anything but an air rifle.
>>29833713
Nice!
Isn't that what the old owl scopes did?
