If you’ve seen these you know what I mean: a handheld telescope/monocular that can zoom in on someone on a mountaintop fifteen miles away. Since I presume that a workaround for the basic laws of optics hasn’t been devised, this would seem to be an impossible degree of resolution for a telescope with a 50-100mm objective.
Got an example? I block basically all ads, so I don’t see these.
My intuition is that it’s just one of a million examples of fraudulent advertising. Who wouldn’t want a little monocular with infinite zoom? Nevermind that it doesn’t work. It’s probably some $20 piece of crap anyway that no one will bother to return when it doesn’t live up to the promises.
I have found that online ads tend to latch onto certain fads. Not entirely sure why. Fake video games are a super common one.
Do you have a link to one of these? Sounds like marketing BS to me.
I have seen camera lenses that can do amazing amounts of zoom but they are quite big and heavy and very, very expensive.
Here’s a typical one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSjdMqFX8fg
Joe Hopkins University?
I think it is safe to say it is best to not send these people your money.
The only way I can think of that this might not be an utter fraud would be if someone figured out a way to combine 20 fps video into a 1-fps image using digital extrapolation to extract detail. If that’s really a thing?
Only 30x? Amateurs. How about 10-300x?
What a load of bullshit.
Yes, it’s a a thing (I implemented the Enhanced Correlation Coefficient algorithm in CUDA for a product that stacked video frames into an enhanced resolution output). But that’s definitely not what’s going on here.
Yes, it is called super-resolution. Many cameras (both professional and cell phone) use it.
Cell phones take advantage of hand shake to get the sampling. Cameras intended for tripod use physically move the CCD around.
Never heard of them? I’ll bet you don’t know of Larry Stanford or Carl Vanderbilt Universities either.
I’ve been saying for a very long time: Any telescope that prominently advertises its magnification is a piece of garbage. Probably not actually a scam, per se, because it probably does actually get that magnification: Magnification is easy. But without the optics quality to back that up, all it’ll do is turn a small fuzzy blob into a big fuzzy blob.
And there’s a limit to how good optical quality can get, and all reputable telescopes hit that limit. Past that, all you can do is increase your aperture (which gets expensive very quickly).
End result, the only stats a reputable telescope will list are aperture (more is always better, if you can afford it, and physically handle the thing), and focal length (what focal length is best depends on what you’re using it for).
Does increased focal length actually improve resolution, or does it just focus a very narrow field of view of the image?
I mostly agree (certainly true for “300x” claims and all that), but binoculars/monoculars from quality companies are almost always marketed as “MxA”, where M is the magnification and A is the aperture (in millimeters). So a pair of 12x36 binoculars have 12x magnification with a 36 mm aperture.
OK, for instruments without interchangeable eyepieces, it makes sense to list the magnification.
If one somehow magically created a 300x magnification handheld monocular gizmo, you could not possibly hold it still enough to see anything. Your best case hand jitter would be many times larger than the FOV.
It’d be like the proverbial monkey with the machine gun, soraying wildly around whatever you’re trying to aim at. But mostly not seeing it.
Even a fairly large pair of 12x binocs are almost useless without image stabilization (but it’s great with IS).
Also, having the aperture there gives you required information. I see tiny 20x25 binoculars on Amazon… those are going to be awful. Dim and impossible to keep steady. 12x36 are pretty reasonable for general use, but you really want stabilization and they’re only so-so for stargazing. Something like 10x50 or more is best for night use. If you want more to see the planets, you need a beefy tripod.