Resolution Test Chart.

[Gloop]

You shouldn't need to "print to fit". Stupid question; have you set the paper to A4?

[Bryan]

Just down loaded chart very interesting reading.

Will have to test my copes in the near future.

[Parabuteo]

Errrrrr...I am slightly concerned by this thread TBH

All this is in fact achieving is testing the resolution of your own eyesight...with interference (or enhancement) by a scope in between.

The resolution chart is similar to what we use at work to test focus and res. typically the letter H (as it has vertical and hozontal elements) and converging lines that blend to gray when the focus/res runs out as the CCD can no longer resolve the lines to single pixels.....but we know what base res to expect as within reason the CCDs of the cameras are the same (ONO).

There comes a point where the light (which behaves differently depending on the colour of what it is being reflected off) has to be focussed onto your retina (or a CCD if you like).

This is where the resolution is being resolved, so unless your eyes have an ANSI (or whatever it is) standard colour resolution ability, and a standard (measureable) monochrome resolution ability (A way of saying how many pixels, or cells per square carrot, forgetting colour res), all that is being tested is how well these chosen scopes are suited to your eyesight.

I would also say the exit pupil needs to be identical so the same amount of light is hitting teh same area of your retina for each scope.

And I would not try and compare fixed and zoom lenses, they dont compare, and it is not a fair test (clue, if I can get a fixed focus lens at work that does the job, I use it every time, less glass, less coating, less to interfere with the light on it's way to the sensor...they nearly always perform better than varifocal or zoom).

Since colour is relative to the quality of the light hitting it (and being reflected back down the sight to your eye), the time to check is in low light, a this is when it will be working for you at best because the coatings and alignment, accuracy of grind and polish etc is coming into its own, and even then, since all of our eyes are different, how much of this is your eyes?

You can(must) compare this with daylight, as the different compnents travel at different angles through the lenses. But the acid test is low light. As it goes, some very good scopes will get colour fringes, particularly in brightly back lit situations, but they can still be bloody good scopes.

A friend of mine commented that he shoots both high end Nightforce, and Sightron (F class). He suggests that the Sightron is every bit as good...to his eyes (I have to agree as it goes, but it makes no difference if your eyes work better with a nightforce).

It worries me slightly that you (we) are comparing sights from different manufacturers with less than scientific lines, and people will read this and think their scope (with which they have been happy for years and suits them fine) is not as good as a £50 quid special...because the chart and someones eyes says it is, or because they suddenly start testing it under conditions they would ordinarilly never use it.

Terry D recently responded that until there was an affordable, subjective method of testing scopes, AGW would not be testing scope A against Scope B as it simply would not prove anything, I tend to agree.

I would also mention that if you really want to test a scope...for your own eyes, spend a significant time getting the focus just right, then spend a lot of time looking through it...you will soon see if it is ideal as your eyes wont ache as they compensate for the scopes optics.

Can you use it as an aiming aid for a few seconds, or can it be used as an observation device in it's own right (because like it or not it will be at some stage, particularly on a range)?

Sorry, it might help an individual compare (badly) but it should not be used to publically compare scopes (IMHO).

All the best

CB....with a headache due to miss behaving cameras!!

[severnsider]

I appreciate the comments made by Chris (above) and have removed both my posts on the subject. From my point of view the "comparison" exercise was worthwhile, but it was not, of course, particularly scientific!

[SpikeG]

It worries me slightly that you (we) are comparing sights from different manufacturers with less than scientific lines, and people will read this and think their scope (with which they have been happy for years and suits them fine) is not as good as a £50 quid special...because the chart and someones eyes says it is, or because they suddenly start testing it under conditions they would ordinarilly never use it.

My main usage of the chart is to personally compare the resolution of two or more scopes, I wouldn't suggest that my results would have any scientific or meritorious value to anyone else and as such just use it as a comparative tool.
I quite often see, in magazines, reviews of scopes where the reviewer claims "I can see the fibres of the ragged cardboard hole with this scope" or "I could resolve xyz with this scope under poor light conditions" or "pin sharp" etcetera ad infinitum. All equally as unscientific and dependant on the quality of the users eyesight as well as the optics they are looking through.
At least with this chart you can compare results for your own scopes and make your own conclusions with at least one constant (ie the chart) Yes the results will be subjective and personal to you but that was what I had in mind.

Terry D recently responded that until there was an affordable, subjective method of testing scopes, AGW would not be testing scope A against Scope B as it simply would not prove anything, I tend to agree.

Likewise.

Sorry, it might help an individual compare (badly) but it should not be used to publicly compare scopes (IMHO).

Agreed, it wasn't meant to be used as such tbh.

So I totally agree, this can't be used as a scientific test, only a personal comparative.