New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Dumb Question of the Day-FOV calculation
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Dumb Question of the Day-FOV calculation

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/08/2014 at 21:54
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Tried to research this a bit but came up empty handed.  May sound like a dumb question, but I'm not sure of the answer.

Scopes advertise a specific FOV at 100 yards on a given power, usually highest and lowest.  If I want to know the FOV at 200 and 300 yards, is it as simple as multiplying the 100 yard figure by 2 or 3?

Or is it not a linear ratio like that?  Seems like the FOV would grow by more than double or triple, but maybe not??
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 05:11
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10969

It is a simple linear ratio.

ILya

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 07:22
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Thanks!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 15:55
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
...on second thought, are you sure it's linear???  Not challenging your knowledge, but.....well.....I guess maybe I am! Big Smile  But not in an argumentative way.


Let's use the example of a Zeiss 5-25x Conquest HD.  Stats show FOV at 100 yards on 25x to be 4.2'.  So if it's linear, then that means FOV at 200 yards = 8.4', and 300 yards = 12.6'.

This seems reasonable until you start thinking that the difference between each 100 yard increment is only 4.2', whether it's between 100 and 200 yards, or between 900-1000 yards.  Hard for me to believe that the FOV increase from 900 yards to 1000 yards would only be another 4.2'.

Maybe I'm wrong...but that just doesn't seem right???


The entire reason I'm asking this question is because I'm considering buying that scope with the RZ-1000 reticle.  Without getting into a debate about SFP ballistic reticles, my concern with this scope is that my particular load comes in at about 24x (nearly full power) for the reticle to be "calibrated" (according to the Zeiss calculator).  It seems to me that's a whole lot of power for the closer ranges, and target acquisition would be tough without constant power changes.  I realize I would still have to make power adjustments even with a FFP reticle, but at least with that setup I wouldn't have to make sure I was on a specific power in order to be accurate.  And then of course there is the whole debate about how accurate the ballistic reticle will be in the real world.

Maybe I'm just trying to talk myself out of it that scope...but I love Zeiss glass.  I have a Vortex Viper PST on order.  It's already been 5 months, and they're saying another 1-3 months.  My biggest concern with the Vortex is that the one I looked through got pretty hazy at the higher powers.  The Zeiss is nice and crisp, but I just don't know about the SFP ballistic reticle.  I would love to try it, but once I mount it, it's mine.  Can't return it.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 16:22
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10969
Originally posted by Trailblazer Trailblazer wrote:

...on second thought, are you sure it's linear???  Not challenging your knowledge, but.....well.....I guess maybe I am! Big Smile  But not in an argumentative way.


Let's use the example of a Zeiss 5-25x Conquest HD.  Stats show FOV at 100 yards on 25x to be 4.2'.  So if it's linear, then that means FOV at 200 yards = 8.4', and 300 yards = 12.6'.

This seems reasonable until you start thinking that the difference between each 100 yard increment is only 4.2', whether it's between 100 and 200 yards, or between 900-1000 yards.  Hard for me to believe that the FOV increase from 900 yards to 1000 yards would only be another 4.2'.

Maybe I'm wrong...but that just doesn't seem right???


The entire reason I'm asking this question is because I'm considering buying that scope with the RZ-1000 reticle.  Without getting into a debate about SFP ballistic reticles, my concern with this scope is that my particular load comes in at about 24x (nearly full power) for the reticle to be "calibrated" (according to the Zeiss calculator).  It seems to me that's a whole lot of power for the closer ranges, and target acquisition would be tough without constant power changes.  I realize I would still have to make power adjustments even with a FFP reticle, but at least with that setup I wouldn't have to make sure I was on a specific power in order to be accurate.  And then of course there is the whole debate about how accurate the ballistic reticle will be in the real world.

Maybe I'm just trying to talk myself out of it that scope...but I love Zeiss glass.  I have a Vortex Viper PST on order.  It's already been 5 months, and they're saying another 1-3 months.  My biggest concern with the Vortex is that the one I looked through got pretty hazy at the higher powers.  The Zeiss is nice and crisp, but I just don't know about the SFP ballistic reticle.  I would love to try it, but once I mount it, it's mine.  Can't return it.

The FOV is twice wider for a distance that is twice longer.   That is what linear means.

At 200 yards, it is twice wider than at 100 yards.  At 400 yards, it is twice wider than at 200 yards.

At 300 yards, the distance is 1.5 times longer than at 200 yards, so the FOV is 1.5 times wider than at 200 yards.

This is pretty simple geometry.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 17:29
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18341
You didn't even mention string theory...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 17:51
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:


The FOV is twice wider for a distance that is twice longer.   That is what linear means.

At 200 yards, it is twice wider than at 100 yards.  At 400 yards, it is twice wider than at 200 yards.

At 300 yards, the distance is 1.5 times longer than at 200 yards, so the FOV is 1.5 times wider than at 200 yards.

This is pretty simple geometry.

ILya



Yes...that's the same thing I said.  It grows by only 4.2 feet for each 100 yards.  The math works out the same.   The increase between each 100 yard increment is only 4.2 feet, whether between 100 and 200 yards, or between 900 and 1,000 yards.  Still doesn't seem quite right, but perhaps it is.

I understand what "linear" means....that's why I asked if it was linear!  The question wasn't what linear means...the question was IS it's linear.  I'll take your word for it that you're right, but I may have to throw a challenge flag! 

The FOV from the scope to whatever the distance in question is represents an isosceles triangle.  There can be only one isosceles triangle at which the altitude (in this case the distance to target) would equal the width of the base (in the case the FOV), and that is where the peak of the triangle is at 90 degrees.  So I guess my question is...is the FOV ALWAYS at 90 degrees on every scope, every time?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 17:56
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
...To correct myself, I meant to say is the base is twice that of the altitude, not the same as.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 18:24
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
O.K., I did some more thinking, and I believed I answered my own question.

It is NOT linear.  This can be proven by looking at the stats of different scopes that have the same zoom range and objective lens size.  Again, the only way it could be linear is if the FOV is a right isosceles triangle, and if this was always the case, then every scope with the same objective size would have the same FOV at 100 yards as every other scope if they were on the same power.

I think the way to calculate the FOV at various ranges would be to take each individual scopes FOV stats for the maximum and minimum power, and use that to figure out the angle at the peak of the  triangle.  Given that angle, you could then calculate the base of the triangle (FOV) at each given altitude (range).


....pretty simple geometry, really.  Big Grin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 19:22
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
...but then again...the scope length (distance between the glass) could be the reason for the different specs, but I don't think so.  Still don't think it's linear.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 20:08
SEMO Shooter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/06/2013
Location: SE Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 127
I had a Conquest 4.5-14x50 with the Rapid Z 1000 reticle.  I seldom trade or sell my scopes.  But that was one I traded.  The scope itself was fine, but the Rapid Z reticle did not match my loads very well. The reticle was ok for plinking steel, but not for serious longer range accuracy.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 20:10
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
What did you replace it with?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 20:29
SEMO Shooter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/06/2013
Location: SE Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 127
I ended up trading it and some cash for a Nighforce.  I would have been happy with that Zeiss if it had a  plex reticle.  I did not find the Rapid Z 1000 reticle useful for my type of shooting which is 100 to 700 yard target shooting.  I still have 5 Conquest scopes so I'm not a Zeiss hater.  I have a 3-9, 3.5-10, two 4.5-14, and a 6.5-20.  All have plex reticle except the 3.5-10.  It has a #58 ZRF reticle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 20:38
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Did you play with the magnification to try to dial the reticle in?
How far off  would you say the reticle was in the 400+ yard range?  Within 4" or so?  Very curious about this because I wouldn't be using it for precise target shooing.  I would be using it for shooting steel, and possibly medium range hunting. 

The 14x wouldn't be so bad, but the RZ1000 only comes in the 5-25x HD now.  Can't get a lower power range. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2014 at 21:45
SEMO Shooter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/06/2013
Location: SE Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 127
I played with the magnification ring.  It was within 4" at 400 yards with Federal 168 grain match.  It is supposed to be calibrated to work with 168 & 175 grain match ammo.  Who's match ammo, and what velocity does it match?  If you load your own will your loads match the ballistics needed?

Your hunting loads will have quite different ballistics that will not match up as well.  Do you think you would actually take a longer shot than 300 or 400 yards?  The center line of the reticle is for 500 yards with 100-400 all above center.  Lots of lines and a very busy reticle.

Have you considered a Rapid Z 600?  It is much simpler.  I am not saying the Rapid Z 1000 won't do what you want, but it is not a magic answer to making an acceptable hit at longer distances.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2014 at 07:49
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
All of the points you make are reasons I'm second guessing it.  The rifle is mainly used for having fun plinking steel at various ranges, all while practicing ranging and trying to get shots off quickly.

For the hunting aspect, I realistically wouldn't shoot past 450 yards, and even that may never happen.  I know my limitations and don't want to wound an animal.  The only reason I would even consider it is because my practice range and the field I would be hunting in are the same field, so I will have practiced at every distance within that area. 

As far as the RZ-600 is concerned, I have a Conquest 3-9 with the RZ 600 on top of my -.06.  That reticle doesn't match any of my .308 loads very well, at least according to the calculator.  The optimum power setting isn't high enough for longer range shots (even on the higher power scopes).  It's exactly the opposite problem as with the RZ-1000.

I think I'm just going to cancel the order and wait for the Vortex to come in.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/11/2014 at 08:01
SEMO Shooter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/06/2013
Location: SE Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 127
I think you will be quite happy with he Vortex.  One of my buddies has a Viper PST mounted on his Savage 260 and I like his scope.  He is a good shooter and consistently makes head shots on steel targets at 600 to 800 yards.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/12/2014 at 14:10
tucansam View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/05/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 85
On a side note, what determines a scope's FOV?  I had my USO SN3 3.2-17x44 at the range today, alongside my friend's Razor HD with a 50mm objective.  He has a 35mm main tube, my USO's is 34mm.

At 20x power, his scope had a wider FOV than my USO at 17x.

What determines that?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 11:27
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Well, I would say his 50mm objective versus your 44mm would be the biggest reason, but there must be other factors as well.  To a lesser degree, I would have to think that the geometry of the internal components would play a small factor as well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 13:56
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10969
Originally posted by Trailblazer Trailblazer wrote:

Well, I would say his 50mm objective versus your 44mm would be the biggest reason, but there must be other factors as well.  To a lesser degree, I would have to think that the geometry of the internal components would play a small factor as well.

Objective lens diameter has no direct relationship to the field of view.

If anything, it is easier to make a wide field of view scope with a smaller objective lens.

The FOV is determined by the lens presription, i.e. the curvatures of different lenses used, not by their diameter.

Go make a 30mm aperture and put it right up to your 50mm scope objective.  FOV will stay the same.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 16:40
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
That makes perfect sense.  But it seems like that blows a hole in your previous statement about the field of view doubling when the distance doubles.  Otherwise, every scope would have to have the same FOV.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 16:45
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10969
Originally posted by Trailblazer Trailblazer wrote:

That makes perfect sense.  But it seems like that blows a hole in your previous statement about the field of view doubling when the distance doubles.  Otherwise, every scope would have to have the same FOV.


This makes no sense. Please elaborate.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 17:04
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
As stated earlier, the FOV on any scope represents a triangle from your scope, to whatever distance we're talking about, be it 100 yards, 200 yards, etc.  There is only one triangle in which base (FOV) doubles when the altitude (distance to target) doubles, and that is  a right isosceles triangle.  Therefore, if that is the ONLY triangle with which the FOV could double as the distance doubles, then every scope would have to have pretty much the same FOV, otherwise, it couldn't be a right isosceles triangle.

Make sense?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 17:06
Trailblazer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/15/2014
Status: Offline
Points: 34
..meaning to fit into your theory of the FOV of any scope doubling when the distance doubles, they would all have to have a FOV that represents a right triangle, which would mean they would all have to be the same.

This is obviously not the case, so therefore I believe your theory is flawed.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/27/2014 at 17:26
billyburl2 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2009
Location: Cottonwood, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 3873
Unless of course each scope starts out with a different base FOV, because of the internal prescription of the lenses and how it was put together... Each scope will react to distance exactly the same, it's how the scope is designed and built that sets the initial parameters.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Dumb Question of the Day-FOV calculation"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
dumb question ThudThumper Rifle Scopes 16 9/16/2005 12:56:34 AM
Dumb questions re: 20MOA Base wydt Tactical Scopes 1 2/9/2006 10:26:01 AM
Dumb click question shootergirl Tactical Scopes 9
New guy with a dumb question... Toad Rifle Scopes 9
New SWFA 3-9/Dumb Question surfhawk Rifle Scopes 19
Really dumb Exit Pupil question tpcollins Binoculars 18
FOV - Field of View Sriram Maddi Cameras, Equipment and Settings 4
Zeiss and Meopta FOV muleymaddness Rifle Scopes 2
FOV, subtensions & thin opening WebWalker Rifle Scopes 4
I have a dumb question. rogervan Rifle Scopes 9


This page was generated in 0.434 seconds.