6.310 vs 6.600 in the 455kHz and 800kHz frrequencies

As I was out testing the new HB AS GPS HS antenna Saturday...I took some comparison snapshots of the same structure at the same boat speed (same settings except for frequency) using the 6.310 version software and the 6.660 version software....

I had read reports on the forums that HB had made some changes in the 6.600 to make the SI/DI images better....

Two things I have learned about comparing snapshot images ...:

1. Which setting/software version/frequency gives the best images is dependant on what each individual perceives as better....what I think gives a better image may not be what the next guy thinks gives a better image....

2. Snapshots .PNG images that are viewed on the pc always look better than viewing the snapshots on the unit...(pixel density difference in the monitors I would guess)....

Note...This is probably also the reason why the comment continues to pop up...."why can't I get images like I see on the internet...??" ...(pixel density of the monitor being used to view the snapshots...)

The only discernable difference I could see while viewing the snapshots on my unit was that the 6.660 software version at 800kHz seemed just "a tad" sharper.....

But when I view the snapshots on my pc...the 6.310 at 800kHz seems better....

These different factors are why I always caution people to not get caught up in the "my images are better than your images" debate...(there's just too many variables to judge apples to apples....)

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps573d896e.jpg

Rickie

You no what they allways say,get a second opinion.rickie made his test using an 1197 i believe.i havent had the time to do as conplete test as him but so far my 998 is not the same as before.ive got to do more testing but from what i saw the other day on a hard bottom my 998 has way to much sensitivity brightness using the third pallett color.i dont remember what its called.even on 1 its to much.when i get a chance ill try the blue pallett and see what that does.

That third pallett color works good on a soft bottom .

At that depth of water .... wouldn't one expect the 800 kHz setting to be sharper, anyway ??

It looks sharper AND brighter than the 455 kHz pics, regardless of which software version used. Couldn't you dial down the Contrast & Sensitivity, under the 800 kHz setting, and get an even clearer/sharper image ??

... cp :kewl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crappiepappy

At that depth of water .... wouldn't one expect the 800 kHz setting to be sharper, anyway ??

It looks sharper AND brighter than the 455 kHz pics, regardless of which software version used. Couldn't you dial down the Contrast & Sensitivity, under the 800 kHz setting, and get an even clearer/sharper image ??

... cp :kewl

---

My goal in these specific tests was not to get optimum image quality in either frequency....

Part of the comparison test I was conducting was to show the difference in the 455kHz and the 800kHz at the same overall settings...

(Another part of my test was to determine if the forum reports were valid that HB added changes to the 6.600 version software to render better images)...

It is my goal to help people understand that the unit settings (sensitivity especially in the HB units) need to be adjusted when deciding on which frequency to run..

Rickie

ive got to disagree with another thing that you said also.you said that pictures that are viewed on the computer are clearer than whats on the unit but the pictures that i see live comming across the screen on my unit appear clearer than when i take the snap shot then post themhttp://i826.photobucket.com/albums/z...e-photo036.jpg

theres something different about my 998s quallity of picture that i see on the unit now. these pictures that i took today ive got my unit turned all the way down to the the lowest sensitivity setting.i didnot have to do that before.i also think that i could have got better picture if i could have had a lower setting available. dont get me wrong im pleased with what im seeing and i still can get a better quality picture with some more tweeking of chart speed and contrasthttp://i826.photobucket.com/albums/z...psebb2b34c.pnghttp://i826.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps9bd1d2fd.png

Maybe I should have clearly stated it differently like this...

Snapshots .PNG images that are viewed on the pc always look better to me than viewing the snapshots on the unit...(pixel density difference in the monitors I would guess)....

Which is exactly why I always recommend people not get up in the "image clarity" debate...

Image clarity is opinion based on perception....everyone perceives image clarity differently...

Rickie

Nice read

By the way kosmo...

Those are some great shots of stakebeds....

I bet I know who sunk 'em....:yikes

Rickie