Best Sonar & GPS for 2002

[WalleyeRanger]

Going to be upgrading my Lowrance GM2000 & Pinpoint Sonar. Leaning towards the new Lowrance LCS 16CI or LCX 15MT. Any one have an opinion of these or others. I am very disapointed in the Pin Point unit. Thnaks

[Shaggy]

I'd buy the X-15MT tomorrow if it was WAAS enabled. I know there's supposed to be an upgrade coming out which would be fine if it was just a software update but knowing lowrance you'll need to buy a new GPS antenna or some other component to get it to work. I'm hoping the WAAS units com out soon. Good luck.

Shaggy

[Jim Carroll]

The new update to enable WAAS will be available in April. For current X-units you will need a hardware change. The GPS receiver/antenna must be updated for WAAS reception.
You cant go wrong with either the X-15 or X-16. Great units...

[masterangler]

Are you looking for a combo unit or two stand alones? In the way of GPS mapping Garmin is the way to go even if the LCX 15 is WAAS or not. The LCX 15 sonar on the other hand is great. It has brilliant resolution in a large screen,dual freq capabil, high watts. If you want the best of both worlds, than two seperate units are the way to go.

[Mr Ranger]

Am curious, what didn't you like about the pinpoint unit?

Thanks

[Thom]

Without getting into the different requirements for off shore saltwater fishing from a small boat and large lake fresh water fishing I will tell you that I just got a Garmin GPSMap-2006 (which replaced my old Garmin GPSMap-210 with differential) and a Furuno 600L bottom box. I simply do not know of any better combination for use on a small boat by a fisherperson on a budget. I am an absolute beliver in both brands, Garmin and Furuno, and I honestly think they repesent the best of class in their respective areas. Keep in mind, however, that Garmin makes bottom boxes that are reasonably well regarded by many fols and that Furuno makes GPS units too, but I wouldn't have a Garmin bottom box or a Furuno GPS. As to Lowrance or Pinpoint, well, they simply do not exist in my fishing world because they do not perform as well as their competitors and it seems to me that you might want to keep that in mind when you make your choices. Everyone to their own of course and I wish you luck with your selection.

Thom

[s.f.]

as most know, i run a genetron graph with a separate lowrance gps.
one thing most don't consider, is that the duo unit is a risky deal. if the unit goes down, everything is down. i'd spend the money on the best graph and way less on the gps.
by the way, although the x-15/16 are the best units of the lcd world out there, they still only have 86 vertical pixels compared to the genetron's 128, which is the deciding factor in your resolution capabilities. ONLY vertical pixels determine resolution.
of course, i realize the genetron is way more money. but if you put a value on which component of your whole boat package is most important to your success fishing,the machine that is finding the fish is it.
also, genetron does have some good deals on a couple trade-in units right now. these units have one year warranty. they were traded in by genetron users that bought new ones recently.
please feel free to ask any technical questions about sonars/genetron
or the like. genetron will be glad to help.

#49

[s.f.]

don't mind me. lol i'm just half asleep. in my previous post, i mention pixels/numbers. i forgot to add that my refence to VERTICAL pixels is pixels per VERTICAL LINEAR INCH. these are the only pixels that we see, that form the quality of the resolution of WHAT we see.

again, any questions, general or directly about genetron, feel free to ask.

you gotta find'em before you can catch'em!

#49

[Juls_WI]

Steve,
Can you expound on the verticle pixels a little more? I don't understand. When you say that there are only 86 verticle pixels, and the manufacturer says there are say, 200 pixels, what's up with that? You're confusing me...which isn't hard to do...;-)

Thanks,

Juls

[s.f.]

ask anybody, i easily confuse people.lol

okay: your looking at your sonar screen, straight on. the information is moving across the screen from right to left. you still here? okay, lol, the right edge of the screen runs up and down vertically. imagine, for each vertical linear inch that right edge is in height from bottem to top, there are a certain amount of pixels
in every inch. as the transducer kicks back information to the unit, it lights up pixels somewhere within that vertical line of pixels, on that right edge only. still here juls? lol after those pixels are initially lit up, they continue across the screen to the left, okay? they light up continuously so we see them as a form of some kind, be it a fish or the bottem. the point is this...once that pixel is lit up, and it starts across the screen, it, in a sense , is history. nothing changes it. it only gets added to by that single line of vertical pixels that is on the far right. so, when we talk about how many pixels a certain machine offers, the only number that counts is the number that involves the ones on the right edge that are in a vertical line from bottem to top of the screen. the pixels that make up the rest of the screen, in a sense, have no effect on resolution or the like, because they are HISTORY. nothing changes history. that all said...if you're still here juls, lol, the only number a person needs to consider when talking resolution capabilities of a certain unit, is the amount per vertical linear inch. that's where the scoreboard counts! in this case, the x-15 has 86 pixels per vertical linear inch, the genetron 128. that's is why my genetron shines when others struggle.
thanks for the opportunity to splain this juls. i sincerely hope i left you and everyone less confused here and more enlightend to the world of graphs. any other questions, and I will be confused too.
#49

[Juls_WI]

Yeah, I'm still here...thanks for "splain'n" it...;-)

[Atomic Eye]

BUT, isn't one more thing to figure in is how many inches you're got on the vertical axis? For example, if you've got 128 pixels per vertical inch and 2 inch display versus 128 pixels per vertical inch
per and 4 inch display, guess which one is going to give you better resolution for a given depth range (like 20' for full display across the screen). I think you need to take into account the size of the screen?

Please pipe in if we have any sonar techknoweenies reading these threads. Thanks.

Atomic Eye (New Mexico) -- "Gone Fission!"

[GENETRON]

WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL E- MAIL INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS POST AND WE WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN THE VERTICAL PIXEL/ DOTS PER LINEAR INCH ISSUE. S.F. IN HIS POST IS CORRECT IN THE FACT THAT IT IS THE COUNT PER LINEAR INCH THAT DETERMINES RESOLUTION. THE TOTAL COUNT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESOLUTION. THE HORIZONTAL COUNT IS NOTHING BUT A HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE INITIAL VERTICAL LINE THAT APPEARS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN AND THEN "PARADES" RIGHT TO LEFT ACROSS THE SCREEN. THE MORE HORIZONTAL PIXELS/DOTS YOU HAVE THE LONGER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VIEW THE HISTORY. THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION THAT IS "PRINTED" ON THIS PORTION OF THE SCREEN. THE ONLY NEW INFORMATION IS ON THAT SINGLE VERTICAL LINE THAT IS "PRINTED" ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN. ONE ALSO SHOULD REMEMBER THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS PRINTED ON THAT SINGLE VERTICAL LINE IS CONDENSED FROM A THREE DIMENSIONAL WORLD THAT THE TRANSDUCER "SEES" AND IS PUT ON A TWO DIMENSIONAL VERTICAL LINE. FOR THE CONSUMER THE VERTICAL COUNT PER LINEAR INCH IS THE ONLY THING THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH WHEN IT COMES TO RESOLUTION ON A FLAT SCREEN FISHFINDER. IF THE MANUFACTURER IS RELUCTANT TO TELL YOU THIS FIGURE AND ONLY WANTS TO TELL YOU THE TOTAL VERTICAL COUNT BE CAREFULL!!! IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET THE VERTICAL PER LINEAR INCH COUNT ON YOUR OWN, WHICH YOU SHOULD DO, SIMPLY TAKE THE TOTAL COUNT AND CAREFULLY MEASURE THE ACTUAL SCREEN VERTICALLY AND DO THE DIVISION TO GET THE VERTICAL COUNT PER LINEAR INCH. WHEN YOU ARE FISHING FOR A BOTTOM FEEDING FISH LIKE A WALLEYE IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE THAT YOU GET THE HIGHEST VERTICAL PER LINEAR INCH COUNT THAT YOU CAN AFFORD. I THINK ONE PREVIOUS PERSON STATED THAT IT IS NOT TO HARD TO SPEND 20,30,40 THOUSAND ON A GOOD WALLEYE BOAT AND YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF TO GET THE REAL FACTS ON YOUR FISHFINDER BEFORE YOU PURCHASE. DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[s.f.]

good question. to clarify, the TOTAL vertical count has no bearing on resolution. it is only the count per vertical linear inch that effects resolution. the size or height, i should say, of that vertical edge of your screen just determines how big a viewing area you see.

hope all this helps studying and making new graph choices for you.

good luck!

steve fellegy
#49

[bobco]

I have got to wonder at what point is number of pixels in a 1 inch stack enough to allow for great resolution and anything more is a mute point. Maybe I'm trying to justify my lcx15-mt purchase , but 86 points(pixels) in a 1 in coloum is pertty darn fine resoultion! Those pixels on the 15 are pertty darn small, is 128 really needed? The genetron from what I can gather is a CRT unit, how is it in direct sunlight?,,,It must be a good unit if it is built in Fargo! I'm an old Jamestowner transplanted to warmer climate! What about this Furuno 600L Thom likes, anybody using it in shallow water?

[BRS1]

DICK,

MY APLOGIES IF I MISSED IT, BUT WHERE CAN I READ UP ON YOUR PRODUCTS?

I HAVE BEEN A HAPPY ZERCOM LPG OWNER BUT WANT TO LEARN A LITTLE MORE ABOUT GENETRON.

THANKS,

BRIAN

[GENETRON]

BRIAN. YOU CAN E-MAIL ME DIRECT AT (SONARS@JUNO.COM) SEND YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER,ETC. WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SEND YOU OR ANYONE ELSE INFORMATION. THANK YOU DICK KNUTSON GENETRON 701-298-0900

[GENETRON]

IN RESPONSE TO BOBCOS QUESTION ABOUT WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES TO VERTICAL PIXELS/DOTS PER LINEAR INCH. NEVER!!!!! WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL BRING OUR 128 EVEN HIGHER. WHY? EVEN BETTER SEPARATION, MORE DEFINITE IMAGES. FOR INSTANCE IN A PREVIOUS POST WE STATED THAT THE GENETRON CAN "SEE" WALLEYE LAYING ON THE BOTTOM AT 128. TWO OR THREE WALLEYE ARE JUST THAT, 2 OR THREE WALLEYES, NOT ONE BLOCK THAT LOOKS LIKE ONE FISH. WE WANT TO "PAINT " THE MOST ACCURATE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN FROM THE TRANSDUCER SIGNAL RETURN THAT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE. FOR INSTANCE IF THE FISHFINDER YOU USE IS MISSING WALLEYE LAYING ON THE BOTTOM IT COULD COST YOU A TON OF MONEY IN A TOURNAMENT. DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[Atomic Eye]

OK,

I can't stand it any more. I'll bite - a larger number of vertical pixels per inch of screen display will provide greater resolution for a given depth range. But, if one unit is able to expand that depth range more by, for example zooming in, don't we have more vertical pixels per inch of depth? Pixels per some unit of depth, not screen size right?

Isn't that the figure of merit we're really interested in? I don't give a hoot if I've got 1,800 vertical pixels per inch but it's smeared over 5,280' of depth. What I care about is how many of those little dots I see on the shallowest range I want to use so I've expanded the screen as much as I need to.

Please explain to me why the sonar unit manufacturers can't give us fisherman what we're actually looking for in resolution - that is pixels per inch of depth? If I've got a walleye sitting 2" off bottom in 15' of water, I'd like to know which sonar unit is going to resolve it, not how many pixels there are per vertical inch on the screen. Thanks.

Atomic Eye (New Mexico) -- "Gone Fission!" ~~~<}}}:>

[GENETRON]

ATOMIC EYE. I THINK I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FISHFINDER UNITS SIDE BY SIDE. ONE HAS 128 VERTICAL PER INCH COUNT THE OTHER HAS 86. NOW WE SET THE DEPTH ON EACH UNIT TO 20 FT. NOW WHEN WE ASK OURSELVES APPLES TO APPLES WHICH UNIT GIVES US THE BETTER RESOLUTION? THE ANSWER OBVIOUSLY IS THE UNIT THAT HAS 128. IN EVERY DEPTH SETTING APPLES TO APPLES THE UNIT THAT HAS 128 WINS THE RESOLUTION COMPETITION. ATOMIC EYE, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THESE POSTS IS TO COMPARE FISHFINDERS AGAINST EACH OTHER.
YOUR QUESTION, I THINK, ADDRESSES ANOTHER QUESTION AND THAT IS DEPTH AND WHAT EACH PIXEL/DOT REPRESENTS AS FAR AS DISTANCE REPRESENTED. NOW LET ME SAY THIS . THE RESOLUTION CAPABILITY DOES NOT CHANGE BUT THE COLUMN OF WATER IT REPRESENTS CAN CHANGE WHEN YOU CHANGE THE DEPTH. THEREFORE THE 128 STILL BEATS OUT THE 86 APPLES TO APPLES IN A GIVEN DEPTH WHEN IT COMES TO MEASURING THE DISTANCE EACH PIXEL/DOT REPRESENTS. THATS WHERE YOUR BRAIN COMES IN WHEN LOOKING AT YOUR OWN FISHFINDER WHEN YOU KNOW THE VERTICAL PER INCH COUNT, THE VERTICAL LENGTH IN INCHES, AND THE DEPTH CHOSEN, YOU CAN DO THE MATH. SO LETS DO AN EXAMPLE. THE TOTAL SCREEN VERTICAL SCREEN HEIGHT IS 1 INCH. THE DEPTH IS 128 FT. THE LINEAR INCH COUNT IS 128. EACH PIXEL/DOT NOW REPRESENTS 1 FT. RIGHT? NOW LETS DO THE 86 COUNT. IN ORDER TO DO THE MATH WE HAVE TO DIVIDE THE 128 BY 86. THIS COMES OUT TO 1.488 FT. PER DOT/PIXEL. THE 128 MACHINE BLOWS AWAY THE 86 UNIT WHEN IT COMES TO THE SMALLER DISTANCE EACH PIXEL/DOT REPRESENTS. THE 128 COUNT MACHINE HAS PHENOMENAL RESOLUTION COMPARED TO THE 86 COUNT MACHINE. DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[Atomic Eye]

Dick,

Thank you. You have answered precisely what I wanted. But, the sonar unit manufacturers do not express the resolution in pixels per unit of depth - that's my complaint!!

It's obvious that more pixels per inch between different units at a given depth gives increased resolution. Why can't manufacturers state what their pixels / unit of depth is at say 20' and 80' for example? That would answer the many questions I've seen on WC on the resolution of sonar units.

If you can goose them to do this, you'll do us a great big favor. Thanks. You & I are on the same sheet of music.

Atomic Eye (New Mexico) -- "Gone Fission!" ~~~<}}}:>

[Jay]

First, let me say that the Genetron is the best unit I've ever used and I hope to own one someday. Second, maybe I'm just slow and don't understand what resolution is but I still don't see how the TOTAL VERTICAL pixel count doesn't matter. I understand why a unit with a higher vertical pixel count per inch has better resolution than a lower count unit IF the screens are equal height. BUT....

Let me give you this example in nice round numbers for clarity.

Unit A has 100 vertical pixels per inch and a 2" high screen for a total of 200 vertical pixels. In 100' of water, each pixel represents .500 feet of depth.

Unit B has 75 vertical pixels per inch and a 4" high screen for a total of 300 vertical pixels. In 100' of water, each pixel represents .334 feet of depth.

Doesn't Unit B, with the higher total vertical count (300 vs 200) but lower count per inch (75 vs 100) have better resolution than Unit A? Isn't the TOTAL vertical count still the most important resolution factor because there are more pixels to divide into a given depth of water?

Am I out in left field on this one?

[KP]

So the thickness of the line or arch I see is an accurate representation of the size of the fish? I'm setting you up here Genetron and can't wait to see the answer.

[G.W.]

I have a question with all this talk about verticle pixels and resolution. Just want to compare the old Lowrance X85 to the new X91.
Now since the screen sized increased fom 3.3" to 5" but your pixels remained the same would your resolution now be less on the X91?

[Brewhunter]

Jay,

Ever look at a big rear projection screen TV up close? Big blocks of three colors, fuzzy resolution until you get back about ten feet. Compare the big screen TV to a smaller 13" TV, the small one up close has a crisper image. I use this example because the TV signal, no matter how big a screen you have, is cut into the same number of lines.

More pixels per inch gives better resolution (crisp image) you could see the same amount of information with less pixels per inch and a larger screen but is will be blocks stacked on each other instead of smooth curves.


KDS

[bobco]

be carefull, I thing the X-85 was measured side to side the X-91 measusrement is on the diagonal.

[bobco]

I'm sorry Dick but I do not buy it, at some point the resoultion of more pixels does become a mute point for a given size screen, your eye will not be able to discern the differnece. I'm glad that you are striving to make a better product but the screen is not the only thing that matters. By the way is the Genetron a CRT? and how is its clairity in direct sunlight? I'm not trying to bash your product I just want an answer to a previously asked question.

[RANGER]

Jay,

You're NOT in left field, just slightly left of center. You're on the right track but haven't arrived yet!

I have been watching this thread with great interest because I am going to buy a unit this year, for sure, and I don't want to make any mistakes! You are correct in that the verticle count, be it inches or pixels, has a lot to do with interruptation of what is below the boat in the total water column top to bottom. But, you were just shy of dead center and I hope I can help here:

In your example apples and apples were not exact. Unit 'A' was 2" high and 'B' was 4". Let's get them both in perspective and we might see the differences. Using the same example:

'A' - 200 verticle pixels per inch on a 2" screen would equate to 400 verticle pixels on a 4" screen. So, having said that - 400 pixels of resolution divided by 4" of screen (i.e. 25 ft of depth per inch viewed on the screen) equals 100 pixels of resolution per inch (25 ft) of verticle screen displayed. Now to find out how many pixels are needed to display 1 foot of depth - 100 pix/25 ft = 4 pixels per foot. Said another way - you have 3" target separation at 100 ft.

Now for the 'B' side:

'B' 75 verticle pixels per inch on 4" screen = 300 pixels viewed. 300 pixels divided by 4" of screen equals 75 pixels of resolution per inch of verticle screen (25 ft) divided 75 pixels by 25 ft and you get 3 pixels per ft. Again - this is 4" target separation at 100 ft. This is a reduction in resolution of 25% for 'B'!

Conversely, if you calculated for 75 pix per inch (like the original example) it would work out to the same loss of resolution, or 25%.

Now, for GENETRON, in example 'A' - 128 pixels (instead of the 100 we calculated) per inch divided by 25 ft = 5.12 pixels per ft or 2.34 inches of target separation - 22% better than 'A' and 42% better than 'B'!

I hope this helps you. I keep working to make sense of it all, too!

[Jay]

I agree that Unit A in my example (100 pixels/inch) would have better separation than Unit B (75 pixels/inch) IF they had the same size screen. But I think you missed my point. In my example Unit B has a larger screen and therefore a higher total pixel count (vertical count....horizontal means nothing), so there are more pixels to divide into a given depth of water.

My point is that a unit with a higher TOTAL vertical pixel count should have better target separation (all other factors being equal - power, cone angle, etc). A high count PER INCH doesn't mean much if the screen is small and consequently has fewer total pixels to represent each foot of water.

As I said before I think the Genetron is the best on the market, but this discussion has nothing to do with Genetron. I'm simply trying to make sense of sonar theory in general.

[Jay]

I don't know anything about TV technology so I don't know if that applies or not. I believe what you are referring to is sharpness or clarity of the picture and not target separation, which is a separate issue. 400 vertical pixels on a 3 inch screen may look sharper and clearer than 400 on a 6 inch screen, but it doesn't show you any more information. 400 pixels is 400 pixels - no matter how big the screen is. Smaller may look clearer but there are still only 400 pixels to represent a given water depth.

This makes sense in my head but putting it into words isn't easy. Glad I don't have to write user manuals. haha

[GENETRON]

IN RESPONSE TO BOBCOS QUESTION. THE GENETRON IS A CRT. UNLIKE A COLOR CRT THAT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT IN AN OPEN BOAT THE GENETRON IS A MONOCHROME CRT USING A GREEN PHOSPHOR THAT IS EASILY READ IN DIRECT SUNLIGHT. BOBCO ,I AM SHORT ON TIME BUT I THINK IF YOU READ SOME OF THE OTHER POSTS YOU SHOULD ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ISSUES REGARDING RESOLUTION. IF YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND I WILL COME BACK AT YOU IN A FUTURE POST. THANKS, AND REMEMBER ALL QUESTIONS ARE GOOD QUESTIONS!! DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[RANGER]

Jay,

I see exactly what you are saying and have said, previously. Maybe it is because I have been too close to these technologies for too many years (communications/telecommunications) and I end up assumimg things I shouldn't.

Maybe this will help: You are 100% correct in saying that the more pixels per inch the greater the resolution BUT the same resolution on a smaller screen is LESS perceived to the human eye, therefore the resolution is lost - and the is Exactly right!! The rub comes when you throw in the other, required, aspect of this whole discussion that no one has introduced, specifically.

Brewhunter was headed in that direction but didn't quite get there either. The other variance we need to include is something referred to as HORIZONTAL resolution. Each and every screen you see, whether it is your TV at home or the graph on your boat has a limitation as to how much info can be projected onto that surface at any given time. As an industry, we are striving to remove those limitations but, for now, it can't be done.

What I am saying here is this: If you have a pixel resolution of 100 pixels per inch on a 4" screen that is the LIMITATIONS of the technology for that device and the industry in general. You can't take that technology and extrapolate it to fit, say, a 30" screen. It can't be done! Nor can you stretch it to a 5" screen. You just can't add another "horizontzl resolution" aspect to this device - NOT EVEN 101 pixels per inch. That one extra pixel could cost the industry 40 times its worth and not perceive any increase in value.

Let me try to 'splain it in Televisions, and I'm not going to talk digital, that would take us away from the concept by confusing it.

Your TV at home (assume it is a "regular" TV that you buy at Wal-Mart) has 525 horizontal lines of resolution on that tube - period! Be it a 13" set or a 52" YOU STILL HAVE 525 LINES - period. That is the maximum limit of the "color guns" in the rear of that tube to be able to refresh that picture at 28 (I think) times per second. It just can't go any faster!

If you were to take the 525 lines and convert them to the graph that would equate to 525 pixels per screen - 131.25 pixels per inch on the 4" screen. That is the limit. For the most part TVs are an analog technology (for now) but graphs are digital. The principles are essentially the same - You can't put 3 lbs of coffee in a 2 lb can.

That is the bottom line. The industry is always looking to change this and make it better, which they do but these SONAR units are at the leading edge of their technology, in the higher end units, AT THIS PLACE IN TIME.

Whew!! I hope this helps this time.

Just as an aside - the new digital HDTVs have a HORIZONTAL resolution of 1200 (I'm pretty sure) lines per screen, whether it is 13" or 76"! The amount of money that has been spent to get a TV to 1200 lines from 525 has been phenominal! Billions and Billions and Billions and.........! And you won't see 1201 lines in your lifetime even if you were a teenager!! That's a fact!

Please understand I am not trying to insult your intelligence here, just trying to help.

[KP]

I'm still waiting for Genetron to answer my earlier question. Even though he and I both know I already know the answer.

Screen resolution and pixels have very little, if anything, to do with measurement under your boat. Cone angle and where the target enters and leaves the cone angle throws that theory, or sales pitch, out the window. If you have two or three targets within inches of eachother or the bottom, where they are in your cone angle and how they're positioned will determine IF ANY sonar can differenciate between them. ANY SONAR! (Sorry for yelling but this sales pitch is pissing me off) It doesn't matter if you have 1000 or 100,000 pixels, dots scans, etc.

I own, IMO, a very good CRT and a very good LCD. I use both on my boat. The CRT definitely has better resolution but does not have the current technology or adjustability of my LCD. My LCD is the better overall sonar. But how could that be? My CRT has more resolution, pixels, dots, scans. Resolution has it's importance. But it has nothing to do with total defined or accurate measurement.

There are lots of high resolution sonars out there that a pure junk and can't even read a weed line properly. I fell into the trap and owned a couple. There are lots of lower resolution sonars out there that are outstanding. The choice is what you like, want, or value in another users experience. You want more detail? Use your zoom. Does that ultimately you'll see more accurate target info? Not always.

Genetron sonars could be the best in the world but I hope it's not only because of what they're spokesman, salesman, states in this thread. I'm sure Genetron the person is a fine individual and this is not meant to be a personal attack. Lets just get all the facts.

[Jay]

Ranger, I appreciate your input on this. I have no idea what technology is capable of now or in the future and maybe the numbers in my examples are off base, but I'm just trying to get a handle on sonar theory as far as pixel count goes.

It was stated by Steve and Dick in earlier posts that the total vertical pixel count has no bearing on resolution - only the count per inch. Maybe I'm not clear on exactly what "resolution" is. My contention is simply that the more total vertical pixels a unit has, the better the target separation should be as there are more pixels to divide into "X" feet of water.

Example in 100' of water: A screen with 400 total vertical pixels has 4 pixels per foot (3" each) and a screen with 300 total vertical pixels has 3 pixels per foot (4" each). It makes no difference how many pixels per inch there are on the screen, it's the TOTAL number that's divided among 100 feet of water.

I apologize if I'm beating this to death - it's just very interesting to me. Any more feedback from Steve or Dick on this?

[Jay]

Please refer to my earlier post #33. I also agree with KP about cone angles, etc. being a big part of the sonar puzzle, but I'm just trying to solve this vertical pixel count mystery first.

[GENETRON]

WELL WE ARE TRYING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS FAST AS THEY COME. FIRST LETS TAKE RANGERS OBSERVATIONS.RANGER IS RIGHT ,AS WE STATED IN A PREVIOUS POST, THAT WE ARE NOW ON THE CUTTING EDGE, THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE THAT WE KNOW OF THAT CAN GET US BETTER RESOLUTION. TOMORROW I WILL PROBABLY LEARN DIFFERENT THAT IS HOW FAST SOME OF THESE THINGS GO. I ALSO THINK THAT WE ARE FORGETTING THAT THE BRAIN(CPU)IN THE FISHFINDER IS PROGRAMED TO "KNOW" WHAT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SCREEN IS. THE BRAIN HAS TO "KNOW" WHAT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE DISPLAY IS IN ORDER TO "FILL" THE SCREEN. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS THE DISPLAY HAS TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO HANDLE A HIGH RESOLUTION INPUT FROM THE BRAIN. THE BRAIN(CPU) IS PREPROGRAMED WITH LOTS OF VERY COMPLICATED MATHAMATICAL EQUATIONS TO DO ALL OF THIS WORK. THE SPEED AT WHICH THESE CHIPS OPERATE IS ALSO A FACTOR. NOW TO KPS QUESTION. THE ATTITUDE OF THE FISH IN THE CONE ANGLE IS VERY IMPORTANT AS TO WHAT THE TRANSDUCER "SEES". HOWEVER BECAUSE THE GENETRON WORKS IN THE AIR AS WELL AS IN THE WATER WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO A LOT OF EXPERIMENTS "IN HOUSE". SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON THE ATTITUDE OF THE TARGET IN THE CONE ANGLE YOU CAN TELL THE THICKNESS OF THE TARGET. REMEMBER I SAID SOMETIMES!!!IS THE TARGET MOVING,ETC? SOMETIMES YOU CAN ALSO TELL WHERE THE TARGET IS IN THE CONE ANGLE AS WELL.THE NUMBER OF LEVELS OF QUANTIZATION PLAYS A ROLE HERE ALSO. KP I AM SORRY THAT YOU ARE BECOMING UPSET, BUT I MUST TELL YOU THAT MOST OF THE INFOMATION WE ARE SHARING WITH YOU IS READILY AVAILABLE IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF MANY UNIVERSITIES. DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[RANGER]

Maybe I can shead more light on this and it goes to semantics.

In this industry pixel resolution has ALWAYS been referred to as "pixels PER INCH" - period. So, if you said that a certain resolution is 200 pixels it MEANT 200 pixels square - 200 by 200 pixels, that translates to 40,000 pixels (200 X 200) in ONE SQUARE INCH of screen. This has been the industry standard forever, until recently!

Taking the example we have been kicking around. Let's say this screen is 4" high by 5" wide. It is listed at 200 verticle pixcels. How the he11 do you calculate the density of the resolution for this screen and one you are comparing it to?? Do you ASSUME that the 5" side is equal density (i.e. 200/4" = 50 per inch) and, therefore, the 5' side would be 250? You CAN'T! BUT......let's ASSUME that it is so the total pixel resolution should be 50,000 (200 x 250)!

In the previous life of "pixels", when they were measured per inch, let's calculate the density of this scenerio: 200 pixels per inch ((200 x 200pixels)20 sq in. for the screen)) the density of resolution would be 800,000 pixels !! THEY'RE NOT THE SAME - period!

I am an Engineer, and as sure as I am typing this someone will get "Torqued" and argue the fact..BUT....... as a selling ploy or a Marketing device the manufacturers' skewed the facts into "Marketable Language"! Going from "per inch" resolutions to "per verticle" over so many inches!! This, frankly, is BS - big time! The new, bigger, screens that are possible in SONAR technology today didn't lend themselves to technology, therefore, we get "Verticle Pixels"! This was done, I'm sure, to one-up the competition and after one started it the rest didn't want to be left out and came into lock-step! They are NOT THE SAME - PERIOD!!

Just to prove what I am saying, BOATUS has a catalog for marine equipment. Because they are technically oriented, when they list a SONAR device they list the verticle pixels AND the pixels per inch!! WHY?? Because they probably got ten thousand calls the first time BOATUS published a catalog with just the verticle pixels in the description (actually, these folks are astute, and most likely saw a revolt in the offing and changed it prior to any publication)!

Second example - Have you noticed that a number of manufacturers' no longer list screen sizes by - vert x horz? They are "diagonal" measurements so you can't, actual, get the square inch measurement of the screen. Funny??

[KP]

Better look harder at the current Boat US catalog Ranger. Most, not all, but most list the screen dimension.

And again, your talking resolution or clarity. Not how it translates to physical measurment under a boat. I'm an engineer too. Big deal. That doesn't give me any more credibility than the guy who has been using sonars since the Green Box, which was my first sonar.

[Jay]

Maybe we are talking about two separate things. You are talking about resolution or clarity and I'm referring to target separation. Target separation has nothing to do with horizontal count or pixels per SQUARE inch. The more total vertical pixels on the screen in the first single row (which is the only row that prints new information, the rest is a history of what's recorded), the more pixels there are per foot of water and thus, the better target separation you have. This of course is with all other factors being equal.

This issue has become clouded with discussions on clarity and the limitations of technology. I'm only trying to focus on the statements by Steve and Dick about how total vertical pixels have no bearing on resolution and only vertical pixels per inch matter. If by "resolution" they mean clarity then I agree, but a higher total vertical pixel count should give better target separation and detail, which is more important to me as a fisherman than clarity.

Sorry if I have misinterpreted the term resolution to mean target separation.

[Marble Eyes]

What are you folks opinion of the Lowrance X-85 or X-91? Is it worth the 5 bills you have to lay out for it?

[Jay]

Haven't used an X91 but I think the X85 is an excellent unit for the price. They're a non-current model so you should be able to find one for a lot less than 5 bills too.

[Marble Eyes]

Thanks Jay, BPS has the 85 for 399, and Cabelas has the 91 for 489.

[KP]

Genetron, we're talking sonar not radar. I'm aware how some sonars with exceptional processing can work in mid air. If a Genetron can do that, it certainly is in the upper class of sonars. But it's still based on a pulse...a ping...not microwave like radar. Stationary fish can appear as a stright line under a stationary boat. Fish can also appear on the screen with the classic arch we're all used to seeing. On a Genetron sonar, does that mean the fish is bent almost in half? Your statements would assume that. But no, the fish is moving in and out of the cone angle. The pulse coming out of the transducer spreads, changes, and bends as water density changes within the cone angle. Not all natual water is the same even within a few feet. Are you trying to say that Genetron sonars sample water density as part of it's processing function? Sounds like the technology exceeds that of our military. If the CPU processes the actual screens field of vision, do all fish on a Genetron screen appear as a straight line? Why not the actual shape of a fish? If the CPU can do what you say it can, it should be able to display my smiling face under water.

Again, I'm not trying to bash the product you and Ranger are so diligently pitching. I'm sure there are aspects of Genetron sonars that are a cut above the rest. But don't try to tell people it can exceed the priciples of sonar technology itself.

However, on another but similar note. You mention an aspect of the CRT that permits vision in direct sunlight. That's the main thing I don't like about my CRT now. I have to use this Star Trek type viewer to read the screen on a sunny day. That's something that would help to convince me to go back to beloved CRT displays as my main sonar. What is the depth of the Genetron case?

[KP]

You haven't misinterpreted anything Jay. I'm trying to clarify how complex target separation really is now matter how many verticle pixels a display has. The appearence of two inches in relation to number of pixels could be two feet depending on the location of the signal return in relation to cone angle. I'm forcing some issues here because they are so often incorrectly stated. I'd hate to see someone buy a product expecting it can do something it can't to any degree of guaranteed accurracy.

[KP]

From what I have seen on other boats, not experienced on mine, yes.

[Jim Ordway]

Wow, what a timely and interesting post. OK, you measure your screen top to bottom and divide that in to your pixel count= pixels/inch. That being the case, a 480 pixel count/5"screen = 96pixel/inch??
On the surface, the X15 at 480 and x16 at 640 should be great resolution. What am I missing? Also, does the zoom effective concentrate the original 480 pixel count in the bottom 1" giving 480 pixel/inch or is the 86? or whatever number earlier mentioned the limit to LCD capability?
We've gotten a lot of technical info here, but can we break it down to this issue?
Thanks in advance,

[Jay]

Jim, I believe the 480/x15 and 640/x16 numbers you are referring to are the horizontal pixels. The vertical pixels are 350 for the x15 and 480 for the x16.

Anyway, I agree that there is a lot of interesting technical information on this thread now, but I too just want to get down to the basic issue of vertical pixel count. Specifically how vertical pixel count per inch vs. total vertical pixel count relates to target separation and picking a fish off the bottom. I can't seem to get a straight answer.

By the way, using the zoom just concentrates your total vertical pixels into a smaller unit of water. 480 total pix in 100 ft equals 2.5 inches per pixel, but using a 10' zoom window it equals .25 inches per pixel. The pixels per inch on the screen never changes.

[GENETRON]

KP. YES THE GENETRON WORKS VERY WELL IN THE AIR. OBVIOUSLY NOT AS GOOD AS RADAR BUT ON THE SAME PRINCIPAL. THE GENETRONS SIGNAL CAN ONLY GO ABOUT 1200 FT. PER SECOND IN AIR, VERSUS THE SPEED OF LIGHT FOR RADAR. IN WATER HOWEVER THE SPEED OF SOUND INCREASES TO 4800 FT. PER SECOND SO WE REALLY SHINE THERE.HA HA. YES WE SEND OUT A "PING" AND WE GET A RETURN JUST LIKE RADAR. MUCH SLOWER HOWEVER. WHEN WE USED TO GO TO SPORTSHOWS WE ALWAYS USED A LIVE TRANSDUCER TO DEMONSTRATE THE GENETRON. WE COULD SHOOT THE CEILING ,THE FLOOR, COUNT PEOPLE PASSING BY IN THE AISLES. PEOPLE USED TO THROW QUARTERS IN THE CONE ANGLE SEEING IF THEY COULD TRICK THE MACHINE, THEY COULDN'T. ALL THIS BEING DONE AT 15 WATTS BY THE WAY. YOUR RIGHT THAT A FISH THAT IS STATIONARY AND THE BOAT IS STATIONARY WILL DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS THE SCREEN. IF THE BOAT IS MOVING AND THE FISH IS SUSPENDED WILL GENERALLY SHOW AN ARCH ON THE SCREEN. IF THE FISH ARE MOVING THEY WILL DRAW SQUIGGLE LINES ON THE SCREEN. WE CALL THESE "STREAKERS". I WILL WAIT TO POST MORE ANSWERS BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO OUT TO DINNER. KEEP THE QUESTIONS COMING. OH THE GENETRON IS 8X8X8 DICK KNUTSON GENETRON

[Atomic Eye]

When I started this semi-war on resolution in post #20 above, I asked a simple question. Can someone tell me if it has been answered? Why don't manufacturers give us a figure of merit so we can do apples to apples comparisons.

Why can't they simply state that "our sonar unit has X pixels per foot at, for example, 25' depth? Then, a prospective buyer can do side by side comparisons if that kind of resolution is perceived to be important.

There's a lot of good discussion in this thread about what does what we see on our flat, 2- dimensional screen (y-axis = apparent depth, x-axis = time upon entering cone)translate into the 4-dimensions (depth, distance to the front of the cone, distance to the sides of the cone, and time entering the cone). This is a fairly complex interpretation that I try to maintain awareness of when I'm staring at my PinPoint's screen.

Can I suggest that how a person does this interpretation is a great deal more important than minor differences in whatever the heck "resolution" is? When I see some of the weird signals on my screen, I'm trying to understand "are these fish going deeper, off to the side, or both because of my boat?" Simultaneous side scanning sonar would probably tell me that. While I enjoy my technology, sometimes I long for the "Shut up & fish" old days.

Atomic Eye (New Mexico) -- "Gone Fission!" ~~~<}}}:>

[EsoxProSport]

SOme great,then confusing, followed by great information here. I am currently looking at the Lowrance X71 or X91 Myself. Is there any other units in an affordable Price Range..lets say Below $450.. that you guys feel have a great combination of the technical mumbo jumbo mentioned above in relation to price? This being a Walleye Board, I am specifically looking for a fishfinder that would find Walleye Best.. SPring Jiggin Bottom Huggers (target separation near lake bottom comes into play), Suspended Summer, and Scattered Fall Walleye. Lots of fishfinders advertise how deep they read, some up to 1200 feet. I really do not care, I typically fish Walleye less than 50 feet and seldom visit areas or lakes in general over 100 feet deep. Another Aspect is power(often described in Watts) How do I know how many "Watts" I need? The 2 Mentioned units, X71 and X91 Differ internally, not physically. I am also open to others.

Now to open another can of worms.. Some of the Units (Lowrance in Particular) Have Built in "Flashers" ALso. Can the Built in Flashers offer advantages over the Standard Screen Mode.. Target Separation, Pixels, etc. I know they offer more of an INSTANT REturn,

[RANGER]

That's fine - re-read what I stated. I'm DONE! You can grace us with your understanding.

n/m

[KP]

There are many good sonars in the $450 range that will put you on the fish. The X-71 and 91 are certainly two of them from what I have seen and read. Power rating can be deceiving vs. a sonars sensitivity capability which is really an important factor but hard to put on paper. For the depths your fishing, power isn't ultimately critical. My sonar has 1000 watts RMS but I adjust it down between 100 to 400 watts most of the time. There are a lot of satisfied X-71 and 91 owners as well as satisfied owners of Garmin, Furno, etc. I'm not going to recommend one over the other. I don't have enough personal experience to. I will say I ultimately prefer CRT display sonars like the Genetrons, Si-Tex, etc. but can't personally justify the cash when I'm finding and catching fish with what I have.

The issue of pixels and resolution, pixels at a certain depth, pixels and how it does or doesn't relate to a measurement is pretty much dead. It should be. It's not as important as the manufacturers of $1,800 sonars want you to think it is. So A-holes like me counter the pitch and maybe further confuse a confusing issue. Sonars put you on the fish. That's what we all want. I would hope an $1,800 sonar will do it better than a $400 sonar. But that's decided and justified by the individual buying and using the tool.

[Fishingdog]

I have been sitting back watching this thread and have come to the conclusion that KP has really offered nothing much of technical value except for his opinion here. I too am an engineer and have been using locators since the green box, if that has any relevance, since it did seem to earlier, and for one to say that vertical pixels has no relevance is lost.

The number of pixels per vertical inch only matters in relation to the area of depth that it covers and the sonar's ability to process the area found within the area of that image of 1" on the screen. Vertical pixels mean nothing since if sonar "A" has 200 vertical pixels and sonar "B" has 400 vertical pixels with the same size screen, reading from the top of the water to the bottom in 20', the "B" sonar shows higher resolution. If "A" can be zoomed down to a 10X level, that would mean that only the bottom 2' would be displayed on the sonar and with 200 pixels, it would take 100 pixels to cover the area of 1'. Every pixel then is measuring in an increment of 1/100th of a foot which provides a higher resolution than sonar "B" with 400 vertical pixels at a zoom of 4X . If "B" was zoomed at 5X then each unit would be equal.

As for determining the size of the fish, there is some relevance to the depth of the image which has to do with density of the signal. When fish are picked up on the bottom (lets say 1" from belly to dirt), on the outside edge of the cone angle, there is no sonar that will provide separation from the bottom since it is farther to the edge of the cone angle than straight down to the bottom. Of course that will depend on the depth that the unit is reading since the cone is wider as it gets deeper. The fishes' air bladder does provide some variance in echo and will be displayed distorted compared to a smooth bottom.

It all boils down to the power of the processor to be able to process the signal at a high rate of speed and show the image on the display.

[s.f.]

i would have never beleived this would have gone this far but for the ones that want top learn, this is a good depth to reach and even deeper within the tech world od fishfinders.

let's address one thing in reference to #52 and one scenario you use. you mention "1 inch from belley to dirt" i think.

a couple years ago, after an extensive series of conversations about graphs and their capabilties at sportshows, i took the boat out, loaded with 7 different graphs, to test each unit's ability to pick up fish/ relative to distance off bottem. i wanted to end my curiosity once and for all and be able to discuss this with factual, firsthand experience. genetron had always said one could pick up a car key on the bottem. so i thought i would use that standard to do the test. the lake was glass calm. i anchored on a soft muddy bottem in 28ft. of water. i tied the key on so it was horizontal in the water. i put it down first with the genetron running. it went down right off the back corner of the boat directly below the transducer. i made sure it swung back straight down as we all know it probably glided off to the side at first. i made it so the line was exactly taut at the same exact time that the rod was lying against the top surface of the gunwail. then i took a tape measure and pulled 12 inches out and held it next to the rod,at right angles, with the bottem end tight on the gunwail. slowly, watching MY screen, i raised the rod up off the gunwail, therefore the key off the bottem.
the rod moved 1 ich and i had what appeared as a "nice mark" going across the screen. that just confirmed what i already knew. when fish were on the bottem, truly tight to the bottem, i couldn't miss'em. so now...i, individually, did the same procedure with the 7 other units. six liquid crystals and one flasher. they all were almost the same in this separation test. ALL never showed the key until the rod walked up the tape measure at least nine inches. the worst was 12 inches. that was the flasher. all (20 degree cone angle units) five were within fractions of ten inches either way. all about 75 percnt power.

so what's this all about? technically speaking, i won't try to 'splain. dick can do that if he chooses. but in every day terms, all i know is, if the walleyes are TRULY on the bottem, most units won't show them. bare ground.
what we all view as fish on the screen, tight on the bottem, are most likely, in fact, off at least 9 inches or more. with the exception of the walleye size class i have on the wall, they can, if they choose to do so, live out of sight of the depthfinder world unless...

gotta leave for a show today. IF anybody wants to hear more, i'll be back to the walleyes on the net late tonight.

#49

[ANXIOUS]

I HAVE ALSO WONDERED THAT MYSELF,SINCE A FISH COMING IN FROM THE SIDE WILL SHOW UP DEEPER AT THE EDGE OF THE CONE THAN IT WILL AT THE CENTER OF THE CONE. IS THAT WHY WHEN I WATCH MY FLASHER SOMETIMES IT LOOKS LIKE A FISH COMES UP OFF THE BOTTOM TO CHECK MY BAIT,BUT ACTUALLY HE MAY BE COMING FROM THE SIDE AND ONLY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ON BOTTOM(DEPENDING ON WHERE I HAVE MY BAIT SITUATED. OH AND BY THE WAY, WHY HAS EVERYONE ABANDONED FLASHERS?

[Chris]

SF,..perhaps I'm missing something in your test. I just used a Zercom LPG 2000 on the ice and did somewhat the same. I had my jig right on the bottom and took up all slack on the line. On the bottomlock mode I watched my jig not only move immediatly off the bottom (BTW it certainly looked like real time to me as I was using the high speed chart speed mode) Did I notice it 1 " off the bottom? Frankly I wasn't measuring that. What I did see that moving the rod tip about a foot showed up on the bottom lock zoom made big "mountains" that took up a lot of the screen.I could see very small twitching of the rod and it even showed the algae mat that was on the bottom kick up some debris and then settle down. (I have an Aqua-vu to play with too) I'm not sure I need much more sensitivity and definition than that (?) Hard to imagine I would miss a fish with this,..
Now being kinda new to walleye fishing,...how often do walleyes hung 1 inch to the bottom? Is it often? and when they do,..are they considered active? I once saw in deep water in the summer what was described to me to me by much more experienced walleye fishermen as suspended walleyes (summer, mid day) No matter what I threw at them I couldn't get any response (the guys told me it was generally futile to try for them as they were inactive at this time and depth. So is it important to have to see wallys that tight to the bottom anyway? ( I don't know I'm asking to learn here)

[EsoxProSport]

One Of the reasons I added in the Question about "Flasher Mode" on the LCD units relates to my Ice Fishing. I have a Vexilar Flasher and It works fantastic on ice. There is a new Unit...FL18 that has a bottom lock and zoom that would work better on a boat. The problem is you always need to pay attention to a flasher or you will miss something. Others on the boat do not need a lesson when looking at an LCD. A LCD makes more sense for all around use, but If the Flasher Mode works like MY Vexilar Now that would be cool. The Zercom(now Humminbird owned) LPG units sound like they combine both. DO you have it console mounted or Bow Mounted. I may be interested if the trolling motor transducer is not HUGE.

[fisherman]

I've always known that Genetron was the best unit. I Also know that I cannot afford one. I liked S.F's test on the water with the different units-it tells me that a lot of companies are not telling us what we actually need to know and that they are pretty much the same when it comes to showing fish close to bottom. After archiving the last few days I am going with the Vexilar Edge, MK Autopilot w/ uni sonar and probably a Garmin 240. Should eliminate any interference between transducers, and still give me a pretty good look at what's below. Want a stand-alone GPS, but haven't gotton that far yet. Gotta total this all up to see where budget is.

[KP]

Please refer me to my post where I say "verticle pixles has no relevence." I've been stating it is not the ONLY factor of a good sonar. All the verticle pixels in the world will not overcome a poor microprocessor or limited sensitivity control. I've been saying there has to be a balance in design.

My statement about being an engineer was only because another poster said he was an engineer eluding to the fact he must know what he's talking about. I didn't agree with the importance of being an engineer. Having years of experience through the evolution of many various sonars like alot guys on this site has more credibility. Beyond that, I agree with everything else you stated.

SF's test with a key? I've got a 1987 vintage Interphase 20/20 CRT sonar that will display the slightest jigging of a minnow laying on the bottom. IF the sensitivity is adjusted properly. My current Interphase LCD will do the same thing, only better. And it has a terrible verticle pixle count compared to similar priced LCD's. But it's a very good overall sonar.

I didn't mention what I owned before because I felt that didn't have any relevence to the overall discussion about verticle pixles. I have no personal gain from it vs. others who have provided they're technicle input or opinions. I highly recommend Interphase sonars but they're not the only good sonar on the market.