Notices

Thom...right again!

Old 07-19-2004, 08:51 AM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Skaneateles, New York
Posts: 5,483
Default Thom...right again!

Thom...on a earlier thread you suggested PIXEL count doesn't matter. He is what I got back from Garmin (I sent them your post in total).

Thank you for contacting Garmin International,
I can help you with this. The difference between our fish finders in signal
strength from the transducers is not going to be a difference. All of our
transducers and sounders are the same. So if you are talking about the
return on the screen there will be no difference in what you see. The
picture will be clearer and look better with the higher pixel count and the
different colored screens we have. I know it is a old saying but comparing
color to black and white is like night and day. I would suggest looking at
the new 250 series. It comes in black and white or a colored version. If you
go onto the web link that I have provides it will give you all the
specification for those units. Thanks for contacting us at Garmin and have a
great day.
http://www.garmin.com/products/ff250c/

Best Regards,

Bryan Wink
Product Support Specialist
GARMIN International
PH# 800.800.1020
FX# 913.397.8282
www.GARMIN.com




Mumblerone is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 09:12 AM
  #2  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Mumblerone - 7/19/2004 8:51 AM

Thom...on a earlier thread you suggested PIXEL count doesn't matter.

The picture will be clearer and look better with the higher pixel count and the different colored screens we have.

Did I miss something? These contradict each other.
Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 09:51 AM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Skaneateles, New York
Posts: 5,483
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Sea_Dad...I think what Thom was saying is that there is no more information; just a 'prettier' PICTURE. I think that is what Garmin is saying also. Maybe I got it wrong; did not re-review Thom's post.
Mumblerone is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 09:54 AM
  #4  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

well it's all in the level of detail.

If you have two small fish close together and sound on them. A lower resolution display will show them as one single fish. A higher resolution display will show them as 2 distinct fish.

Resolution (pixel count) is indeed important.
Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 10:00 AM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brookhaven, LI, NY
Posts: 15,755
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Mumblerone - 7/19/2004 10:51 AM

Sea_Dad...I think what Thom was saying is that there is no more information; just a 'prettier' PICTURE. I think that is what Garmin is saying also. Maybe I got it wrong; did not re-review Thom's post.
You got it. The picture will be clearer, but the same info will be displayed. Think of it in terms of your computer screen. If you have a 15" monitor set to 640 x 480 dots per inch and you view this thread, you can read and see everything just fine. Then switch your monitor to 1020x720 dots per inch and view the same thread. You can still read the same info, but it will be clearer, easier to read. The letters will be crisper as opposed to them being jagged.... but the lettter F will be the letter F on both settings. Same goes for the FF, a fish return will be a blip on both, but the one with a higher resolution will look clearer.
Birdman is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 11:08 AM
  #6  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

thats only part of the story.

The number of blips a unit can detect in a vertical column (quantization levels) does change from unit to unit to match the screens resolution in most cases. You are assuming the receiver only has enough quantization levels to paint 50 distinct pixels, each representing a different return blip. And that if it can only detect 50 blips it does no good to paint them on a screen of 100 pixels.

He did not answer the critical question. What is the quantization levels between the different receivers, or how many blips can they detect in a vertical column? What he answered was strictly that the power output and receiver sensitivity was the same from unit to unit. Not how many blips it could detect in a vertical column.

Does that make more sense?

Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 02:21 PM
  #7  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 3,877
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Actually as I recall my original comment (and my ability to recall anything at all is slipping fast) it was really in response to something someone else had said. I didn't think I explained what I was trying to say very clearly then, and might not now either, but let me try it again.

Let's say that you are out there in 200 feet of water and you have a Garmin 240 and a Garmin 160 looking for fish. Let's also say that there are a couple of small fish down there, off the bottom in open water.

The Garmin 240 has a vertical pixel count of 240 and the model 160 has a vertical count of 160, no suprise there. If we took our 200 feet of depth and divided it by 240 we'd find that each pixel would be able to represent just slightly less than 10 inches of the water column. A Garmin 160, with its fewer pixels, in the same water would have each pixel able to represent about 15 inches of water.

The post I was responding to, as I recall it, said that the fellow didn't think that either fishfinder would show a fish that was less than 10 inches tall and that the 160 wouldn't show a fish that was any less than 15 inches tall. Well, that's just not true. As long as the fish was capable of giving a sound reflection the machine was capable of displaying each of them would have lit up one pixel, its just that the 240, with its smaller dots on the screen would have shown a more distinct image than its blockier little sister. Where the real question comes up is what happens if you have a school of small fish, a bait pod if you like, and you were looking at it from each machine. The machine with the finer resolution may be able to distinguish individual fish whereas the machine with the coarser resolution might just show one big blob of a return. Well, is it really important? Not to me it isn't, but if I were a reef fisherman in south Florida trying to distinguish between a good Grooper and a couple of small bait fish swarming around it sure would matter to me.

Thom
Thom is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 03:02 PM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Now that I agree with completely. Pixels may not matter to you, but they definitely do to me and everyone else down here. Glad the horse stood up and spoke.

This is at 250' yet you can see 2 fish holding right next to each other vertically rather than a single fish. And these are bruisers too, that cone is 50' high. The 2 vertical ones to the right of the cone are easy to distinguish, but look at the ones just above the cone. You wont be detecting them with 160 pixels as 2 fish.



Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 07:49 PM
  #9  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 663
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Using Sea_Dads example: wouldn't a lower pixel FF (we can stick with the Garmin 160) pick up those 2 fish if it used the zoom function since it wouldn't be wasting pixels on the top of the water column? Obviously there would have to be some depth difference between the fish or they'd show as one fish on any FF regardless of pixels.
Oh, and any Grouper fisherman would drop on a blob that shows up on their FF on the Gulf coast cause their aren't usually pods of bait that low... either big grouper or a bunch of snapper (0k, maybe sharks and jewfish too).

Chris
In Too Deep is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 08:38 PM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CA & San Carlos, Mx
Posts: 20,745
Default RE: Thom...right again!

If I am not catching fish, I move to likely areas and look at the fish finder off and on to spot fish. Then I cruise around this area seeing if more arches show doing my little lure dance and if they don't bite, I mark it in the gps and move on. If I see more arches in one area, and still haven't got a bite, I still know where the best area is to go and I go back to see if they are hungry yet.
As I move around, and they move around, you get a pretty good idea if there are a lot fish, or just a few, as the signal is really more about when and where as opposed to a video representation on my little Garmin 240Blue. If I have them spotted, and want more detail, I zoom in and limit the amount of water column and let my limited amount of pixels go to work in more detail.
But if the fish finder just tells me there are a bunch of fish down there, this its done its job, and its time to bring in those trolling lures of no interest, and break out the chunk, untill the mighty tide rings that dinner bell again, and its time to again hook em and fight them on top.

I was the guy that started this off a way back when, and was given a link to some Eagle Information, that contrary to my belief, said that if I didn't have enough pixels at depth, then I would only see the real whoppers. So I thank both SeaDad and Thom for getting me back on track, so that when I see a few arches, however undetailed, it will still bring my pressure up and get me exited after all these years.

Thanks for your help
Bullshipper is offline  
Old 07-19-2004, 08:48 PM
  #11  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

wouldn't a lower pixel FF (we can stick with the Garmin 160) pick up those 2 fish if it used the zoom function since it wouldn't be wasting pixels on the top of the water column

Most units do let you peer into the depth range with better resolution as you zoom in. Some dont though, but those are usually the ones with the lowest capabilities to begin with.


Bullshipper, I dont recall the depths you fish at but up to 150' or so this little gadget will entice even the most seasoned fish to bite.

Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 10:22 AM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CA & San Carlos, Mx
Posts: 20,745
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Thanks for the tip SeaDad.
But the 15 lb shipjacks we use, easily get swallowed whole, so Iˇd have to put a much smaller hook on that little tube.

BUt seriously what do you do? Find the fish on ff, fill it with ground mackerel, drop her all the way down and wait till they start tugging? Then bring up slowly to the boat like a pied piper, following up with thrown chunk to get fiesta started?
Bullshipper is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 10:43 AM
  #13  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

When we mark fish and they wont bite or even if they are biting we slap a bunch of ground up frozen chum in it and drop it down to where we are fishing. The chum melts over time and disperses with the current drawing tons of fish. It's gets them frenzied enough to bite the baits on our hooks with any regard to how the presentation is.

It makes bottom fishing look easy.
Sea_Dad is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 02:05 PM
  #14  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CA & San Carlos, Mx
Posts: 20,745
Default RE: Thom...right again!

Ok, I'm on my way to Home Depot., Just try to stop me now.

But seriously, no problems with Son of Jaws?
Some of the babies I have seen around here could pull down the stern corner of my little CH19.

Maybe I should make a few and rigém with a hook and tie it to my 9/0, just in case.
Bullshipper is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 03:03 PM
  #15  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,997
Default RE: Thom...right again!

It cost me $10 to make this one about 6 years ago, and they take 20 minutes to make. Make 2 of them then you'll have a spare.

Itwill really light up the bite
Sea_Dad is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread