LiveScope confusion

[LWINCHESTER2]

As I have read through those posting about Panoptix LiveScope it has been real surprising to see how much confusion there is about it. So I thought I would try to deal with these things one at a time. This post is about palettes. The posts seem to indicate that there is a wide variation in what you see based on which palette you select. There is no value in comparing a video someone did with so many variables; the settings, fish, range, and depth to what you see in a video someone else did with all these things possibly different. I think I have found a way to resolve that. I turned the simulator on and ran it using each of the palettes in turn. I captured the video and tried to stop the video on each one at the same exact spot. So now we have the same sonar signals, same settings, same range and depth. Just changed the palette. There is one error in this. I don't know why, but while using the Yellow palette the video via wifi to ActiveCaptain-HELM on my phone was terrible. I did it several times and never was the video on my phone like what I was seeing on the screen. So I am not including it. For the others the screenshots I am posting look very close to what I saw on screen.

The palette selections are Amber, Copper, Black Emerald, Midnight Blue, Orange Crawfish, Red Shad, Blue, and Yellow

[DonnieG]

Leonard, I like palettes 6 & 7 for my eyes. I am assuming that the Dots are actually fish.
Would the dots show up as fish if they were closer in the cone? They don’t look much different than my PS 21 when I had it.
Thanks for your training posts.

[LWINCHESTER2]

The dots are fish. Here is the video using the amber palette. You can see them swimming around.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zy...oG10gqr3WuA3XC

[kry29]

Now I see why the confusion in the other thread. People, including me, were looking for the palette like the amber one, not the traditional blue where things appear as regular sonar returns. I didn't know that was an option with this system

[LWINCHESTER2]

I was hoping that by looking at the different palettes, one would see that there was very little difference in how returns were represented, if any, in terms of size and shape. The choice of the palette determines the color of the background and the color of the return. The choice of palette for the best viewing is more about the effect that sunlight has when trying to view the screen.

[TroyBoy30]

being out in the sun will make a huge difference on what pallet works best for you. returns are all the same

[DonnieG]

being out in the sun will make a huge difference on what pallet works best for you. returns are all the same

I agree, at least it makes a big difference for me..

[LWINCHESTER2]

Ok. Maybe we have the palette business out of the way. Palette selection has nothing to do with size or shape of returns. Somehow I have a feeling that this topic will come back up.

Now for something that has a huge impact on how things look on the screen. That's the scale. You should have noticed that on one of the most impressive LiveScope videos that the range is set to about 35, depth to 18 ft and the fish is 6 ft long. Folks, that's not a crappie. Now the imagery is good and there's no deception involved. The scale is there for you to see that this is not bream swimming under the boat. So I would say that if you set the range and depth the same as is in this video that any 6 ft fish that swims through will look very similar. The confusion comes when people then expect my crappie to look like that on a 70 or 100 ft scale.

So I have attached a still of this big fish toillustrate its size and then on one of my crappie stills shown the size of thereturn that would be there. And it would not matter which palette was beingused. The size of the return would notchange.

https://www.facebook.com/thorbjorn.buch/videos/1669335093181338/
Range is 5 ft to each side, depth 8-9 ft. The fish looks to be 12-14 inches long.

Now go back and look at the other two videos.

While you look at these videos always pay particular attention to the scale being used.
If you assume that the technology can depict a target to scale, here are a couple of comparisons.
A 12 inch screen set to display 100 ft means that a 100 inch target would take up 1 inch on the screen. A 12 inch fish would take up 0.12 inches on the screen. Now change the scale to 15 ft. A 15 inch target would take up 1 full inch on the screen.

You can't have it both ways. If you want targets not to scale, meaning oversized to be easy to see, then you have to give up detail. If you want to see every detail, then a long range will make the targets very small.

[daiwshi]

Great write-up, very clear about the scale and how to interpret actual fish sizes when a longer range is set. The video is from a guy in Sweden and the range is in meters. It's a pike or big zander and definitely bigger than 12-15 inches.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Good catch. Not the first time I've missed it when someone has the range set to meters. Thanks.

[MonteSS]

So if looking for fish, wouldnt the old style panoptix that inflates it to a bigger blob be preferable?

Obviously you would not see structure as well as the Livescope.

[LWINCHESTER2]

MonteSS. In some cases, yes. Depends on the fish you are targetting and how you fish or maybe how you want to fish. For my deep walleye fishing, this time of year I usually end up with the range run out there. Minimum 70 sometimes out to 160. Also walleye school rather loosely, loosely enough that the PS21/22/31 generally shows them as separate fish. And since the target displayed is bigger I can fish more casually. It takes less effort on my part. I don't have to be constantly mentally focused with my eyes glued to the screen. While some people don't like using the Trails feature, if I am searching for fish I like to have it on. Again so that the fadeout allows me to look away or look at a different screen and glance back without missing something. While jigging I turn it off. Also since on my lake the species stratify I can use that to make an educated guess as to what kind of fish I am seeing based on depth. And you are correct about the structure. More than one time I have cast into a bunch of deep tree limbs thinking it was fish. Targetting crappie, white bass and spotted bass is different. Our spotted bass rove around in groups of like 5-15 generally and are tigher schooled than walleye but not as tight as crappie and white bass. They also cannot be predicted based on depth. They can be next to the surface one minute and then 80 ft deep the next. They also swim pretty fast. So for them I would say that the new LiveScope is far superior. When you see them, you don't have time to fiddle fart around. You have to be able to recognize what you are seeing immediately, and be ready to make the cast to them. So I keep a second rod on the ready when I'm jigging. What makes the LiveScope superior for the bass is that extra detail. You see them and you don't have to pause-questioning is this bait or is this fish to catch. When you see them, if you can cast and catch one, the whole group will stall or follow that fish to the boat, giving you more chances to catch more fish. Gotta go for now. I'll come back and post more about the crappie and blob business.

[LWINCHESTER2]

I really can't speak to year round crappie fishing. I'm on a learning curve there. Late winter and early spring pre-spawn crappie is a big thing for me though. Done a lot of it for years. On our lake pre-spawn staging finds crappie congregatting in certain areas of each of the tributaries and I know where that is. May have to look within a mile or two range but still very productive. Your question posed "looking for fish". While I really like the PS30, the dead spot at the top of the water column limits its usefullness for this. The fish are generally shallow 0-20. So I use the Panoptix Forward on the trolling motor with the trolling motor turned to one side and I also use side imaging on the transom. The detail of the LiveScope makes identifying the schools as either bait or crappie instant, but that doesn't disqualify the PS21/22/31 from being effective. The schools of crappie are on the move and while tightly schooled all of them will not be tight to the center. What looks like fish around a school of bait often is just some straglers not as tightly schooled. If you see a school of bait, it's generally a good idea to cast into it. You don't always see fish that may be in the school feeding and these fish bite. For this fishing, especially since it is so productive, LiveScope is better, but if you only had the other Panoptix you are still going to catch a lot of fish.

I think the big question for most people is whether the LiveScope will help you catch more fish. There should not be any debate as to whether it is more detailed, but does that put more fish in the boat. Is it a "game changer"? Maybe! Lets stick to the facts. The better detail will separate bait from schools of other fish. The better detail will separate fish from structure. The limited range limits its routine usefullness to around 80 ft.

One point that I've not seen anyone make is its ability to see close to the bottom and separate fish from the bottom. Until LiveScope the best I've seen has been the Vexilar Edge3 on 400 kHz and the Garmin GT10. First place for seeing close to the bottom now goes to LiveScope. It's better than the GT10 and it beats out my beloved Vexilar. that is, in less than 80 FOW.

This is a work in progress. I do plan on doing a direct comparison of LiveScope Forward and PS22 LiveVu Forward. I'm having a little trouble with my redneck engineering right now on the mount, putting both of them side by side at the front of the torpedo and I have some concerns. I've really had spectacular results with LiveScope mounted on the shaft and using LS Forward. Subjectively, the shaft mount seems to perform better than mounted at the front of the torpedo. That really doesn't pass the logic test so wait before making any judgements. I may be doing something wrong. I have seen though that I can display both of them, on screen at the same time so this makes for a good experiment.

I've rambled on and on so, I'm not sure I answered your question MonteSS.

[rocket man]

The dots are fish. Here is the video using the amber palette. You can see them swimming around.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zy...oG10gqr3WuA3XC

Why is depth read out different from the bottom reading.? by about 30ft.

[TrackerPro16]

If I am scouting for larger perch (they school by size) or Crappie I will troll 3-5 mph with Panoptix looking forward and the GT 52 on down scan. I cruise along in 20-60 feet of water with a dropshot hanging off the back or side of the boat. When I see the 'blob' of a group of small fish on Panoptix I will then watch the Down Scan and as soon as the group goes under the boat I release the dropshot. I keep reducing the speed down to .5 to 1 mph and hit Spotlock about 30 feet past the release point. By that time I usually have a fish on and can see how big it is. If it is a good sized one I can stay in the school by following them with the Panoptix or just keep trolling for the next group.
When looking for single fish (trout) on an open lake I usually keep the Panoptix screen distance down to 100 feet to get an image I can see. Might go shorter if I am trying to cast to the fish.
It will be interesting to see more screen shots as people get out in their particular situation with the LiveScope.

[LWINCHESTER2]

Why is depth read out different from the bottom reading.? by about 30ft.

No clue. Getting ready to go now. I'll see if the real thing instead of the simulation does the same thing. Hadn't really noticed.

[TroyBoy30]

Why is depth read out different from the bottom reading.? by about 30ft.

Or mph showing 10. It’s just simulator

[G4bama]

LWINCHESTER2 I see that you have been using the live system for crappie. I am curious when you are looking at a brushpile does your beam have a cone projection like a 2d sonar or is it just a thin slice looking through the water like Side image? I am trying to understand the amount of area that you are actually seeing in front of you. Say you are seeing fish in front of you at 30' out and 15' deep, are they directly in front of you or can they actually be to one side or the other?

[LWINCHESTER2]

The technology is multi-beam phased array. It's kind of like 2d and sort of like side imaging. It is actually neither. The transducer has lots of elements and exactly how all these beams are focused and measured I don't know. The result is a beam that gets tighter the farther away from the boat you are looking. Both 2d and side imaging are the opposite. The reason I say this is that the farther away from the boat a fish is, the more delicate the turning of the trolling motor is to see it. At 100 ft the slightest turn of the trolling motor and the return disappears. How much area you see depends on the distance from the boat. Using your example 30 ft out I would say it's about 10 degrees left to right and will see the full range top to bottom. You can do a little left to right movement of the trolling motor but not much. If you see fish you should cast directly how the trolling motor is pointing. It tighter than the PS22 which for your example would be about 20 degree left to right and the PS21 would be about 40 degrees. For comparison with the PS22 you would have some more left right adjusting of the trolling motor to get the return centered (it turns red). For the PS21 even more left right to center on the target. The LiveScope is much more detailed and precise. That also means that when searching you have to turn the TM slow. Much slower than say the PS21.

On the PS21 and PS22 the detail of the brush will not compare to the LiveScope. LiveScope not as detailed as down or side imaging but much better than the previous Panoptix models.

[G4bama]

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I am on the fence between this technology or HB360. I fish crappie and spend 95% of my time fishing offshore cover and I am looking for a unit on the front that will allow me to hunt schools of crappie and allow me to fish them without the multirod gamble of spider rigging.