Welcome to the future of sonar

[PlayDoh]

So I’ve been trying to decide which sonar to go with and this video alone has convinced me Lowrance and 3D structure scan is worth every penny of my black market sale of my kidney, lol. From what I understand it’s $1300 for the transducer and a 7 inch HDS is like $1500. It’s gonna be hard to make $3000+ go missing from the wife’s attention, lol.
https://youtu.be/pI0lV20xL9I

[cube]

So I’ve been trying to decide which sonar to go with and this video alone has convinced me Lowrance and 3D structure scan is worth every penny of my black market sale of my kidney, lol. From what I understand it’s $1300 for the transducer and a 7 inch HDS is like $1500. It’s gonna be hard to make $3000+ go missing from the wife’s attention, lol.
https://youtu.be/pI0lV20xL9I

Now if it did live mapping and had 360 like the bird I would be happy and buy one. With the side scan like this you need to be moving while in the 360 the tranducer moves so you don't have to.

I would love to try a 360 for ice fishing because in theory it should be amazing. I do ponder why hummingbird has not come out with a 360 version for ice fishing. The first prototype tests of 360 that I saw were indeed done on the ice so again should work well.

Lots of great toys out there now but I can't afford to buy and then have to buy again in a couple of years so I am waiting for now with my HDS 5 gen 1 and HDS 10 gen 2.

I do have to admit they Lowrance did address most of my issues with side scan in there 3 D addition.

[RavYak]

Sorry to burst your financial bubble but using structure scan 3d on a HDS 7 is like trying to watch a bluray on your 20 year old tv. In order to take advantage of the results you will want(bordering on need) at least a 9 inch screen. 12 would be even better.

In short details are useless if they are so small you still can't see them.

Going back to my original recommendation for you I would get the HDS 9 Gen 3. Its only $2100 and then at some point you can conveniently lose the rest of the money and pick yourself up the structure scan 3d to go with it(assuming you still feel you need it, after using regular side imaging for a while you may decide that it is unnecessary).

[RavYak]

Now if it did live mapping and had 360 like the bird I would be happy and buy one. With the side scan like this you need to be moving while in the 360 the tranducer moves so you don't have to.

The Lowrance units do have live sonar charts mapping now(a Navionics feature) on the Elite Ti and above units.

[Willowtrail]

The 3D is awesome and also increases the sidescan range to 600’ PER SIDE for a total o 1200’

I haven’t tried the 3D on my Carbon 7” to tell you how it looks, I did use it on my 12” with a 4 split screen so really only a 6” screen to look at.

live mapping is on its way and as mentioned there is SonarCharts Live with a Navionics + or Platinum card.

You won’t go wrong with what you are looking at getting.

[PlayDoh]

Sorry to burst your financial bubble but using structure scan 3d on a HDS 7 is like trying to watch a bluray on your 20 year old tv. In order to take advantage of the results you will want(bordering on need) at least a 9 inch screen. 12 would be even better.

In short details are useless if they are so small you still can't see them.

Going back to my original recommendation for you I would get the HDS 9 Gen 3. Its only $2100 and then at some point you can conveniently lose the rest of the money and pick yourself up the structure scan 3d to go with it(assuming you still feel you need it, after using regular side imaging for a while you may decide that it is unnecessary).

Ya, I was aware that a 7" might not cut it, I was just giving the lowest price it would take to get the 3D.

I think once I break the $500 mark, everything can be considered unnecessary. Although I get your point. And not having to drop $3000+ on day one, is great. Yet one has to consider what transducer they will buy, and one day put it in a box, once they go 3D.

I'd also presume that the lakes I fish, wouldn't have much to look at, like in the video. Yet I can't even imagine how it would change the game entirely being essentially able to see everything. Its video game meets real lakes now.

I'm also wondering what effect things like this would have on my attention. Meaning rather than fishing, I'd be staring at a screen determined to find every fish in the lake before even putting a rod in my hand. I'll be spending a fortune on fuel driving all over the place, lol.

In my tax bracket, I stay a generation or 2 behind the latest, so I can afford more tech for the buck. Yet one day I'll get my hands on this 3D, for better or worse.

[PlayDoh]

From my limited knowledge, I would expect this 3D to become available on all brands in time. I'm guessing its the module that comes with the 3D transducer that produces the virtual landscape raw data.
If I'm right, the data provided in SI and DI contain the details to produce a 3D landscape. Rather than seeing the structure from the side or any angle you can see its contrast on 2D and infer the same thing essentially.
Yet being able to virtually pan and zoom in 3D put the entire landscape in new perspective and so much easier to identify and understand.

[Walleyedude]

Sorry to burst your financial bubble but using structure scan 3d on a HDS 7 is like trying to watch a bluray on your 20 year old tv. In order to take advantage of the results you will want(bordering on need) at least a 9 inch screen. 12 would be even better.

While I agree that bigger is definitely better when it comes to SI, 3D, or sonar screens in general, I don`t really agree with your analogy, or with the suggestion that a 7`screen isn`t useful for SI.

The HDS 7 is a high resolution screen, and if it`s being used solely for SI, it`s every bit as big as a split screen display on a 9 or even a 12. There`s plenty of guys out there running SI, and mostly likely 3D, on 7`screens and taking advantage of SI technology. I know I`ve used SI on an Elite 7 TI and I was quite happy with it.

[RavYak]

While I agree that bigger is definitely better when it comes to SI, 3D, or sonar screens in general, I don`t really agree with your analogy, or with the suggestion that a 7`screen isn`t useful for SI.

The HDS 7 is a high resolution screen, and if it`s being used solely for SI, it`s every bit as big as a split screen display on a 9 or even a 12. There`s plenty of guys out there running SI, and mostly likely 3D, on 7`screens and taking advantage of SI technology. I know I`ve used SI on an Elite 7 TI and I was quite happy with it.

I own an Elite 7 Ti and I kick myself regularly for settling with it. Part of the reason being that it is nice to have the unit on split screen(especially since the sonar charts live requires the gps screen to be active...) making the SI view that much smaller.

Although the screen is a decent resolution it is still small and that makes it easy to miss small details. You are looking for things like rocks, fish, fish shadows etc all things that are small and appear extremely small on a 5-6 inch wide screen showing 100-150 feet of water).

My main point is that if a guy is already contemplating spending the big bucks to get the top of the line its probably worth spending the little bit more so you don't have regrets about doing so.

I was just looking up prices and the OP was actually high on his pricing. Fishin' hole sells the Gen 3 HDS 7 with structure scan 3D for $2300. HDS 9 with structure scan 3D is $3100. Enough of a price difference it can be a tough choice but what I will say is that I would rather have a HDS9 with the totalscan transducer for $2100 then a HDS7 with structure scan 3d for $2300. At least with the first option I will be able to use the technology near its potential and I will also have the opportunity to upgrade it in the future if I wanted to.

I would highly suggest that anyone considering these units scour youtube looking for videos showing people using the different units. You will quickly realize that screen size makes a huge difference with side imaging(and of course 3d imaging, 360 etc), 12+ inch is best but the price gets a bit crazy, 9 inch is decent, 7 leaves you wanting more. 9 and 12 inch you might be able to see the detail from a few feet away, 7 inch you will be stuck staring at your fish finder trying to interpret the little marks you are seeing.

[SamSteele]

I own an Elite 7 Ti and I kick myself regularly for settling with it.


I think the solution here is obvious. Sell your Elite 7 TI to PlayDoh and buy something bigger. Win-win!

[emoji6]

SS

[EZM]

That looks amazing - but I wonder if the program that renders the images "enhances" or "exaggerates" the structure - it looks to me that there is a constant trough right under the boat no matter which way he turns AND all the structure is extremely steep ..... almost unnatural ..... would be curious to know.

Nevertheless - really cool.

[Walleyedude]

That looks amazing - but I wonder if the program that renders the images "enhances" or "exaggerates" the structure - it looks to me that there is a constant trough right under the boat no matter which way he turns AND all the structure is extremely steep ..... almost unnatural ..... would be curious to know.

Nevertheless - really cool.

You can control the vertical exaggeration in the display.

It's adjustable from zero to 10X (if memory serves, it might be 5X max?), which is really nice. You can scale it down when you're looking at areas with a lot of structure or looking at a large area on a larger scale, but you can also crank it up to see the subtle features in areas that otherwise are just "flats".

Some of the most interesting things I've found and marked with it were in shallow (6-12') flats that I thought were pretty much endless and featureless, but actually have some pretty distinct and fish concentrating features on them.

The views of the structure and weed growth on lakes like Diefenbaker are amazing.

[NSR Fisher]

Pretty sure Aaron from Uncut is using what you guys are describing in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSv2ugmfzQ

He starts out on his humminbird using a wide scan before focusing in further and further and getting right on top of this sunken boat, which you can see perfectly on his side imaging.

And yes it does look like there is a big trough right through the middle of the screen but if you're right over the structure you want it appears half and half on both screens so you stop right there I guess haha.

Cool video anyways.

[RavYak]

Pretty sure Aaron from Uncut is using what you guys are describing in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSv2ugmfzQ

He starts out on his humminbird using a wide scan before focusing in further and further and getting right on top of this sunken boat, which you can see perfectly on his side imaging.

And yes it does look like there is a big trough right through the middle of the screen but if you're right over the structure you want it appears half and half on both screens so you stop right there I guess haha.

Cool video anyways.

Lowrance 3d is slightly different technology then the regular HB SI. Somewhat same idea though.

The "trough" you are referring to is actually the water column which shows on both sides. The details along bottom closest to this water column is the bottom directly under the boat. That is why once you learn how to read SI you don't really need DI because it is showing you the same thing just in a different format.

The trough EZM is referring to is how in the 3d version in the original video it shows a trough running directly under the boat(and them dropoffs and coming back up further away). I believe he was questioning if the 3d was giving proper results directly under the boat(or perhaps it amplifies the depth directly under the boat for some reason).

I am not 100% sure about the accuracy of the 3d imaging. I am sure it probably isn't to scale etc(due to speed effects alone) but it would at least give a guy an idea of what is down there. I can only think of a couple lakes in AB with structure anywhere near that though. Most of our lakes are just gradual dropoffs in one direction not a whole lot of rocky cliffs and humps etc. Part of the reason why I think 3d is a bit overrated here although it does improve the SI results so that is kind of worth it. Regular SI is going to show you almost the same thing you just have to be able to visualize the elevation changes in your head instead of seeing them on the screen.

[Walleyedude]

I am not 100% sure about the accuracy of the 3d imaging. I am sure it probably isn't to scale etc(due to speed effects alone) but it would at least give a guy an idea of what is down there. I can only think of a couple lakes in AB with structure anywhere near that though. Most of our lakes are just gradual dropoffs in one direction not a whole lot of rocky cliffs and humps etc. Part of the reason why I think 3d is a bit overrated here although it does improve the SI results so that is kind of worth it. Regular SI is going to show you almost the same thing you just have to be able to visualize the elevation changes in your head instead of seeing them on the screen.

Have you used the Lowrance 3D?

[Willowtrail]

Have you used the Lowrance 3D?

I have and it works great.

EZM, come out with me for a few hours this spring and play with it and see how you like it

[PlayDoh]

That looks amazing - but I wonder if the program that renders the images "enhances" or "exaggerates" the structure - it looks to me that there is a constant trough right under the boat no matter which way he turns AND all the structure is extremely steep ..... almost unnatural ..... would be curious to know.

Nevertheless - really cool.



It has a 0, medium or high selectable level of exaggeration. Yet in that video buddy is over some pretty wild bottom. I’d guess it might be mountains or some bedrock like structure. I remember watching something on the rocks under the Great Lakes being special for something, lol.

[PlayDoh]

Regular SI is going to show you almost the same thing you just have to be able to visualize the elevation changes in your head instead of seeing them on the screen.


That’s essentially true, yet I think a good comparative analogy is google earth vs high altitude photographs printed on paper.

Google earth let’s you move in 3 dimensions viewing anything from any angle. Yet google earths level of detailed depiction of actual structure is about as bad as it gets.

Maybe AutoCad vs printed maps is another analogy.

How many more fish will I catch because of 3D? Probably not many, yet I’m certain I’d become a better angler by seeing how fish relate to structure.

As far as pure information available, SI and 3D are all equal since I’m certain the 3D construct is obtained via the SI data. I would simply consider it the next step in displaying the data.

If you had the choice of SI view vs 3D which would you use? There might be a rare occasion where the SI display would be preferred, yet that might be from just being accustomed to one over the other.

Is it worth the $1000 or more for 3D at the moment? That’s obviously a personal choice and your right that our lakes in general warrant the need less than others.

However my reluctance to try new lakes due to the amount of time it would take to scout it out and find fish consistently is going to be reduced significantly. In fact I’m going to welcome the challenge and the chance to ‘play’ with the 3D more. 8-)

[cube]

That looks amazing - but I wonder if the program that renders the images "enhances" or "exaggerates" the structure - it looks to me that there is a constant trough right under the boat no matter which way he turns AND all the structure is extremely steep ..... almost unnatural ..... would be curious to know.

Nevertheless - really cool.

I thought he said he was following an old creek or river channel, and hence the trough.

I think with out a doubt that 3D is a great advancement. It would be even better on a 360 type transducer but then again will the regs and enforcement keep up with our abilities to harass the fish.

It was not long ago that fishermen spent just about all there time fishing the edge of a lake. If they over fished this edge there was a self stocking pool ,on the hidden mid lake structures etc, that could help the lake recover much quicker. Without this I think the fish populations need to be carefully monitored and regs and enforcement need to keep pace.

[RavYak]

That’s essentially true, yet I think a good comparative analogy is google earth vs high altitude photographs printed on paper.

Google earth let’s you move in 3 dimensions viewing anything from any angle. Yet google earths level of detailed depiction of actual structure is about as bad as it gets.

Maybe AutoCad vs printed maps is another analogy.

How many more fish will I catch because of 3D? Probably not many, yet I’m certain I’d become a better angler by seeing how fish relate to structure.

As far as pure information available, SI and 3D are all equal since I’m certain the 3D construct is obtained via the SI data. I would simply consider it the next step in displaying the data.

If you had the choice of SI view vs 3D which would you use? There might be a rare occasion where the SI display would be preferred, yet that might be from just being accustomed to one over the other.

As per Walleyedude's question no I haven't used 3d just seen videos on it and assume it is affected in the same way regular SI(for example no speed compensation stretching or compressing details depending on scroll speed settings and boat speed). So take my comments with a grain of salt if you would prefer.

As for comparing 3d to the 2d screen in videos it seems to me the 2d screen shows better quality images which I am assuming is because of the extra power required to render the 3d image in real time(therefore requiring a lower resolution to process fast enough). It isn't minecraft blocky but it just doesn't look as smooth as I expect the lake bottom/structure would look in real life. This is not unexpected though as high quality rendering(if the sonar technology is even capable of 100% accurate measurements) requires massive amounts of processing power.

Your comments regarding building the image in your head and being able to say use google earth vs maps are accurate. To some people this might be a huge advantage as some people are not as capable as others when it comes to visualising these things. My work experience as a land surveyor and engineer make this kind of stuff a lot more second nature to myself then it likely is for most people, yet another reason to take some of my comments with a grain of salt.

My whole thinking about these technologies is that if you want it and can afford it then get it. If you don't you will always end up still wanting it until one day you break down and get it at which point you will have spent more money then if you had just bought it to begin with.

[PlayDoh]

.



As for comparing 3d to the 2d screen in videos it seems to me the 2d screen shows better quality images which I am assuming is because of the extra power required to render the 3d image in real time(therefore requiring a lower resolution to process fast enough). It isn't minecraft blocky but it just doesn't look as smooth as I expect the lake bottom/structure would look in real life. This is not unexpected though as high quality rendering(if the sonar technology is even capable of 100% accurate measurements) requires massive amounts of processing.



Good point for sure. SI almost looks like photographic quality, complete with shadows. My questioning that if you could only have 1, SI or 3D, which would you choose, doesn’t seem clear cut considering that fact.
Thankfully with structure scan one doesn’t have to pick only 1. I’m still sold, yet I see your point more so now.

[TylerThomson]

My whole thinking about these technologies is that if you want it and can afford it then get it. If you don't you will always end up still wanting it until one day you break down and get it at which point you will have spent more money then if you had just bought it to begin with.

True words. Very interesting thread. I just got a humminbird with side scan and its a game changer. I got the helix 5 and wish it was bigger but it wasn't in the budget. There are ways of compensating for the small screen by adjusting it to only display one side of the image etc.

So I guess my only advice is buy the model you like the best worth the biggest screen you can afford.

[Ken07AOVette]

I have a brand new in the box condition never used gen 3 Hds 7 for sale if you are interested. Or a 9 same gen 3 same condition. I have a new HDS 12 gen 3 that replaced my HDS 10 gen 2

[Willowtrail]

I have a brand new in the box condition never used gen 3 Hds 7 for sale if you are interested. Or a 9 same gen 3 same condition. I have a new HDS 12 gen 3 that replaced my HDS 10 gen 2

How much for the 7 or 9 Gen 3? Have a buddy looking, don't need a transducer