Omid's Invention - Binoculars with Convergent or Divergent Field of View (1 Viewer)

...Also see the great article here which articulates the effects of having a convergent direction of view. So, lets continue the mind experiments and extrapolations a bit more. I am sure we might discover some interesting things...

Regards,
-Omid

Click to expand...

BTW, Omid, I'm the one who steered you onto the Ferwerda book. Just so it doesn't keep you up at night wondering.

I've been out of stereo photography for about 18 yrs. now, but it's the only kind that ever got my interest.

Still have two Stereo Realists, one a 3.5 and the other a 2.8.

Ed

Thanks Ed,
I wasn't sure if you were joking or not.
I did not know if you were joking about the horizontal field.
It's a relief that you don't live in the Land of the Giants.

Congratulations on reaching 4,000.

I just filled in an official form and rang up for guidance. He was most helpful and I said Thank you very much. He asked if there was anything else.
I said. 'The form, my eyes are quite good but the colour means it is very difficult for me to read, (pastel yellowish)'.
He said 'You are not the first person to mention this'. It seems to happen with the elderly. Young people have no problems.
So there it is.
I think it must be due to the yellowing of eyes as they age.

It has been downhill since age 40 for me.

elkcub said:

BTW, Omid, I'm the one who steered you onto the Ferwerda book. Just so it doesn't keep you up at night wondering.

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Yes, it was you indeed. Very nice book and I have learned a lot from it. Thank you again. I still go back to it and read some sections as I think of this or that idea.

While stereo vision through binoculars is very similar to 3D photography and 3D cinema, it is not exactly the same. There are some fundamental differences: In 3D cinema, there is one [flat] image screen and there is no eyepiece. In 3D photography there are two screens and (usually) there are two eyepieces too. So, 3D photography is closer to viewing through binoculars. Yet 3D photography is not exactly analogues to viewing an object through binoculars either. One key difference is that in viewing through binoculars, the light rays coming out of the eyepiece are coherently coupled with those entering the objective. This is not the case in 3D photography so primary aberrations caused by the objective cannot be corrected by the eyepiece. What are other key differences?

Omid said:

Hi Ed,

Yes, it was you indeed. Very nice book and I have learned a lot from it. Thank you again. I still go back to it and read some sections as I think of this or that idea.

While stereo vision through binoculars is very similar to 3D photography and 3D cinema, it is not exactly the same. There are some fundamental differences: In 3D cinema, there is one [flat] image screen and there is no eyepiece. In 3D photography there are two screens and (usually) there are two eyepieces too. So, 3D photography is closer to viewing through binoculars. Yet 3D photography is not exactly analogues to viewing an object through binoculars either. One key difference is that in viewing through binoculars, the light rays coming out of the eyepiece are coherently coupled with those entering the objective. This is not the case in 3D photography so primary aberrations caused by the objective cannot be corrected by the eyepiece. What are other key differences?

Click to expand...

And, if you ever have enough time to kill as to allow a visit to "Best low-light binocular 10x," you might look into Ray's large "Applied Photographic Optics." That's where I came up with some of my physiological realities that so often flies in the face of those who have taken scientific TRUTHS past the realm of what most observers would consider practical—however factual. :cat:

Bill

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the tip. I do have the book "Applied Photographic Optics". It is an excellent book, very comprehensive and covers a lot of subjects. One of the best books on optics in my opinion.

Sincerely,
-Omid

Omid,

It took me a while to find this book on my shelves "Visual Coding and Adaptability" by Charles S. Harris. The chapter by Richard Held starting on pg. 69 goes into many of the optical and psychological effects created by prism viewing, as shown in the attachment. (rotate the image, ccw) It's inexpensive enough to add to your collection, and I'm sure you will be interested.

Ed

elkcub said:

Omid,

It took me a while to find this book on my shelves "Visual Coding and Adaptability" by Charles S. Harris. The chapter by Richard Held starting on pg. 69 goes into many of the optical and psychological effects created by prism viewing, as shown in the attachment. (rotate the image, ccw) It's inexpensive enough to add to your collection, and I'm sure you will be interested.

Ed

Click to expand...

Possibly related—Hey, I’m a screw turner—some years ago, there was an experiment at a university in Austria in which a student wore goggles fitted with prisms (or mirrors) to invert his vision. He was as disoriented as could be for just over a week. Then, the brain decided to help the poor fellow out and inverted the images again—thus righting them to the brain. After that, he was able to do everything as before the experiment, with the only side effect being the wearing of the strange headgear. When the experiment was largely over, he removed the headset. I don’t remember the exact amount of time required, but this vision then returned to normal. :cat:

Bill

Charles Wheatstone 'Pseudoscope' also.

WJC said:

Possibly related—Hey, I’m a screw turner—some years ago, there was an experiment at a university in Austria in which a student wore goggles fitted with prisms (or mirrors) to invert his vision. He was as disoriented as could be for just over a week. Then, the brain decided to help the poor fellow out and inverted the images again—thus righting them to the brain. After that, he was able to do everything as before the experiment, with the only side effect being the wearing of the strange headgear. When the experiment was largely over, he removed the headset. I don’t remember the exact amount of time required, but this vision then returned to normal. :cat:

Bill

Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

The use of prism lenses to investigate visual adaptation (plasticity) has been going on since the late 1800s, after the first publication by George Stratton. It's quite impressive what the brain can do if given enough time. Much the same kind of adaptation is relied upon for varifocal eyeglasses, which require adaptation to an impressive amount of distortion.

In Omid's application, though, I'm really not sure what would be gained.

Ed

elkcub said:

Hi Bill,

The use of prism lenses to investigate visual adaptation (plasticity) has been going on since the late 1800s, after the first publication by George Stratton. It's quite impressive what the brain can do if given enough time. Much the same kind of adaptation is relied upon for varifocal eyeglasses, which require adaptation to an impressive amount of distortion.

In Omid's application, though, I'm really not sure what would be gained.

Ed

Click to expand...

If it is to amount to anything, the “gained” aspect needs considerable investigation and clinical analysis. However, with the physiological differences I keep harping on in place, I doubt enough impetus would be found for manufacturers to invest a dollar in another mechanism to worry about it—thus: BB stacking.

Even so, that kid Omid is doing a great job in getting patents and making a name for himself. If given his head, he might open new vistas for those who follow. Thomas Edison didn’t fail as many times as people think. He just discovered hundreds of filaments that would not work in making the incandescent light bulb. Philo Farnsworth was a 14-year old following a mule in a field near Rigby, Idaho when he struck with the notion of raster graphics. “Great” minds had been working on the problem for many years but coming up short.

More often than not our understanding rests with our humble willingness to understand. You can’t fill a glass that’s already full. Those great minds were already full. To be humble is to be teachable. We have ALL benefitted from Philo's humility.

Bill

elkcub said:

Omid,

It took me a while to find this book on my shelves "Visual Coding and Adaptability" by Charles S. Harris. The chapter by Richard Held starting on pg. 69 goes into many of the optical and psychological effects created by prism viewing, as shown in the attachment. (rotate the image, ccw) It's inexpensive enough to add to your collection, and I'm sure you will be interested.

Ed

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Thank you for the tip! There is another book (which I think you introduced to me in 2015) titled "Binocular Vision, Foundations and Applications" by R. W. Reading. It has the same drawing shown on page 288. Reading's book and the one you mentioned both cite a 1952 paper by K. N. Ogle called "Distortion of the image by ophthalmic prisms". Do you have access to this original paper by any chance?

I understand that the distortions caused by the prisms (color separation, astigmatism and some field curvature) need to be considered and mitigated. But this is no more difficult than doing same with distortions caused by lenses or other optical elements used in binoculars. The color separation can be easily solved by using an achromatic prism. Astigmatism and field curvature can be reduced by slightly tilting the prism or by using a prism in reverse orientation at the ocular side of the binoculars! As you and Bill mentioned, we can also rely upon human eye/brain adaptation.

Another note: When I suggest positioning prisms in front of the objective, the "bending" required is in the order of just 1 degree. This is far less than the bending used in ophthalmic applications. So, the distortions caused are far less..

Thanks again,
-Omid

WJC said:

... Even so, that kid Omid is doing a great job in getting patents and making a name for himself. If given his head, he might open new vistas for those who follow. Thomas Edison didn’t fail as many times as people think...

Click to expand...

Bill, I appreciate the compliment. It is very kind of you.

On the surface, it seems impossible to make any major improvements in the usability and ergonomics of binoculars. After all, they have been invented more than a century ago and the basic optical structure has remained the same. But this is no reason to stop exploring.. Think about archery. The bow has been invented when humans lived in caves and has been gradually improved until it reached its apex during the middle ages. Then, all of a sudden in 1960s, Mr. H. W. Allen, Jr. living in the American Midwest revolutionized archery with the invention of the compound bow!

I think we can do same to our beloved field of sporting optics. The more I learn about binoculars and human vision, the more I am convinced that there are still possibilities for improvement (not just better coatings and less aberrations etc.) We already have great contrast and resolution in existing binoculars but the way this image is delivered to the human eye might not be ideal. My invention here is just a first [crude] step.

I invite you, Ed, Holger and other members of the forum who have sufficient knowledge of optics to think about improving binoculars. This would be more useful than spending countless hours debating weather Swarovski X model has less color contrast than Leica Y model. Even if we fail, we learn something and we get credit for trying:


Leave your spectator seats and come join me in the arena...


Regards,
-Omid

Omid said:

Bill, I appreciate the compliment. It is very kind of you.

On the surface, it seems impossible to make any major improvements in the usability and ergonomics of binoculars. After all, they have been invented more than a century ago and the basic optical structure has remained the same. But this is no reason to stop exploring.. Think about archery. The bow has been invented when humans lived in caves and has been gradually improved until it reached its apex during the middle ages. Then, all of a sudden in 1960s, Mr. H. W. Allen, Jr. living in the American Midwest revolutionized archery with the invention of the compound bow!

I think we can do same to our beloved field of sporting optics. The more I learn about binoculars and human vision, the more I am convinced that there are still possibilities for improvement (not just better coatings and less aberrations etc.) We already have great contrast and resolution in existing binoculars but the way this image is delivered to the human eye might not be ideal. My invention here is just a first [crude] step.

I invite you, Ed, Holger and other members of the forum who have sufficient knowledge of optics to think about improving binoculars. This would be more useful than spending countless hours debating weather Swarovski X model has less color contrast than Leica Y model. Even if we fail, we learn something and we get credit for trying:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt April 23, 1910"​

Leave your spectator seats and come join me in the arena...


Regards,
-Omid

Click to expand...

Omid:

Thank you for THANKING me. But, I am only on the side of truth. Ed Huff was in the “arena” when you were pooping green and Holger is there, now. Walk softly, but in a straight line.

I loved your TR quote.

He also said: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” That WAS great advice.
Today, Bill Cook says: “If your stick is big enough, and the world knows you’ll use it, you don’t have to waste your breath.” :cat:

Cheers,

Bill

Omid said:

Bill, I appreciate the compliment. It is very kind of you.

I invite you, Ed, Holger and other members of the forum who have sufficient knowledge of optics to think about improving binoculars. This would be more useful than spending countless hours debating weather Swarovski X model has less color contrast than Leica Y model. Even if we fail, we learn something and we get credit for trying:

Regards,
-Omid

Click to expand...

how about 10x contact lens, then when you want to have normal vision, you put on a pair of glasses. Not sure about the practicalities or physics behind it, but would be sure coool to have zoom vision in the eyes!

sbb said:

but would be sure coool to have zoom vision in the eyes!

Click to expand...

"zoom vision" is an interesting concept. It is curious that no animal - as far as I know- has zoom vision. There are insects with multiple eyes but there is no creature with zoom vision.

Zoom is also an interesting concept in sports optics: Binoculars could definitely benefit from zoom but since it is very difficult to keep magnification the same in both barrels, very few zoom models have been made.

On the other hand, zoom is very easy to implement in rifle scopes since they use erector lenses instead of prisms. But that's actually not so useful and could be distracting the hunter (if you leave your scope at high zoom, you can't find the target and by the time you figure this out and reduce zoom, the game is gone!) Also, it causes problems with where the reticle should be (first focal plane or second focal plane). The correct solution here is a "dual-sight", one with low power and one with high power. (I have several patented inventions in this field)

Now, one area that zoom is useful and it has also been implemented too is spotting scopes.

-Omid

Small update. I haven't been able to perform any major tests, only a brief look through my 8x32 in the Scandinavian evening darkness.

I can vouch for the idea as such in that it actually works to place a prism outside one of the objective lenses, with the prism base laterally.
The FOV expands while the compound, binocular FOV decreases so the view looks more like in the comics books.
I can detect the added convergence strain and suspect that extended use would cause fatigue with some individuals. I have not yet been able to introduce an ocular-side prism as that would require that I have three hands, so I must either wait for the evolution process to take me there, or find a way to support the binocular so that my two hands can run the prism business.

I used a 1 prism diopter trial lens and a 2 prism diopter. The 1 power moves the image 0.57 degrees (10 m/1000 m) and the 2 power 1,15 degrees (20 m/1000 m).
It is readily noticeable how the convergence seemingly decreases the magnification. This is exactly what happens when using a porro binocular at a finite distance, although now it's there all the time, even at infinite distance.

So how much does this affect the perceived magnification? I'd say it differs between individuals, but for me it looks a lot like changing from 8x to 7x magnification.
With the increased FOV, I'd say that the immediate experience is that I change from a 8x32 with 140 m FOV to a 7x28 with a 150 m FOV.
Nothing extraordinary, really.

I'll be back as soon as I have found a way to introduce the ocular-side prism.
//L

Hi Lars,
Why does the aperture reduce?

Binastro said:

Hi Lars,
Why does the aperture reduce?

Click to expand...

Neither the real magnification nor the exit pupil reduce, but since the perceived magnification is reduced with constant exit pupil, i.e. the brightness is constant, it must translate to a 7x28.
These are only words, a mean to describe what I think would be comparable.

//L

Saturday, and off work so I have had the time to play some more with the prisms.
In the test I used a Meostar 8x32 with a 140 m/1000 m FOV, i.e. a wide-angle binocular.

In front of one of the objectives, a 2 prism diopter trial lens with the base laterally:

At long distance: I watch a distant chimney, turn the binoculars slightly so it's barely outside of the FOV.
Introducing the prism reveals the chimney again, in the most lateral part of the FOV only delivered by one of the barrels. The other barrel's FOV edge floats next to it as a slight indication of the transition to the compound/binocular FOV. A slight reduction of the magnification is perceived as recently described.
There's a nasty colour fringing which may be due to the plain crown glass of the trial lens.

At fairly close distance: The effect is huge, with a significantly reduced overlap of the FOV's and an almond-shaped central part representing the compound FOV. The total FOV is considerably larger than without the prism. It reminds a lot of using a porro at very close distance without adjusting the IPD.
Even here, a slight reduction of the magnification is perceived.
Removing the prism causes massive double-vision for several seconds, indicating a major convergence strain.

Apparently, the 2 prism diopter power is too much for me. Reducing this to the "1" power mitigates the worst undesirable effects, but the increase of the FOV is insignificant at longer distance.

In front of one of the objectives, a 1 prism diopter trial lens with the base medially

At long distance:
Tried with the "2" power but this required more divergence than I'm capable of, and my exophoria is roughly 20 prism diopters of which 3 are corrected in my glasses. Apparently, the vergence of the eyes needed to correct for a horisontal prism is multiplied with the factor of the magnification when placed in front of the objective.
Even I, with my major exophoria, can barely avoid diplopia with the "1" power". A vast majority of people would not accept any divergence.
At fairly close distance: Nothing spectacular to report
At very close distance: A relaxed view with a perceived increase of magnification, similar to the view of a reverse-porro.

Prism between eye and the ocular lens:

Very minor effect with these weak prism powers. I can adapt to the effect regardless of prism base direction, and detect no advantage of either direction compared to not using a prism. People with binocularity problems would be best served with spectacles addressing these.


Discussion:

My objections seem to have been largely correct.

- The advantage of a slightly wider FOV at long distance is compromised by the lack of binocular FOV where the advantage appears: near the edge.
With a wide angle binocular, turning the eyes so far sidewards is uncomfortable anyway. Base-out prisms do increase the total FOV at the expense of the compound FOV.

- The extra convergence needed to adjust for the prism may be favourable for a minority of users when looking at a distance, a minority that is further reduced when it comes to close distance viewing.

- The effect obtained by the prisms imitate that of using porro or reverse-porro binoculars.

However, in the porro case, without the advantage of the wider spacing between the objectives (parallax) which enhances the 3D perception.
A prism cannot yield a better 3D perception; it is not a magic gem that can see around corners. More parallax can at least give a glimpse.

- The base-out prism causes the so-called porro effect: the magnification seems weaker than that of a roof binocular with the same power.

For me, case is closed. Current wide-angle designs, roofs as well as porros, do a better job than diverging FsOV in every respect.
Regarding convergent FsOV: In theory, a roof design with base-in prisms on the objective side would yield a better 3D perception than a reverse-porro, but that's about it.

//L

Very nice report, Lars, and by someone qualified to do it too. :t:

Ed