Even for someone like me using amateur methods it's really not that difficult to "plot and measure" field curvature and off-axis astigmatism in diopters, using star points, grid patterns and the binocular's diopter adjustment. Distortion patterns are also easily photographed.
Once it's established that binocular A has more field curvature in diopters than binocular B, binocular A will never have less field curvature than binocular B no matter who uses it. The distortion designed into the the instrument is also constant no matter who looks through it. I'd rather first determine how much field curvature or astigmatism is actually there and what sort of distortion the instrument has before entering "the shifting sands of the descriptive and subjective world".
Henry
Henry,
This post contains some of my own personal views and observations.
You state clearly that you would "rather first determine" various data such as 'field curvature' or 'astigmatism' before entering into the 'subjective field'. By the repeated thrust of your blunt and pseudo-technical posts you appear to hold your own observations as being superior to those of us with a self confessed personal and subjective view on these matters. In my opinion, Cherry picking some scientific jingo and then somehow jumping and leapfrogging to a self "determined" observation does not make your observations more valid than anybody else's. It doesn't wash with me in the slightest. Personally, I find such posts of yours on this topic to be grounded in nothing more than the 'pseudo science' of the armchair layperson. If your posts are otherwise (and I hope they are), then I feel you are doing yourself a disservice by not articulating yourself or your methodology nearly thoroughly enough. I will give some examples:
Henry, you claim you can determine 'that binocular A has more field curvature than binocular B' and that this is "not difficult to plot and measure"...and yet you hurriedly and oddly gloss over your all important methodology, depriving other readers from thoroughly scrutinising your process in the same way you scrutinise others. Ultimately, to the informed reader or otherwise, you have articulated nothing of note which differentiates your observations from any other person on this forum.
I strongly suspect that you possess absolutely no valid scientific means of measuring, plotting and recording this process whatsoever. You may 'feel' that you have made some kind of measurement, in the same way that many of us do, but in the process, you yourself will be standing on the ground of mere personal opinion and subjectivity along with the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that, but please do say it as it is.
If I am incorrect, please feel free to set me straight:
What scientific methodology are you using in this process?
What are your points of reference?
What are your formal qualifications pertaining directly to this topic?
Where is your laboratory?
Where do you source your funding?
What organisation supervises your data gathering?
What scientific instruments do you use and to which standards are they calibrated?
How many articles have you published on this topic?
How many 'peer reviewed' articles can you link us to?
You know as well as I, that I have barely scratched the surface in scrutinising your approach to observing, measuring and documenting any relevant data whatsoever.
In the true spirit of science, I'm sure you would only encourage and welcome such scrutiny.
Rathaus