Collimation (1 Viewer)

jan van daalen · Nov 16, 2014

WJC said:
Hi Jan:

I sent the SPIE piece at least two hours ago. Did you not get it? Also, I wasn't talking about the 70s but about the early portion of the last century.

Bill

Got it, thanks Bill.

I'm confused ( it happens, not your fault) by your last remark.
As far as I know the three similar collimators are from round 1948-1951. Each (home made by Bleeker) for one of the three model Porro bins Bleeker ever made. The other one is a "modern" one from round 1970.
What do you mean by talking about the early portion of the last century?

Jan

WJC · Nov 16, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Got it, thanks Bill.

I'm confused ( it happens, not your fault) by your last remark.
As far as I know the three similar collimators are from round 1948-1951. Each (home made by Bleeker) for one of the three model Porro bins Bleeker ever made. The other one is a "modern" one from round 1970.
What do you mean by talking about the early portion of the last century?

Jan

Hi Jan:

I wasn't talking about your collimators, but rather when the most experimentation on collimation was taking place. Also, as I notice the extreme rigidity of those devices, and the small aperture of the scopes, it seems they were for a limited number of instruments of nearly the same size, and would allow Conditional Alignment, at best.

I saw another explanation about how to collimate a binocular on the net last night. The fellow referenced the US Navy's OM3 & 2, but didn't seem at all concerned that his 6x30 "auxiliary scope" had no rhomboid prism attachment, which is THOROUGHLY explained AND illustrated in the manual and without which "collimation" can't be accomplished. Did he think the Navy just used it for fun? People sometimes get frustrated with me because I have a hard time containing myself, but over and over I see people wanting to teach others how to "collimate" their binocular, when they don't know themselves . . . EVEN WHEN THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN LAID IN THEIR LAPS, as it was in the manual he referenced. It would seem that some people find it MUCH easier to type than to read.

Bill

jan van daalen · Nov 16, 2014

WJC said:
Hi Jan:

I wasn't talking about your collimators, but rather when the most experimentation on collimation was taking place. Also, as I notice the extreme rigidity of those devices, and the small aperture of the scopes, it seems they were for a limited number of instruments of nearly the same size, and would allow Conditional Alignment, at best.

I saw another explanation about how to collimate a binocular on the net last night. The fellow referenced the US Navy's OM3 & 2, but didn't seem at all concerned that his 6x30 "auxiliary scope" had no rhomboid prism attachment, which is THOROUGHLY explained AND illustrated in the manual and without which "collimation" can't be accomplished. Did he think the Navy just used it for fun? People sometimes get frustrated with me because I have a hard time containing myself, but over and over I see people wanting to teach others how to "collimate" their binocular, when they don't know themselves . . . EVEN WHEN THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN LAID IN THEIR LAPS, as it was in the manual he referenced. It would seem that some people find it MUCH easier to type than to read.

Bill

Thanks for clearing Bill.

NDhunter · Nov 16, 2014

Bill:

I just made a search on the famous auction site, and someone has a "US military surplus prism
collimator tool" up for auction. This looks like an attachment for the main unit.
You may know all about this one. I just did a search, "binocular collimator".

This sounds just like the item you were just referring to above, your last post.

Maybe someone could link this, I don't know how to.

Jerry

Pinewood · Nov 17, 2014

Hello Jerry,

Did you mean this item?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

NDhunter · Nov 17, 2014

Thanks Arthur, that's the one. I'm sure it does not mean much for most here, except
Bill.

Jerry

WJC · Nov 17, 2014

NDhunter said:
Thanks Arthur, that's the one. I'm sure it does not mean much for most here, except
Bill.

Jerry

Hi Jerry, et al.:

Thanks, guys, for sharing. Not only do most people not know what they think they know about binoculars and the industry that produces them; they know even less about test equipment.

Years ago, one of these Internet sites offered a “US ARMY Binocular Collimator” for sale. I bought it. (Okay, okay, I’m stupid . . . ya happy, now?)
Anyway, when it came, it was a full-thickness (though ribbed) 8-inch mirror in a massive cell, on an equally massive bracket. I was ticked! I called the seller. His excuse was, “Well, that’s what it said on the side of the box when I bought it; how was I to know!?”

Years later, at Ft. Lewis, I saw that same thing. It WAS one of about 30 pieces (in a huge crate) of a 40s-50s Army collimator. As it was, it was a useless piece of wasted money. These days, I ask MANY more questions.
I’m sure that prism attachment is PART of some kind to collimation device. But, when I go to buy a car, I want the whole thing … not just the spare tire off of it.

Curmudgeon, out.

Bill

NDhunter · Nov 17, 2014

Well Bill, I just thought this was a part of a Mark V collimator, and it would have given
you a thrill.

Sorry, I tried.

Jerry

WJC · Nov 17, 2014

NDhunter said:
Well Bill, I just thought this was a part of a Mark V collimator, and it would have given
you a thrill.

Sorry, I tried.

Jerry

Hey Buddy, You keep trying. As I hope all the others will do. When I think of those two beautiful (copper covered) Mk Vs I had in my basement just a few years ago, I could just scream. If I had them now, I could stay in burger money.

But, I've been beaten about the head and shoulders enough, and after the first of the year, I'm gonna try to rewrite the WHOLE book into something Springer will want.

I don't really have time. On the other hand, I don't have time not to!

So, please ANYTHING you see and MIGHT think is something worthwhile, share! It will be appreciated.

Bill

PS As far as being THRILLED--find me a Fujinon U.B.M.M. for . . . $8.37!

jan van daalen · Nov 17, 2014

WJC said:
Hey Buddy, You keep trying. As I hope all the others will do. When I think of those two beautiful (copper covered) Mk Vs I had in my basement just a few years ago, I could just scream. If I had them now, I could stay in burger money.

But, I've been beaten about the head and shoulders enough, and after the first of the year, I'm gonna try to rewrite the WHOLE book into something Springer will want.

I don't really have time. On the other hand, I don't have time not to!

So, please ANYTHING you see and MIGHT think is something worthwhile, share! It will be appreciated.

Bill

PS As far as being THRILLED--find me a Fujinon U.B.M.M. for . . . $8.37!

Bill,

Is that inclusive transport?

WJC · Nov 17, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Bill,

Is that inclusive transport?

Okay, you win, I'll pay for the transportation; just not from NL!

Bill

WJC · Nov 19, 2014

If possible, I would like to get my original question answered--possibly for publication. Please offer your input.

Why will people spend days and pages talking about things they in no way can change, while virtually ignoring the ONE thing they CAN change and ONE thing that can override a number of optical anomalies?

Bill

jan van daalen · Nov 19, 2014

WJC said:
If possible, I would like to get my original question answered--possibly for publication. Please offer your input.

Why will people spend days and pages talking about things they in no way can change, while virtually ignoring the ONE thing they CAN change and ONE thing that can override a number of optical anomalies?

Bill

Bill,

I can only speak for myself, but you have to be more concrete because I don't get the question.

Jan

OPTIC_NUT · Nov 19, 2014

The difficulty in answering the question may be helped by evidence on:
----common axis misalignment figures for the binoculars commonly discussed in this forum.
----the resulting aberrations actually seen (in the Vanguards, Zeiss, Kowas, Monarchs, Minox, etc...) like...resolution levels, etc..

There is a lot of information about how things are aligned, should be aligned, varying standards,
but not on axial error A and Airy disk B. It's sort of a rhetorical question without answering
"what kind of alignment error?", "what level of distortion?" in factual numerical ways.

Or...something I'm curious about: if I can measure each barrel on most of the tested binoculars
at a level down below my eye's acuity, how can I measure the combined acuity (since it is
combined images somehow you are talking about)?

Just saying..

OPTIC_NUT · Nov 19, 2014

NDhunter said:
Bill:
....
...

I looked up the definition of the Seidel aberrations, and that is a complex subject, way above
my interest.
..
...
Jerry

Don't worry about it.
No new aberrations. It includes the normal aberrations you know about
already. The cool thing about it is.... they are all converted to number
series so the total effect can be combined easily.

WJC · Nov 19, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Bill,

I can only speak for myself, but you have to be more concrete because I don't get the question.

Jan

From the original:

. . . I am amazed that there is so little emphasis on collimation. This is noticeably true for three reasons.

1. The QA efforts that go into so many inexpensive Asian offerings are considerably lower than we have come to expect from the old guard in Europe, or the top tier of Asian firms.

2. Even small errors in collimation can affect the performance of an instrument more than a combination of Seidel aberrations. And

3. It is the ONE aspect of performance the observer can address for himself or herself (Conditional Alignment) or, if dealing with the big dogs in the industry, can have brought back to true, 3-axis alignment—collimation.

I am not seeking another endless debate. But, I would like those with an opinion on this matter to share it with me.

Thanks,

Bill

OPTIC_NUT · Nov 19, 2014

Something concrete would be....that perhaps you can see finer detail, a smaller font at x distance, or
a better resolution on the USAF chart. Something we can see, know, notice, and measure for results.

So....someone should be able to see some real difference before their eyes.
If a small error can cause a bigger problem than all the other aberrations combined
(Seidel is just summing the common types), and if
many or most binoculars are so misaligned, it should be easy to see the big aberration.

One concrete possibility is:

---looking at the same point through a line not on the center axis can cause abberration
Let's assume a fov of 8 degrees and a sweet spot of 6 degrees (over which you cannot see anything but the best sharpness)

---if the barrels are 30 arc-minutes out of line, the 'sweet spot' would be reduced from 360 arc minutes to 330 arc-minutes,
but inside that 330, you couldn't tell any difference from perfect focus.

That's all I can think would happen. Makes sense, given that I can read a 0.07" font from 36 ft, with one barrel or two.
It doesn't appear to exceed any other aberrations at all at that distance (and a 25 arc-minute axis difference).

WJC · Nov 19, 2014

OPTIC_NUT said:
Something concrete would be....that perhaps you can see finer detail, a smaller font at x distance, or
a better resolution on the USAF chart. Something we can see, know, notice, and measure for results.

So....someone should be able to see some real difference before their eyes.
If a small error can cause a bigger problem than all the other aberrations combined
(Seidel is just summing the common types), and if
many or most binoculars are so misaligned, it should be easy to see the big aberration.

One concrete possibility is:

---looking at the same point through a line not on the center axis can cause abberration
Let's assume a fov of 8 degrees and a sweet spot of 6 degrees (over which you cannot see anything but the best sharpness)

---if the barrels are 30 arc-minutes out of line, the 'sweet spot' would be reduced from 360 arc minutes to 330 arc-minutes,
but inside that 330, you couldn't tell any difference from perfect focus.

That's all I can think would happen. Makes sense, given that I can read a 0.07" font from 36 ft, with one barrel or two.
It doesn't appear to exceed any other aberrations at all at that distance (and a 25 arc-minute axis difference).

You seem to have taken things well beyond the question I wanted to get answered. I'm still hoping a few will answer my question, without getting into things that are not relevant to that question. Being pointed in my questioning, other things just muddy the water.:t:

Cheers,

Bill

OPTIC_NUT · Nov 19, 2014

The original post:

WJC said:
Hi All:

Across the board, I get the impression the average observer on Birdforum is a few shades more mature and cranial than the average observer on Cloudy Nights. However, with all those who never cease talking about getting their binocular to perform to a standard above that which it is capable, I am amazed that there is so little emphasis on collimation. This is noticeably true for three reasons.

1. The QA efforts that go into so many inexpensive Asian offerings are considerably lower than we have come to expect from the old guard in Europe, or the top tier of Asian firms.

2. Even small errors in collimation can affect the performance of an instrument more than a combination of Seidel aberrations. And

3. It is the ONE aspect of performance the observer can address for himself or herself (Conditional Alignment) or, if dealing with the big dogs in the industry, can have brought back to true, 3-axis alignment—collimation.

I am not seeking another endless debate. But, I would like those with an opinion on this matter to share it with me. |=)|

Thanks,

Bill

Sorry....I will not guess, but the original is missing concerete tractable information.

RE: point 1: How can I tell it's needed for a given pair, from usage?

RE: point 2: I will stop guessing.
Please give something concrete, something that can be
observed in normal usage.

RE: point 3: I need to observe what's actually wrong w/the view.
Please give something concrete, something that can be
observed in normal usage.

jan van daalen · Nov 19, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Bill,

I can only speak for myself, but you have to be more concrete because I don't get the question.

Jan

Bill,

After consulting my shrink I think I understand the essence of your question.
That is: Why do people take time for verbal communication on this subject and still don't want to take time for studying that subject so they could understand.
My answer is "coldwater fever. The fear for the unknown. Messing with a binocular is asking for more trouble".
Even after studying this collination material of yours it takes "guts" to screw on optics.
Not everybody is an OPTIC NUT

Since Leica was so kind to teach me the (very) basic principles of bin repair I felt confidence enough to try to repair donated bins for the Second Life Optics initiative and still I ruine more than I repair.
I have hundreds of broken down bins waiting for repair so my skills will eventualy grow, but should I do that on my own bin...... I think I would send it to a trustworthy repairman/lady.

If this answer is not forfilling your question.... sorry mate, best I could do.

Jan

Collimation (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

New York correspondent

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread