• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)

I really don't notice a 'rolling ball' effect when using my SV's. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just not aware of it when I'm viewing. I guess that means I have a plastic brain?

I do notice stronger pincushion in my wife's SLC HD, though only when looking for it.

Both bins give fine views to me in general use, though I prefer the SV's. The Mrs prefers the SLC HD.

Brock, how do you find the view through the SV's?
 
Brock,
Don't tar all those guys with the same brush - some merely posed the question!
Mark, CLEARLY stated that he does in fact see the effects
(not only that but he also engages in other risky behaviour, such as 'bin swapping'!)

I was quoting Pomp's post, verbatim. I wasn't sure who said what since one name is on my Ignore list so I also stated that some do see RB but like Pomp said not at a level that is disturbing, so that includes the whole shebang, the immunies and semi-neural plastics. It's this macho notion that one can simply will RB away and that I and others who see RB see RB because we look for it that I is total nonsense. Anyone who has read Holger report and taken his test on distortion should know that.

But the denials and myths persist and keep getting promulgated. Wish you were as concerned about that as you were about the newbie worrying about RB in a bin that didn't have AMD. He/she didn't do his/her homework on the bin in question.

I hope they can ignore all the smilies in your posts, which can also be distracting! 8-P:gh:eek::):t::smoke:;):eat::cat:

When I said:

It was to point out what these guys were helpfully trying to get folk to twig to ....... the "psychological factor" can work for you ...... or agin' you!

Don't forget RB ≠ RB ≠ RB, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3, and that whole host of "factors" (from the multi-disciplinary science);) change with regard to a whole host of other modifying parameters (such as tiredness, eye fatigue, optical formula consistency adaptation timeframes, emotional state, even curmudgeonliness! etc, etc, etc).

Also don't forget that's your "pizza with everything" theory. All we really know for sure is that the k factor, that is, the amount of distortion your eyes brings to the EPs determines whether or not you are likely to see RB. The neural and/or behavioral involvement and what people or their brains do to adapt is less established, but still worthy of consideration. However, the way you are lumping all these factors in together sounds as if they were all equal, although that may not be your intention.

Somewhere on that k value scale lies your tipping point, and your sweet spot. Go too far and you'll wander off another cliff into "Rolling Bowl". Surely you owe it to yourself and the vast BF readership to actually try the various models, and put together a collection, and usage pattern, along with optimising all the other "factors" to assist your viewing experience as much as possible ??
That's why I stipulated that the RB=RB=RB was limited to one's individual threshold. It still applies with that caveat. I don't think the factors you mentioned above would obviate the "k factor" although some of them could perhaps make one more sensitive to RB if. For example, if behavioral factors play as crucial a role as Ed asserts, then, if you're tired you might not be able to or remember to adjust your behavior (eye or arm movement) to compensate for RB.

I'm the wrong person to be the standard bearer for testing RB in various bins since I'm RB Positive. The best person for this task is a semi-neural plastic, who sees RB but is not overwhelmed by it and also one who does not think he can "will away" the RB by ignoring it. IOW, a sensible semi-neural plastic. My "k=factor" is too low to limbo.

However, the one bin that I do want to try despite its reported RB and outrageous price is the 8x32 SV EL. People who see RB keep on reporting that they don't see it with this model while they do with the 8.5x. According to Henry's photo comparison, the distortion pattern is the same in both models. He wrote off the reports of the users not seeing RB in the 8x32 SV EL as "psychological," which brings us to your last point.

Unless you've gone the ultimate mile, with the Dr. Wayne Dyer "You'll see it when you believe it" initiates retreat, or Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and the like, then ....... like it or not - but you can NOT disregard the "psychological factor"

Chosun

One can't underestimate the power of belief, I will grant you, Henry, and others who lean heavily on this factor that much. But this also varies from person to person. Saying that everyone who sees RB in the 8.5 SV EL and not the 10x42 or 8x32 is due to "psychological factors" is not only "painting everybody with the same brush" but against your "pizza with everything" theory.

I'm not convinced that all those who reported seeing a difference in the two models are doing so because they don't want to see RB in the midsized model, that is, its for "psychological reasons". And what would those reasons be?

AFAIK, there was no expectation that the midsized model would be any different than the full sized ones by anyone but me, and even I admitted that it was a long shot, but I saw this happen with the midsized Nikon HGs, which have enough pincushion to ameliorate the RB, unlike the full sized models. As a general rule of thumb, wider field bins tend to have more pincushion than those with more moderate FsOV. Henry mentioned this as a "trade-off" in regard to my WF 8x30 EII.

My interest in this 8x32 SV EL stems from my like of the EL WB model. But as a winter substitute for my SEs, I would prefer a bin with ED glass. I was fine with the edge performance on the EL WB, all I wanted was ED glass, but you get the compound distortion and edge to edge sharpness as an added "bonus" with the SV EL regardless if you wanted them or not.

So that's one low distortion bin that I do intend to try at some point. The others I'm not interested in for various reasons. Even if I could adapt to the 8x32 SV EL, the price is still dear and might the bin's true "fatal flaw".

Would owning an 8x32 SV EL make me a better birder? No. Would it give me more "street cred"? Yes. But I could care less about that, particularly since most of the time, I bird alone, so no-one would see my SV EL, anyway. At best, I could have bragging rights on BF. Hopefully, for longer than two months like dennis. (a smilie would go here, but not to be outdone by your prodigious smilie count, I've already used up my allotted 10 smilies).

No, that's not what its about. As someone writes in his signature: It's all about the view. I think one broad brush I can paint is that everybody who posts to these forums who isn't cheap wants to get the best optics that they can afford even if they have to rationalize that by amortizing the cost over 30 years. ;)

<B>
 
Last edited:
I can understand that the high ticket price of the Swaro could turn out to be their fatal flaw from your perspective and they're certainly not worth the money if they don't deliver what the you the user wants.

In the end it's about using the binoculars you enjoy and enjoying the binoculars you use.

Isn't it?

BTW Brock, I hope I'm not on your ignore list (whatever an ignore list is). I certainly appreciated the welcome you gave me when I joined the forum and have read many of your posts. But as you haven't directly answered my question(s), perhaps I am.

Not much I can do about that I guess if you're ignoring me. However, if I have offended you in some way, then FWIW I do apologise.
 
When Swarovisions go on sale for $299.99 rolling ball will cease to be an issue.


For sure - the more expensive an item, the greater the scrutiny. Look at the length of threads over RB, edge sharpness, focus stiffness. If a bin is 2 grand, it must be dissected - and I get that.
 
For sure - the more expensive an item, the greater the scrutiny. Look at the length of threads over RB, edge sharpness, focus stiffness. If a bin is 2 grand, it must be dissected - and I get that.

Yes, I agree.

It's also much easier to forgive or even expect performance or other shortcomings if the price was right. Paying top dollar, it seems reasonable to expect a better product.
 
I can understand that the high ticket price of the Swaro could turn out to be their fatal flaw from your perspective and they're certainly not worth the money if they don't deliver what the you the user wants.

In the end it's about using the binoculars you enjoy and enjoying the binoculars you use.

Isn't it?

BTW Brock, I hope I'm not on your ignore list (whatever an ignore list is). I certainly appreciated the welcome you gave me when I joined the forum and have read many of your posts. But as you haven't directly answered my question(s), perhaps I am.

Not much I can do about that I guess if you're ignoring me. However, if I have offended you in some way, then FWIW I do apologise.

GeeJay,

No need to apologize, you have not offended, and I hope that I didn't offend you in quoting Pomp's post (or Pomp). I've been very busy this week, so if I missed your questions, it wasn't intentional.

You are not among the Dirty (Half) Dozen on my Ignore List. I find "The List" makes it less tempting to fire back when flamed although you still see their posts if they are quoted, so it's not completely "flame retardant". Plus, what Steve (the Administrator) said is true, what we post here is "the flame that's seen around the world" (I'm paraphrasing), so it's preferable to discuss optics with people who share your Weltanshuuang or with whom you may respectively disagree, but who are not out to burn you at the "steak" and cover you with A-1 sauce.

Actually, the real fatal flaw is my bank account. "Newspaper reporter" was ranked 5 out of the Top 10 Worst Jobs of 2012:

http://www.careercast.com/content/10-worst-jobs-2012-5-newspaper-reporter

If video killed the radio star, online news, the Associated Press, and bla bla blogs are killing the newspaper reporter. The previous two publishers of the newspaper I work for never ran AP stories, but the latest publisher uses nearly as many AP stories as he does in-house stories to save cost.

It's hard to say if were rolling it it, if I'd be more enthused about the current crop of alphas. The HTs certainly look and sound very appealing and probably provide as satisfying a view the ELs for those who can't shake the RB. Or the SLC-HD. Or the growing list of second-tier offerings.

I truly like porros better, the fact that they provide a great "bang for the buck" is an added perk. However, new premium porros are harder to find than an ivory-billed woodpecker. Other than the Perger porro, nothing significantly innovative has happened with porros since the internal focus Minox BP porros and the Leupold Cascades, and both those had moderate FsOV. The other novel development was the EWA Miyauchi Binons, which were around for about 60 seconds. At this point it seems that porros hit their peak with the SE and the EII, and that they are not likely to evolve past that point, which would be hard to top optically but could use some mechanical refinements, namely, waterproofing/fogproofing, twist-up eyecups, and a bigger focus wheel.

Brock
 
Last edited:
Brock, with my brief manner of writing it might difficult enough to get my own ideas let alone others' - there's been a bit more confusion there than you seem to have seen! But all's well...
 
Brock,

Your post#83 contains the odd salient point, but by and large you are twisting things (either through misunderstanding or mischief) and ascribing things to me which I never said, which you seem to do with regular monotony.

I'm not going to go through the whole shebang line by line, because quite honestly, I, and most likely many others, are bored by the tediousness of this nonsense.

I'll play no reindeer games with you sonny-jim ..... but for the sake of everyone with an interest in the facts, I'll briefly re-state what has already been made abundantly clear.

Despite the fact that you trot out links to Holgers work as some sort irrefutable proof of your position, I wonder whether you actually read /understand /remember it at all? You have the k values all wrong. These are direct quotes from Holger's page you link: "(Fig 2: Generalized transformation formula with distortion parameter 'k')", and "(Fig 4: Visual transformation formula with distortion parameter 'l' ...... Here, the new parameter 'l' stands for the distortion generated by the human vision.)". Holger goes on to postulate that because the human vision introduces some barrel distortion, that roughly when k = l then a happy medium is struck for the individual (this is for physical and physiological factors).

Further reading of the links and material Holger provides, show that a whole host of multi-disciplinary scientific "factors" come into play - not just the ones you regularly spout. Thus the multiple "factor" theory is not mine - I just summarised it for the benefit of everyone here who seeks a greater understanding of the whole area (yourself included). I quite clearly stated that the proportions vary for individuals, and that they are modulated (again with varying magnitude) by a whole host of other parameters.
The whole RB "phenomenon" consists of physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological factors.
and that whole host of "factors" (from the multi-disciplinary science) change with regard to a whole host of other modifying parameters (such as tiredness, eye fatigue, optical formula consistency adaptation timeframes, emotional state, even curmudgeonliness! etc, etc, etc).
Furthermore those mixes /proportions of those factors will not remain fixed with regard to time due to various reasons (situation, optical formula consistency + adaptation if /as required, emotional state!, etc, etc, etc) ......
To my knowledge (and I've read just about all the stuff, from just about all of the people on BF on this and related topics) no-one is claiming that, this part of the equation, - or that, is solely responsible, or invalidates the phenomena. It is highly individualistic, and subjective /experiential. The penchant for that seems to be yours alone, most likely because it suits your purpose of having something to argue with. You yourself said:
Your all encompassing "pizza with everything to go" theory is so complex that there's no way to evaluate it. But the mind can be tricky and human behavior is complex, so perhaps expecting RB adaptation to be either only neural or only behavioral might be too simplistic.
Your RB = RB = RB is still invalid, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3.
Your qualification that there is an RB 'threshold' value does have merit, and you even acknowledged that it is more correctly a 'threshold region' modified by those "factors", which are then affected /modulated by a whole host of "parameters" (eg. tiredness, as you rightly proffered).

For the minority of people have trouble with the effects of the RB phenomena:-
* We know that those with high levels of barrel distortion in their eyes must by and large choose binoculars with corresponding like levels of pincushion to compensate.
* We know they must by and large choose binoculars in their collection with similar optical formulas.
* We know they must by and large avoid swapping back and forth to some unsuited low distortion bins in order to maximise the adaptation process.
* We know they must by and large engage in behaviours (panning methods, energy /fatigue levels, even down perhaps to what they had for breakfast, etc) and situations (distances, aspects, focal /dof ranges, vegetation types, etc) which do not aggravate any tendency to move that threshold over the tipping point.
* We know they must by and large engage in psychological discipline that encompases such things as positively redefining preconceptions, beliefs, concentration, intent, and even fear, etc as a way of maximising their chances of minimal impacts to their viewing pleasure.
* We know all these things and more (such as perspective, other binocular pleasures /advantages /compromise satisfaction, investment and/or attachment, happiness, etc, etc), and yet someone, or something, somewhere, will inevitably crop up to be an example of a complete contradiction, for better or worse - even if only for one inexplicably, serendipitously, fleeting, moment .....
* We do not know in what proportions these "factors" and modulating (+ve, or -ve) "parameters" apply - for that is an individual thing.
We can but share our experiences and knowledge.

Some even know to forget all this stuff, and just go look at some birds.

From my perspective, I have seen numerous people come forward and offer you /us contextual examples of these anomalies, and yet instead of embracing the individual diversity and learning, you seem to pounce on it and contort it to fit the preconceived prison cells of your imagined persecution, and resultant retorting arguements.

You're punching at shadows, perilously close to walking along the street muttering to yourself. Surely there's a better use for your intellect, experience and story telling.


Chosun
 
Last edited:
CJ, I was going to say pretty much the same thing as Sancho. Usually I rein myself in when I get "caught". But yesterday two random pedestrians caught me at it within minutes. Now, that condition might be perilous. PS. No, it wasn't threats at you.
 
Last edited:
CJ, I was going to say pretty much the same thing as Sancho. Usually I rein myself in when I get "caught". But yesterday two random pedestrians caught me at it within minutes. Now, that condition might be perilous. PS. No, it wasn't threats at you.

Hahaha :-O Pompadour, I bet I know what you were muttering ..... "must not delay any longer ;) - must remember to do homework! 8-P


Chosun :gh:
 
Brock,....bla...bla...bla...

You're punching at shadows, perilously close to walking along the street muttering to yourself. Surely there's a better use for your intellect, experience and story telling.

Chosun

Yes, there certainly is, and it doesn't include reading or replying to your lengthy, poison pen posts.

On the "Down Under(ground) List" you go and shall remain, world without end, Amen.

<B>
 
Last edited:
Brock, sorry lost track, or rather never quite kept, but what are the models which show RB to you, and, as you recall, those you haven't tried which show it to others? Just a list is welcome, in order of seriousness if poss.

Any Zeisses? Gathered, likely from BF, that since long ago Z. have made a special effort to prevent it. Two days ago went for some tests the eye doctor ordered. A "visual field test" was done on a machine by Zeiss (I thought: ha Lee et al. my Zeiss is better than yours) who are a major maker of "vision care" equipment. It strikes me that they could have made a device to simulate r. bowl / r. ball, tested numbers of people with it, and have a lot of relevant data. Just conjecture, but what is certain is Z. especally have a lot of such info relevant to bins not revealed for commercial reasons.

PS. Really think your concern presently about people's acceptance of how serious RB can be is a bit excessive! As I gather there was a time when that was quite justified but the problem is now pretty much remedied.
 
Last edited:
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?

I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.

But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...

I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either ;)).

Mark


Not quite - I have deleted one article ("Frequently asked questions regarding the new SV and the globe effect") because the information given there was outdated, and because Swarovski was reluctant to provide me any updated information. They just informed me that their old distortion formula had been modified, but they didn't send me any updated numbers, because the entire globe effect issue is now regarded a sensitive subject. Apparently they just don't want it to be discussed any further. I would interpret that as follows: It is quite possible that older versions of e.g. the 8.5x42 SV might have had a different distortion behavior than later versions, so we have to be careful when comparing our experiences even among different samples of one and the same model.

I have seen a clear globe effect through an early 8.5x42 SV
I have seen a very slight globe effect through an early 10x42 SV and through recent 8x32 and 10x32 SV

I have the exact (laboratory) distortion values of the old 8.5x42 (which I am not allowed to publish), I included these numbers into my simulation program and got a nice globe effect. That was about 3 years ago and Swarovski had got the simulation results. They also sent me laboratory values of the BPO which I was allowed to publish

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/bpo7x30/bpo7x30.html

and we gradually learned how the globe effect of the 8.5x42 emerged. They have done some modifications but unfortunately they didn't tell me any details, so I deleted the old article on the Swaro SV.

Cheers,
Holger
 
The Globe Effect, aka Rolling Ball, is not a problem for Swarovski. Swarovisions sell quite briskly as most owners are either unfazed by the "effect" or simply adapt to one more optical challenge. Life is full of them.

I never adapted to the Soft Edges (aka Softies) in my high-priced, alpha Leica Ultravid. The Zeiss FL exhibited Softies but I simply avoided the problem by not purchasing the model. The Nikon HG/LX exhibited too much CA (aka Chromy) so I returned it and settled on the Nikon 8X32 SE, a model that clearly exhibits a condition called Blackouts. The SE also has a bad case of the Floppies (i.e. rubber eyecups...anyone have a supply of these?). Oh, and there's a bunch of models with sloppy focus mechanisms (aka Sloppy) that infurirate me to no end. My simple solution: NO SALE.

My 8.5X42 Swarovision, on the other hand, is definitely not a sloppy floppy softie with chromy blackouts. Quite the contrary. It's simply fantastic and a joy to use!

A new three step cure for Rolling Ball...
Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. Go Species!
 
I have a hard time understanding...is someone forcing people who are sensitive to "rolling ball", to buy those binocular models that may exhibit the phenomenon? That would seem to be the case from all the ruckus being raised about it...
 
Not quite - I have deleted one article ("Frequently asked questions regarding the new SV and the globe effect") because the information given there was outdated, and because Swarovski was reluctant to provide me any updated information. They just informed me that their old distortion formula had been modified, but they didn't send me any updated numbers, because the entire globe effect issue is now regarded a sensitive subject. Apparently they just don't want it to be discussed any further. I would interpret that as follows: It is quite possible that older versions of e.g. the 8.5x42 SV might have had a different distortion behavior than later versions, so we have to be careful when comparing our experiences even among different samples of one and the same model.

I have seen a clear globe effect through an early 8.5x42 SV
I have seen a very slight globe effect through an early 10x42 SV and through recent 8x32 and 10x32 SV

I have the exact (laboratory) distortion values of the old 8.5x42 (which I am not allowed to publish), I included these numbers into my simulation program and got a nice globe effect. That was about 3 years ago and Swarovski had got the simulation results. They also sent me laboratory values of the BPO which I was allowed to publish

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/bpo7x30/bpo7x30.html

and we gradually learned how the globe effect of the 8.5x42 emerged. They have done some modifications but unfortunately they didn't tell me any details, so I deleted the old article on the Swaro SV.

Cheers,
Holger

Ah, thanks Holger. I had wondered if Swaro had been "in touch" with you. ;) I didn't realize they had done the BPO study too. So that's where they got the idea I guess?

Mark
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top