Looksharp,
I appreciate your information on stereo vision, and your analysis. The parallax effect through the scope is interesting, and shows the scope view is actually in some sense 3-D.
I would like to offer something else on the same analytical "wavelength". As you imply, the stereo effect will be greater with a Porro binocular whose objectives are farther apart than the eyes. This is unnatural, but is part of what makes the Porro view interesting. Some here have complained about the artificiality of it.
There is another effect associated with magnification that affects the perception of relative distances. The relative sizes of objects at varying distances is distorted by magnification, so that the magnified view is not at all like the view if one simply walked closer. This is well known to photographers, but not so much to visual observers.
Consider identical objects at 100 and 110 meters, in the same field of view. If you just walked 90 meters closer, one be 10 m away, the other 20.
If viewed at 10x, however, the relative sizes are seen just as they are at the greater distance, only magnified. So, the closer one would appear to be 10m away, and the farther at 11 m.
Magnification destroys perspective. One way, although artificial, to return some badly needed impression of depth is with an artificially enhanced stereoscopic view, as from a Porro binocular. I think that may be why some people prefer them, the view isn't so "flat" looking.
Ron
I appreciate your information on stereo vision, and your analysis. The parallax effect through the scope is interesting, and shows the scope view is actually in some sense 3-D.
I would like to offer something else on the same analytical "wavelength". As you imply, the stereo effect will be greater with a Porro binocular whose objectives are farther apart than the eyes. This is unnatural, but is part of what makes the Porro view interesting. Some here have complained about the artificiality of it.
There is another effect associated with magnification that affects the perception of relative distances. The relative sizes of objects at varying distances is distorted by magnification, so that the magnified view is not at all like the view if one simply walked closer. This is well known to photographers, but not so much to visual observers.
Consider identical objects at 100 and 110 meters, in the same field of view. If you just walked 90 meters closer, one be 10 m away, the other 20.
If viewed at 10x, however, the relative sizes are seen just as they are at the greater distance, only magnified. So, the closer one would appear to be 10m away, and the farther at 11 m.
Magnification destroys perspective. One way, although artificial, to return some badly needed impression of depth is with an artificially enhanced stereoscopic view, as from a Porro binocular. I think that may be why some people prefer them, the view isn't so "flat" looking.
Ron
