Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 2nd July 2017, 18:43   #51
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Right example if Rathaus meant distortion, wrong example if he meant field curvature. That's the problem with the way "flat field" is used in these discussions. The same term is used interchangeably for two unrelated things.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd July 2017, 03:35   #52
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,937
''Natural-ness'' is in the eye of the beholder - something we have to decide on our own.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd July 2017, 13:54   #53
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Hi James,

This is certainly true when we are forced to choose between one form of distortion or another, but if the choice is between an optical aberration or no aberration how many of us would decide that the aberration is more natural?

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd July 2017, 19:29   #54
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 881
It's my understanding that Leica optics have more visible CA than the other elite binoculars, of all the distortions that's the one I detest the most, I'm not particularly fond of flat horizontal and vertical objects, (building roofs and walls, telephone poles, etc,) having an unnatural bowed appearance either. Whether or not a particular optic is your personal Holy Grail is totally dependent on your own expectations of what the perfect optic should look like. I think we all know the (Perfect) optic doesn't exist, probably never will.
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 3rd July 2017, 19:42   #55
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Hi James,

This is certainly true when we are forced to choose between one form of distortion or another, but if the choice is between an optical aberration or no aberration how many of us would decide that the aberration is more natural?

Henry
The Swarovski SV may have few aberrations, but I find the flat field lacks depth and lacks the dynamic ''pop'' of some of my preferred binoculars, giving a rather dull and lifeless view - even though you may consider them nearly aberration-free. This alone is more annoying [and less ''natural''] to me than an aberration like poor edge sharpness etc.

My 2 cents.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn

Last edited by james holdsworth : Monday 3rd July 2017 at 19:45.
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th July 2017, 02:43   #56
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
The Swarovski SV may have few aberrations, but I find the flat field lacks depth and lacks the dynamic ''pop'' of some of my preferred binoculars, giving a rather dull and lifeless view - even though you may consider them nearly aberration-free. This alone is more annoying [and less ''natural''] to me than an aberration like poor edge sharpness etc.

My 2 cents.
The only aberrations I'm talking about here are field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Yes, those are unusually well corrected in the SVs, but I doubt that's the source of your complaint. How can the absence of aberrations damage the image? As I've said before, I would look at the choice of distortion.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th July 2017, 14:16   #57
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
The only aberrations I'm talking about here are field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Yes, those are unusually well corrected in the SVs, but I doubt that's the source of your complaint. How can the absence of aberrations damage the image? As I've said before, I would look at the choice of distortion.
In the Leica photo community spherical aberration is a feature, not an aberration.


What bothers me with field flatteners is that they seem to come with
some downsides in the form of greater glare/stray light sensitivity.

We know that the SV is not great on glare, the SF seem to be worse than the HT and the NV seem to be very good in that aspect.

Is it possible to build a bin with field flatteners that is as good as the NV when it comes to glare suppression?
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th July 2017, 15:10   #58
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
That's a good example of how ideas about what's desirable in photographic optics don't always apply to binoculars and scopes. My understanding is that spherical over-correction in camera lenses, particularly portrait lenses, is considered a good feature because it creates a nice soft bokeh behind the subject. It inevitably softens the plane of best focus, OK for portraits, but never a good thing in binoculars and scopes.

The very same baffling for controlling glare can be used in binoculars with or without field flatteners. My 8x30 Habichts without field flatteners have similarly poor glare resistance to the 8x32 SV with flatteners and for the same reason, poor baffling of the objective cell. The field-flatteners in the SV seem to take the rap for everything, but just as in the choice of distortion, the relatively ineffective baffling in the SV has nothing to do with field flattening.

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Tuesday 4th July 2017 at 16:38.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th July 2017, 21:51   #59
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
That's a good example of how ideas about what's desirable in photographic optics don't always apply to binoculars and scopes. My understanding is that spherical over-correction in camera lenses, particularly portrait lenses, is considered a good feature because it creates a nice soft bokeh behind the subject. It inevitably softens the plane of best focus, OK for portraits, but never a good thing in binoculars and scopes.

The very same baffling for controlling glare can be used in binoculars with or without field flatteners. My 8x30 Habichts without field flatteners have similarly poor glare resistance to the 8x32 SV with flatteners and for the same reason, poor baffling of the objective cell. The field-flatteners in the SV seem to take the rap for everything, but just as in the choice of distortion, the relatively ineffective baffling in the SV has nothing to do with field flattening.

Henry
I think I can understand why some might prefer a less "clean" view. It might relate to what you are used to seeing and how you use your bins.

You might be right about the baffling, but it is BAFFLING to me that no manufacturer have done it in a roof. I though for a bit the the EDG could ditch my theory, but it does not seem so:

"Nikon EDG at night in the direction of a lamp post and you can see obvious flares, something the most serious competitors and even the cheaper Nikon HG lack" (Allbinos)

Or is there a bin with flat field AND perfect glare/flare handling?
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th July 2017, 23:05   #60
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Right example if Rathaus meant distortion, wrong example if he meant field curvature. That's the problem with the way "flat field" is used in these discussions. The same term is used interchangeably for two unrelated things.
This is why I described the phenomenon as 'image manipulation', and the outcome as 'image aesthetic'. Swarovski, through skilful design intent and application, have offered us their interpretation of a 'flatter field'. Leica, through skilful design intent and application, has chosen a somewhat different path.

Henry, regarding this topic, you will note that neither Swarovski nor Leica use hard scientific data to either prove their case, denounce their competitors, nor to convince us into purchasing their product. That is because, regarding an image as witnessed through binoculars - there is no applicable hard scientific data to neatly plot, measure and explain away a 'flat field' or 'field curvature'. When anybody speaks of these phenomena in relation to an image viewed through binoculars, they themselves (yourself included) have entered the shifting sands of the descriptive and subjective world. I see nothing wrong with that, but let it be known for what it is.

Rathaus

Last edited by Rathaus : Wednesday 5th July 2017 at 03:53.
Rathaus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 5th July 2017, 00:33   #61
Alexis Powell
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
...if the choice is between an optical aberration or no aberration how many of us would decide that the aberration is more natural?...
As an aside, this question and the discussion of glare handling and cine lenses etc brings up the topic of purposeful simulated optical flaws to improve the illusion of cinematic reality/naturalness. I've noticed that in most Pixar movies especially, artificial lens defects are used to enhance realism. I guess this is a topic of much interest in the CGI production community, as there is much discussion of it on the internet.

Here is a link to some simple examples and related
http://www.pixarpost.com/2013/01/ima...niversity.html

And here is a technical article specifically on the topic of simulating lens flare. Very interesting.
http://matthias.hullin.net/publicati...GGRAPH2011.pdf

--AP
Alexis Powell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 5th July 2017, 01:58   #62
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,937
You want artificial lens flare, check out JJ Abrams work, especially the rebooted Star Trek films - lens flare galore, in fact so much that the special effects people had to go back to some scenes and remove some as it was unwatchable as is.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 00:31   #63
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathaus View Post
...regarding an image as witnessed through binoculars - there is no applicable hard scientific data to neatly plot, measure and explain away a 'flat field' or 'field curvature'. When anybody speaks of these phenomena in relation to an image viewed through binoculars, they themselves (yourself included) have entered the shifting sands of the descriptive and subjective world. I see nothing wrong with that, but let it be known for what it is.

Rathaus
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 link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 02:20   #64
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 2,937
The world, and all of us, are subjective and you'll never escape this, especially here.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 02:48   #65
Pileatus
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
The world, and all of us, are subjective and you'll never escape this, especially here.
Unless you want to be objective.
Pileatus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 08:01   #66
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
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

Last edited by Rathaus : Thursday 6th July 2017 at 13:52.
Rathaus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 14:41   #67
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Rathaus,


I'm not keen to respond to an ad hominem attack, but I think you can find most of what you want to know by searching old posts of mine. I would start with this list of threads.

http://www.birdforum.net/search.php?searchid=19025518

Henry

Last edited by henry link : Thursday 6th July 2017 at 14:43.
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 15:36   #68
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry link View Post
Rathaus,


I'm not keen to respond to an ad hominem attack, but I think you can find most of what you want to know by searching old posts of mine. I would start with this list of threads.

http://www.birdforum.net/search.php?searchid=19025518

Henry
Henry,

You made the claim that it is "really not that difficult to plot and measure field curvature", and I am simply asking you to articulate and to explain to us how you might do this, including your methodology.
In order to reasonably justify your statement, I do consider this to be the simplest of requests.

Rathaus

Last edited by Rathaus : Thursday 6th July 2017 at 17:43.
Rathaus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 16:41   #69
henry link
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: north carolina
Posts: 3,993
Maybe I should have said "possible" instead of "not that difficult". You can find my first efforts in 2005 here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=48373

You can see that the basic concepts turned into a collaborative effort. Some refinements, including using a camera instead of my eye, came later. Unfortunately, I think those are buried in threads with other subjects. The old 2005 thread should be enough to explain the idea and get you started if you want to try this yourself.

Henry
henry link is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 16:57   #70
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,284
Rathaus.
Your post 66 is completely over the top re. Henry's findings.

Personally I have no formal optics qualifications.
Just a Royal Scholarship.
I have no laboratory.
I have no source of funding, except my piggy bank.
No organisation supervises my data gathering.
I am me, not tied to anyone.
What scientific instruments etc.
The stars, simple mathematics. Published star positions. simple dioptre measurements. Rulers. Mental arithmetic, no new fangled calculators. Vernier calipers.
Many papers and articles published.
I have had quite a few peer reviewed papers, used world wide.

World class optics makers requested permission to use some of these papers. Gladly given.

At least two students pinched my findings and got their degrees. It is called plagiarism.
Another PHD scientist also seems concerned at having copied my findings.

Henry knows a lot more about binocular optics than I do.

Look up the obituary of Horace Dall. A meek person. A genius in the true sense of the word. I think he had no optical qualifications but right at the top of 20th century optics.
He was a world authority also in his professional field.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 17:00   #71
Loud Green Man
Registered User
 
Loud Green Man's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: London
Posts: 148
Wow! Possibly the best thread I've seen as justicication to make up ones mind about the values or otherwise of a binocular by looking through it and if you like what you see putting your card in the machine.

LGM
__________________
Zeiss 8X56 Night Owls. Zeiss Diavari 6-24X72. Zeiss 8X30 B/GA Dialyt SF Ranging Reticle.
Loud Green Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 17:12   #72
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Rathaus.
Your post 66 is completely over the top re. Henry's findings.

Personally I have no formal optics qualifications.
Just a Royal Scholarship.
I have no laboratory.
I have no source of funding, except my piggy bank.
No organisation supervises my data gathering.
I am me, not tied to anyone.
What scientific instruments etc.
The stars, simple mathematics. Published star positions. simple dioptre measurements. Rulers. Mental arithmetic, no new fangled calculators. Vernier calipers.
Many papers and articles published.
I have had quite a few peer reviewed papers, used world wide.

World class optics makers requested permission to use some of these papers. Gladly given.

At least two students pinched my findings and got their degrees. It is called plagiarism.
Another PHD scientist also seems concerned at having copied my findings.

Henry knows a lot more about binocular optics than I do.

Look up the obituary of Horace Dall. A meek person. A genius in the true sense of the word. I think he had no optical qualifications but right at the top of 20th century optics.
He was a world authority also in his professional field.
Correct - none of us here have those qualifications, and I see BF as a largely level playing field. I have garnered some of the best information from non technical but earnest and passionate binocular enthusiasts. I see no other evidence whatsoever to view Henry's 'subjective' opinions above most other experienced and earnest folk on these forums. I have no doubt that Henry is a fine chap as are most other folks on BF. That is my view.

Last edited by Rathaus : Thursday 6th July 2017 at 17:39.
Rathaus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 17:23   #73
Rathaus
Registered User
 
Rathaus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loud Green Man View Post
Wow! Possibly the best thread I've seen as justicication to make up ones mind about the values or otherwise of a binocular by looking through it and if you like what you see putting your card in the machine.

LGM
I agree. If you like what you see, that's a good thing. That's precisely how I purchased the Noctivid. I looked through it for five to ten minutes max...paid and left. One of my best bino buys ever.
Rathaus is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 18:19   #74
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Rathaus.
Your post 66 is completely over the top re. Henry's findings.

Personally I have no formal optics qualifications.
Just a Royal Scholarship.
I have no laboratory.
I have no source of funding, except my piggy bank.
No organisation supervises my data gathering.
I am me, not tied to anyone.
What scientific instruments etc.
The stars, simple mathematics. Published star positions. simple dioptre measurements. Rulers. Mental arithmetic, no new fangled calculators. Vernier calipers.
Many papers and articles published.
I have had quite a few peer reviewed papers, used world wide.

World class optics makers requested permission to use some of these papers. Gladly given.

At least two students pinched my findings and got their degrees. It is called plagiarism.
Another PHD scientist also seems concerned at having copied my findings.

Henry knows a lot more about binocular optics than I do.

Look up the obituary of Horace Dall. A meek person. A genius in the true sense of the word. I think he had no optical qualifications but right at the top of 20th century optics.
He was a world authority also in his professional field.
Nice post bins
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 6th July 2017, 19:03   #75
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathaus View Post
Correct - none of us here have those qualifications, and I see BF as a largely level playing field. I have garnered some of the best information from non technical but earnest and passionate binocular enthusiasts. I see no other evidence whatsoever to view Henry's 'subjective' opinions above most other experienced and earnest folk on these forums. I have no doubt that Henry is a fine chap as are most other folks on BF. That is my view.
I have to somewhat disagree with you here. We don't all deserve a trophy for playing. But, I do agree there are some valuable posts by novice optics enthusiasts here. Also, I totally agree with your point that looking through a binocular and deciding if it's satisfactory or not for you is all that should matter in the end. That's how I do it and how many do it here.

However, some here just know a ton more than others and these people (Henry, Binastro and others) are very valuable to the forum. Without their expertise the forum would not be nearly as informative IMHO - their at-home tests are very useful and helpful - experts matter and are appreciated at least by moi.

It's not hard to tell when a birder is at an expert level. Likewise, most of us long-time members know which forum members have expertise in optics.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD+ owners thoughts. Torview Leica 147 Saturday 18th June 2016 21:40
Leica Owners Pileatus Leica 56 Saturday 22nd June 2013 03:32
Leica repairs for secondhand owners in the UK? Boogieshrew Leica 14 Monday 10th December 2012 11:28
Calling all Leica 10x32 owners!! Adam C Leica 13 Saturday 3rd February 2007 17:27
Good news for Leica BN & BA Owners TrackersNZ Leica 19 Thursday 24th November 2005 07:28

{googleads}
£100 Cashback on Opticron DBA VHD Binoculars. Click to find out more.

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.27137303 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37.