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 Tuesday 26th September 2017, 04:16   #26
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 230
Omid,
Congratulations on your inventions.
I note that the query has been already made (by Looksharp65/Lars) whether there are functioning models. Sorry but I am not able to easily find the answer somewhere (hidden, to me!) in the posts above.
How well do these divergence and convergence designs work in practice in the instruments made until now? I know that for a patent a model has to work but not how well the invention has to be working already in typical use.
Have you watched birds or nature through them and if so what did you think? (I mean only the optical aspect, of course, not the ergonomics.) Thank you!
Adhoc

Last edited by adhoc : Tuesday 26th September 2017 at 05:20. Reason: Forgot to say Congrats!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th September 2017, 09:21   #27
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
Hi Ed,

Yes, there will be some dispersion and a small amount of astigmatism to deal with. But these have well-known solutions: For dispersion, the prisms can be made achromatic. Or one can use low-dispersion glass. Also, both dispersion and astigmatism can be corrected by having prisms in front of the objectives and after the eye pieces such that a) they produce deviations in opposite direction and b) the power of the prisms after the eyepieces are N-times larger than those in front of the objective. N here is the magnification of binoculars.

Other techniques can be used to correct for errors as well.

It sounds pretty complicated ....

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 26th September 2017, 11:21   #28
Patudo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London
Posts: 112
Hi Omid - one of your innovations in the other thread looks, to me anyway, more interesting than the thread subject. Could an eyepiece designed to achieve this be made to the dimensions of current binocular eyepieces and would it offer comparable resolution etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
I have made some innovations myself:

a) Binoculars without a critical eye relief. The exit pupil is located at the eyepiece and is as large as the eyepiece. This way, the entire eyepiece shows an image when viewed from behind the binoculars. The image is visible even if you position your eyes on an off-axis position.
Patudo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th September 2017, 17:10   #29
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patudo View Post
Hi Omid - one of your innovations in the other thread looks, to me anyway, more interesting than the thread subject. Could an eyepiece designed to achieve this be made to the dimensions of current binocular eyepieces and would it offer comparable resolution etc?

Hi. The invention you are referring to does not require a special eyepeice. The invention changes the numerical aperture of the beams delivered to the eyepeice. The result is an image that can be seen from a wide angle and from almost any distance from behind the eyepiece. (In the picture below, the left barrel of the binocular uses that invention. The right barrel is normal.)

Yes, very high resolution can be achieved. There will be some loss in brightness due to light from any image point now being distributed to wider angles behind the eyepeice.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Expanded_EyeRelief.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	45.6 KB
ID:	640965  
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th September 2017, 17:30   #30
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by adhoc View Post
Omid,
Congratulations on your inventions.
I note that the query has been already made (by Looksharp65/Lars) whether there are functioning models. Sorry but I am not able to easily find the answer somewhere (hidden, to me!) in the posts above.
Adhoc
Thank you! Yes, I think Lars had asked this question too and I did not answer it before. I did make some test prototypes using off-the shelf wedge prisms bought from Edmund Optics. I noticed that my ideas work in principle, just need refinements (e.g. using achromatic prisms instead of plain ones I had) so I went ahead with the patent application.

I also used indirect evidence (from other devices or fields of optics that I am familiar with) to check the validity of the concepts. Of course the final product needs to be fully tested and may need additional optical elements but that can be done by the brand or the manufacturer who licenses the design.

As an inventor, it is not my duty to make the best and final optical design of the invention. It is my duty to describe the key elements and their interrelation such that the resulting device is "novel". I also need to explain what this novel device does. US Patent and Trademark Office does not require a working prototype of an invention. (It did in very early years of its operation). It requires a detailed description of the invention accompanied by drawings such that "a person of ordinary skill in the art" can make and use the invention.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Wedge_Prisms.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	201.9 KB
ID:	640966  

Last edited by Omid : Tuesday 26th September 2017 at 18:20.
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 26th September 2017, 19:15   #31
adhoc
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Anon.
Posts: 230
Omid, Thank you for that really useful explanation regarding a patent in the USA nowadays. (Also for the thumbnail. The view is already improved!)

Yes, an inventor would not always him/herself optimize the invention. But as you write in Birdforum I assumed you are a bird watcher and thought you might like to a.s.a.p. experience the view being actually enhanced.

It seems there is a bit of a contradiction. For "a person of ordinary skill in the art" (Pat. Ofc's words) to "make and use the invention" (your words) the refinements need to be effected. Anyway, I hope that these ordinary people, or others more appropriate, will get on with it!
adhoc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th September 2017, 20:55   #32
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Excuse me, but I'm lost here. I understand that your main goal is to increase the resulting true field of view by reducing the common area seen with both eyes. Your analysis that the image of an object will be seen closer to the medial parts of the respective FOV's is correct. It is also correct that this requires added convergence, but I'm puzzled why you seem to consider this an advantage.
A traditional porro does almost exactly this when used at finite distance.
Hi Lars,

Sorry for my delayed response. Lets consider a test case: A typical 10X50 roof binocular has 6.6 degree real field of view. This corresponds to 110m at 1000m. If we use a Porro bincular of comparable optical design with inter-barrel distance of 1m, the binocular field of view increases to 110m + 1m at 1000m. This is negligible.

But if we use my invention and diverge the fields of views of the left and right barrels each by 1 degree, the binocular field of view at 1000m increases by 35m. This is 30% more real field of view.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Finch_Field_of_View.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	24.8 KB
ID:	641101  

Last edited by Omid : Wednesday 27th September 2017 at 22:31.
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th September 2017, 23:12   #33
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
Hi Lars,

Sorry for my delayed response. Lets consider a test case: A typical 10X50 roof binocular has 6.6 degree real field of view. This corresponds to 110m at 1000m. If we use a Porro bincular of comparable optical design with inter-barrel distance of 1m, the binocular field of view increases to 110m + 1m at 1000m which is negligible.

But if we use my invention and diverge the fields of views of the left and right barrels each by 1 degree, the binocular field of view at 1000m increases by 35m at 1000m. This is 30% more real field of view.
Hi Omid!
I haven't claimed that the porro's wider spaced objectives increases the binocular's FOV, but the parallax difference is significant at medium and close distance which enhances the 3D perception.

Your drawing of the increased FOV resulting from diverging optical axises looks correct.
In theory, the common, almond-shaped central part of the FOV could coincide fairly well with the human FOV.

However, the binocular part of the human FOV covers about 120 degrees horizontally.
If the binoculars in your examples have wide angle eyepieces, each of them would cover say 75 degrees (apparent field of view).
This means that the fieldstops by default limits the usable FOV by at least 20 degrees towards each side.

Any divergence of the tubes will further shrink the common (shared) area and expand the monocular area.
I assume your drawing is exaggerated to show the effect more clearly, but only a third of the FOV is shared there.

If we take into account that the eyes ideally scan a scene and prefer to roam freely, it's apparent that they will meet the fieldstops earlier than in an ordinary binocular.
The user would probably react with turning the binoculars further towards the point of interest, hence losing what's happening at the other end of the FOV and losing the very reason for using this invention.

This said, if the divergence is kept very low, and the optical challenges could be met, it might work as you described, with only minor inconvenience of the types in my objections. It would take eyepieces with huge AFsOV to compensate the loss of the common FOV as much as possible, and such binoculars already make a great job. I'm mostly thinking about the Nikon EII series, but wide angle constructions from the seventies with "up to and above" 80 degrees AFOV are also interesting in this context.

Regards,

//L

Edit: added a drawing that Ed originally provided me in another discussion.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	visual_fields.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	21.9 KB
ID:	641113  
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry

Last edited by looksharp65 : Wednesday 27th September 2017 at 23:16. Reason: Drawing added
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 27th September 2017, 23:25   #34
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
I agree Lars.

In addition, although the vertical FOV of the eyes is limited, the view is still there, but blocked by our foreheads and eyebrows.
I realised this when wearing wrapround dark glasses and coming indoors saw a huge black area that was blocked.
It is our brains that deal with the areas blocked including the areas blocked by our nose. We should see these areas as black but don't.

With the 6x18 binocular the FOV is only 7.5 degrees, approx 45 degree AFOV. I did not like the view with vastly extended horizontal view even though centrally I got stereo vision.
I much prefer 75 to 80 degree AFOV older Porroprism binoculars and normal views.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 18:55   #35
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by looksharp65 View Post
Hi Omid!
However, the binocular part of the human FOV covers about 120 degrees horizontally... If the binoculars in your examples have wide angle eyepieces, each of them would cover say 75 degrees (apparent field of view).
This means that the fieldstops by default limits the usable FOV by at least 20 degrees towards each side.... Any divergence of the tubes will further shrink the common (shared) area and expand the monocular area.
I assume your drawing is exaggerated to show the effect more clearly, but only a third of the FOV is shared there.
Hi Lars,

Sorry again for late response. You points are all valid. We should also consider the field stop and its effect on limiting the apparent field of view. Yes, in my design there will be less overlap between the left real field of view and the right real field of view at far distances. But that's fine, it is not an issue. When you yourself talk about the nice 3-D effect of a porro prism binocular at short and median distances, that's exactly what happens in those situations too: the left barrel view and the right barrel view don't make a full overlap at short distance. The eye naturally focuses on ONE OBJECT at the center and the rest is peripheral vision. (Try it yourself, look at a flower 2m away using your 10X binoculars)

There is also another degree of freedom in my design: You can create the effect of diverging/converging objective lenses and diverging/converging eyepiece lenses in any desired combination! So, many interesting - and some potentially usefull- effects can be created by this design. We have discussed two potential use cases so far:
  1. providing more real fielf of view when viewing far objects
  2. decreasing apparent convergence when viewing close objects

Let's think about it and figure out what else can be done?

Thanks,
-Omid
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 23:49   #36
looksharp65
Registered User
 
looksharp65's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Varberg, Sweden
Posts: 1,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
When you yourself talk about the nice 3-D effect of a porro prism binocular at short and median distances, that's exactly what happens in those situations too: the left barrel view and the right barrel view don't make a full overlap at short distance. The eye naturally focuses on ONE OBJECT at the center and the rest is peripheral vision. (Try it yourself, look at a flower 2m away using your 10X binoculars)
Again, it is not the horizontal-medial displacement of the image per se that creates a better 3D perception, it is the real parallax that's greater when the objective lenses are further apart. The medial image displacement is a side effect of the parallax. So while a slightly larger total (while not binocular) FOV could be obtained, the benefits of a better 3D view of a porro design will not be gained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
There is also another degree of freedom in my design: You can create the effect of diverging/converging objective lenses and diverging/converging eyepiece lenses in any desired combination! So, many interesting - and some potentially usefull- effects can be created by this design. We have discussed two potential use cases so far:
  1. providing more real fielf of view when viewing far objects
  2. decreasing apparent convergence when viewing close objects

Let's think about it and figure out what else can be done?

Thanks,
-Omid
The benefits of a decreased parallax for close viewing are clear and apparent when using reverse-porro design binoculars. The Papilio takes it a step further with its physically converging tubes coupled to the focus setting.

When you mention "your design" I take it you plan to combine these two advantages by utilising a design with flipping prisms.
I think it's time to produce a simple model to back your claims.

The technical challenges aside (they have been mentioned earlier in the thread) but the simplest of models, using trial lenses in front of the objective lenses and behind the ocular lenses, would be enough to assess whether or not your ideas rest on firm ground and whether or not they they can produce real and unrestricted advantages for each of these two situations.

The requirements to back your claims would be:
A visibly larger FOV beyond what's obtainable with super wide angle eyepieces, coupled with binocular near vision at about 40 cm with a minimum real eye convergence like the Papilio design.
When assessing the general effect of prisms, single-side mounting is sufficient. I'm interested to learn about the progress.

//L
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses - The Viking optics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuBYpRkbzrs - The Viking War Cry

Last edited by looksharp65 : Friday 6th October 2017 at 23:57.
looksharp65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th October 2017, 23:27   #37
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Hi Lars,

This discussion and the diagram on post #33, prompted me to reexamine my superb Linet Imperial 8x40 Fieldmaster. It was made by Hiyoshi Kogaku in the early 1980s and has a real field of 12 deg., or an apparent field of 96 deg. That's 96 deg. for each eye!! I mention this because when the instrument is set to my IPD (165 mm.) there is no way that the two fields can overlap completely. This is evident by the oval shape of the combined field-stops, and that the horizontal edges provide only monocular images. I would estimate that the combined, binocular, field-of-view is approximately 96+25 = 121 deg., with a central overlap area of 70 deg. (Unfortunately, the eye relief is very short (~10-12 mm) so viewing with spectacles is out of the question.)

I'd have to ask Omar if this can be equalled or exceeded with his innovation. A related question is whether or not this extreme FOV is even beneficial for birding or astronomy? I guess there might be an advantage for detecting peripheral motion.

As you say, without a working specimen this involves a bit more imagination than I can rely on.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Sunday 8th October 2017 at 23:48.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 9th October 2017, 10:05   #38
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Hi Ed,
I don't know how serious you are here.
With a 165mm IPD I suppose you are about 14ft tall.
This must be useful for viewing in crowds.

Have you actually measured the field? Maybe someone who doesn't use glasses could measure it.
Do the 4 stars of the Ursa Major bowl fit in the field at the same time.
Have you measured the magnification and how it varies across the field?

EWA or SWA binoculars are useful. They allow meteors to be seen that would be missed and peripheral movement to be seen.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th October 2017, 19:05   #39
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Hi Ed and Lars,

Thank you very much for your recent notes and comments.

@Ed: Please note that I don't intent my concept to "replace" wide-field binoculars, my idea can be combined with a wide field eyepiece. You are right in that additional peripheral visions may not be useful in birding but there are many applications that do benefit from enhanced peripheral vision (hunting, military, general field observations). You focus on your target at the center and at the same time remain aware of movements or other activity in a wide field of view.


In response to Lars comment I have to clarify that the two advantages I mentioned, would be best provided in separate products. I don't intend to combine reduced convergence and increased field of view in a single design (although it is possible to do so by making the invention in the form of an attachment that you connect to existing binoculars).

A main reason I posted about my invention here is to do exactly what we are doing: making mental experiments and extrapolating from known concepts using our imagination. We have not fully explored the concept of "capturing an stereoscopic view" using divergent or convergent objective lenses and then "presenting said captured views" to the human eyes using convergent or divergent eyepieces. Note that these are two separate concepts. We can use similarities to 3D photography to predict what will happen in each case.


Another comment in response to Lars: You call increasing the distance between objective lenses "true parallax" and tilting the view angle of the object lenses, "fake parallax". I would agree to some degree with this designation but we have not proven yet that the latter method would not produce enhanced 3D view. This method has actually been used for making 3D pictures using a single camera and it works (you can simply rotate the whole scene by a small angle and take a second picture with same camera position). Some amount of keystoning error results from doing this but this is minimal at far distances (application 1) and can be corrected in application 2.

Also see the great article here which articulates the effects of having a convergent direction of view. So, lets continue the mind experiments and extrapolations a bit more. I am sure we might discover some interesting things...

Regards,
-Omid

Last edited by Omid : Tuesday 10th October 2017 at 03:43.
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 10th October 2017, 06:05   #40
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Hi Ed,
I don't know how serious you are here.
With a 165mm IPD I suppose you are about 14ft tall.
This must be useful for viewing in crowds.

Have you actually measured the field? Maybe someone who doesn't use glasses could measure it.
Do the 4 stars of the Ursa Major bowl fit in the field at the same time.
Have you measured the magnification and how it varies across the field?

EWA or SWA binoculars are useful. They allow meteors to be seen that would be missed and peripheral movement to be seen.
Now, now my friend it was only a slip in my keypad. My IPD is a mere 65 mm, and my height has now shrunk to only 6 ft.

I never got into astronomical viewing, and now my eyes are growing dim. So next time around I'll put it at the top of my bucket list.

No, I've trusted the manufacturer to the 12 deg. designation. Hiyoshi is pretty good with that sort of thing, and this instrument is every bit as fine as any Audubon I've handled. ($10 at the Thrift Shop, with leather case. ) At first use I came away disoriented and headachy, and thought it needed alignment; but then realized that I was setting the IPD by making the field stops overlay in a circle. Bad, bad. Setting the IPD by ruler was the answer, or the calibrated scale. Unfortunate that the ER is so short.

But you agree with me that the extra field width basically helps with peripheral movement detection.

Regards,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 10th October 2017, 06:15   #41
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
...Also see the great article here which articulates the effects of having a convergent direction of view. So, lets continue the mind experiments and extrapolations a bit more. I am sure we might discover some interesting things...

Regards,
-Omid
BTW, Omid, I'm the one who steered you onto the Ferwerda book. Just so it doesn't keep you up at night wondering.

I've been out of stereo photography for about 18 yrs. now, but it's the only kind that ever got my interest.

Still have two Stereo Realists, one a 3.5 and the other a 2.8.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 10th October 2017, 14:42   #42
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Thanks Ed,
I wasn't sure if you were joking or not.
I did not know if you were joking about the horizontal field.
It's a relief that you don't live in the Land of the Giants.

Congratulations on reaching 4,000.

I just filled in an official form and rang up for guidance. He was most helpful and I said Thank you very much. He asked if there was anything else.
I said. 'The form, my eyes are quite good but the colour means it is very difficult for me to read, (pastel yellowish)'.
He said 'You are not the first person to mention this'. It seems to happen with the elderly. Young people have no problems.
So there it is.
I think it must be due to the yellowing of eyes as they age.

It has been downhill since age 40 for me.

Last edited by Binastro : Tuesday 10th October 2017 at 14:46.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 16:44   #43
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
BTW, Omid, I'm the one who steered you onto the Ferwerda book. Just so it doesn't keep you up at night wondering.
Hi Ed,

Yes, it was you indeed. Very nice book and I have learned a lot from it. Thank you again. I still go back to it and read some sections as I think of this or that idea.

While stereo vision through binoculars is very similar to 3D photography and 3D cinema, it is not exactly the same. There are some fundamental differences: In 3D cinema, there is one [flat] image screen and there is no eyepiece. In 3D photography there are two screens and (usually) there are two eyepieces too. So, 3D photography is closer to viewing through binoculars. Yet 3D photography is not exactly analogues to viewing an object through binoculars either. One key difference is that in viewing through binoculars, the light rays coming out of the eyepiece are coherently coupled with those entering the objective. This is not the case in 3D photography so primary aberrations caused by the objective cannot be corrected by the eyepiece. What are other key differences?
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 12th October 2017, 21:09   #44
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omid View Post
Hi Ed,

Yes, it was you indeed. Very nice book and I have learned a lot from it. Thank you again. I still go back to it and read some sections as I think of this or that idea.

While stereo vision through binoculars is very similar to 3D photography and 3D cinema, it is not exactly the same. There are some fundamental differences: In 3D cinema, there is one [flat] image screen and there is no eyepiece. In 3D photography there are two screens and (usually) there are two eyepieces too. So, 3D photography is closer to viewing through binoculars. Yet 3D photography is not exactly analogues to viewing an object through binoculars either. One key difference is that in viewing through binoculars, the light rays coming out of the eyepiece are coherently coupled with those entering the objective. This is not the case in 3D photography so primary aberrations caused by the objective cannot be corrected by the eyepiece. What are other key differences?
And, if you ever have enough time to kill as to allow a visit to "Best low-light binocular 10x," you might look into Ray's large "Applied Photographic Optics." That's where I came up with some of my physiological realities that so often flies in the face of those who have taken scientific TRUTHS past the realm of what most observers would consider practical—however factual.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th October 2017, 17:32   #45
Omid
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 399
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the tip. I do have the book "Applied Photographic Optics". It is an excellent book, very comprehensive and covers a lot of subjects. One of the best books on optics in my opinion.

Sincerely,
-Omid
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Omid_Optics_Books_A.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	296.9 KB
ID:	642879  Click image for larger version

Name:	Omid_Optics_Books_B.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	250.5 KB
ID:	642880  Click image for larger version

Name:	Omid_Optics_Books_C.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	305.7 KB
ID:	642881  
Omid is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th October 2017, 22:09   #46
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Omid,

It took me a while to find this book on my shelves "Visual Coding and Adaptability" by Charles S. Harris. The chapter by Richard Held starting on pg. 69 goes into many of the optical and psychological effects created by prism viewing, as shown in the attachment. (rotate the image, ccw) It's inexpensive enough to add to your collection, and I'm sure you will be interested.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Book images.pdf (102.0 KB, 30 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 09:17   #47
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Omid,

It took me a while to find this book on my shelves "Visual Coding and Adaptability" by Charles S. Harris. The chapter by Richard Held starting on pg. 69 goes into many of the optical and psychological effects created by prism viewing, as shown in the attachment. (rotate the image, ccw) It's inexpensive enough to add to your collection, and I'm sure you will be interested.

Ed
Possibly related—Hey, I’m a screw turner—some years ago, there was an experiment at a university in Austria in which a student wore goggles fitted with prisms (or mirrors) to invert his vision. He was as disoriented as could be for just over a week. Then, the brain decided to help the poor fellow out and inverted the images again—thus righting them to the brain. After that, he was able to do everything as before the experiment, with the only side effect being the wearing of the strange headgear. When the experiment was largely over, he removed the headset. I don’t remember the exact amount of time required, but this vision then returned to normal.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 13:54   #48
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 3,286
Charles Wheatstone 'Pseudoscope' also.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 18:45   #49
elkcub
Registered User
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJC View Post
Possibly related—Hey, I’m a screw turner—some years ago, there was an experiment at a university in Austria in which a student wore goggles fitted with prisms (or mirrors) to invert his vision. He was as disoriented as could be for just over a week. Then, the brain decided to help the poor fellow out and inverted the images again—thus righting them to the brain. After that, he was able to do everything as before the experiment, with the only side effect being the wearing of the strange headgear. When the experiment was largely over, he removed the headset. I don’t remember the exact amount of time required, but this vision then returned to normal.

Bill
Hi Bill,

The use of prism lenses to investigate visual adaptation (plasticity) has been going on since the late 1800s, after the first publication by George Stratton. It's quite impressive what the brain can do if given enough time. Much the same kind of adaptation is relied upon for varifocal eyeglasses, which require adaptation to an impressive amount of distortion.

In Omid's application, though, I'm really not sure what would be gained.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 17th October 2017, 20:27   #50
WJC
Registered User
 
WJC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Twin Falls
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Hi Bill,

The use of prism lenses to investigate visual adaptation (plasticity) has been going on since the late 1800s, after the first publication by George Stratton. It's quite impressive what the brain can do if given enough time. Much the same kind of adaptation is relied upon for varifocal eyeglasses, which require adaptation to an impressive amount of distortion.

In Omid's application, though, I'm really not sure what would be gained.

Ed
If it is to amount to anything, the “gained” aspect needs considerable investigation and clinical analysis. However, with the physiological differences I keep harping on in place, I doubt enough impetus would be found for manufacturers to invest a dollar in another mechanism to worry about it—thus: BB stacking.

Even so, that kid Omid is doing a great job in getting patents and making a name for himself. If given his head, he might open new vistas for those who follow. Thomas Edison didn’t fail as many times as people think. He just discovered hundreds of filaments that would not work in making the incandescent light bulb. Philo Farnsworth was a 14-year old following a mule in a field near Rigby, Idaho when he struck with the notion of raster graphics. “Great” minds had been working on the problem for many years but coming up short.

More often than not our understanding rests with our humble willingness to understand. You can’t fill a glass that’s already full. Those great minds were already full. To be humble is to be teachable. We have ALL benefitted from Philo's humility.

Bill
__________________
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."—Dr. Stephen Hawking

Last edited by WJC : Tuesday 17th October 2017 at 20:34.
WJC is offline  
Reply With Quote
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
How do you calculate apparent field of view for binoculars (and what is the largest?) Saturninus Binoculars 32 Monday 27th April 2015 05:31
Binoculars with wide field of view, and good eye relief suitable for use with glasses alien Binoculars 3 Sunday 12th August 2012 21:14
Field of view JabaliHunter Binoculars 9 Thursday 4th August 2011 11:48
Field of View drukja Binoculars 5 Saturday 10th October 2009 05:59
Retinal Offset and Field-of-View Effects on Apparent Size Using Binoculars elkcub Binoculars 36 Wednesday 15th June 2005 22:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24419594 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55.