I see. One queston, is the RB talked about here - the optical senstaion in itself; - or what it triggers in the human seeing it?
Oetzi, I don't clearly understand your question, but from what I think it means - the answer is both. i.e. some people can see the effect and not be bothered by it, and yet others see it and are so disturbed by it they make look to sit down or for a bucket!
Added to that, there is plenty of discussion here about
what causes it (very hard to pin down because of all the individual differences that come into play),
who will see it (that's where the armchair reviews start to descend into silliness), as well as
who's bothered by it and
when, and
under what circumstances. In my post#155 above, I tried to summarise our best understanding of the underlying causes, which will have different resultant end effects for the individual:
Given that the entire conversation of the 'RB phenomena' here takes place in the context of it being highly individually subjective, and as the muti-disciplinary science tells us is subject to: (physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological) "factors" and that they are modified by a whole host of other modifying "parameters" (such as tiredness, eye fatigue, optical formula consistency adaptation /timeframes, emotional state, even curmudgeonliness! etc, etc, etc) which themselves are not fixed with respect to time ....
It's not entirely possible to give a blanket rule because everyone is so different. Look at Zuiko,
post#67, and
post#73. He saw "horrible" RB in the Nikon HG (notorious low distortion bin) - went all the way across the spectrum opposite to Leica (high pincushion) - and then back to low distortion (8x32 SV), and is now happy as larry ..... very unusual! Also look at Mark (
Kammerdinner post#70) - he swaps between vastly different optical formulas (which is not to be recommended for those on the threshold) - sees the distortions if he concentrates on them - yet is not bothered by any of them, because he's paying attention to the subject.
So with those disclaimers out of the way, I'll say that one of the key factors is how the distortion in the bins ~[Holger's variable k] matches the distortion (barrel) in your vision (glasses/contacts and/or eyes) ~[Holger's variable l]. k ranges from 1 for no pincushion; 0.5 for mild pincushion, a 'la Zeiss; to 0 for high pincushion, a 'la some Leica. The best scenario (in general only) is when k roughly = or is slightly less than l. The best way to check your l value remotely is by doing Holger's test:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html
The SV has (did have?) k=0.74 (referenced from this thread - you'll find plenty of interesting RB discussion here):
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=164494
From Holger's test database so far it seems that ~3/4 of 56 respondents have low levels (high numerically, ie. A=1, B=0.8, C=0.7) of barrel distortion in their vision, and so
should be fine with an SV. These same people (particularly category A) may even find that they experience "rolling
bowl" when panning with high pincushion design bins. Those with high levels (low numerically, ie. E=0.5, F=0) of barrel distortion in their vision (particularly category F), could probably expect some 'globe effect' with the SV, etc. Will it bother them? Only they can tell.
Having said that, end results are highly individual, and subject to all the "factors" and "parameters" mentioned. The final proof is in the pudding - go have a look. There's plenty of high quality bins of quite different optical formulas to suit just about everyone
Holger wrote a paper on the whole kit-and-caboodle, graciously made available here:
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion_final.pdf which includes in it's final paragraph:
"...... In this sense, the matching of both parameters, k=l, means nothing else but matching both curvatures, which is the key to the elimination of the globe effect of Section 5.
Finally, we would not assume that a model as simple as that might be able to offer a complete description of human vision. This model was designed to be consistent with the checkerboard experiment, and it also explains phenomena such as the globe effect and Sonnefeld’s observations with low-power telescopes. Beyond that, we shall refer to Mark Wagner [13]:
“In fact, the geometry that best describes visual space changes as a function of experimental conditions, stimulus layout, observer attitude, and the passage of time (p.11). The human mind is flexible enough and the world provides enough variation that no single geometry can fully encompass human visual experience” (p. 223)."
Chosun :gh:
