A relative "newbie" our friend Oetzi may be, Brock-Dude, but he has the distinct advantage of having actually looked through SV´s.....
-
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.
Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter emmalibertine
- Start date
A relative "newbie" our friend Oetzi may be, Brock-Dude, but he has the distinct advantage of having actually looked through SV´s.....
This is the Internet where fantasy is the order of the day. Could you imagine (fantasize if you must) someone refusing to comment because they have no experience with the bin in question? How could one possibly dominate the "conversation" if they confined themselves to personal observations?A relative "newbie" our friend Oetzi may be, Brock-Dude, but he has the distinct advantage of having actually looked through SV´s.....
Rolling ball has been around for a long time. When the most expensive alpha binocular was introduced to the market the rolling ball conversation reared its head in earnest. Why is that?
Some will not like the globe effect. Big deal; tell me something I don't know. If I offered one hundred dedicated birders a free 8.5X42 SV with the condition they use it exclusively for one year I wonder how many would refuse the deal because of rolling ball. Five, ten, more? I don't know but I'll bet not many. I use the 8.5X42 Swarovision, I've seen RB and I bet most birders would love the view. But what do I know.
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Yes, okay, please, you're too kind, you're embarrassing me with all your accolades, I'm just a poor, humble, self-made "expert" in RB who has fought long and hard against the deniers so that others, both "rollingballers" and "immunies" alike, would not be misled or confused by their frivolity.
I'm happy that you appreciate my efforts so much that you went to the trouble to look up all those threads/posts. But it's really not about me, it's about the cause.
The Work Goes On, The Cause Endures, The Hope Still Lives, and the Dream of a World Without Rolling Ball Shall Never Die.
<B>
Brock, seems my deletion |:x| and your response "crossed in cyberspace". Gave Reason for deleting as "Inappropriate." |:$| Well, now it's there on record, and I hope seen by all to be harmless fun - but not without a point! |;| Actually, there are no deniers! Not now. Their frivolity is now hushed, and there's real risk people may now be misled or confused if The Cause is restated too often!
brocknroller
porromaniac
With few exceptions, it had been since 1945. Here's an excerpt from Binomania"
"In 1940, all binoculars were designed to create images with no distortion, then at home Zeiss decided to apply a minimum of angular distortion of binoculars even if the conservative part of the designers, Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto were Eppenstein absolutely opposed.
"In 1945, thanks to Hermann Slevogt Sonnefeld and was offered a good compromise, it meant the ability to create binoculars with a small amount of angular distortion that could partially eliminate the 'rolling ball effect. Then, thanks to Kohler, is applied to all products terrestrial optical Zeiss what is called "circle of condition", that is a good compromise between containment of the distortion and the effect just mentioned. This parameter, which will be analyzed in the following and a specific article, was for years a reference point for all designers of optical ground."
Does anyone need or even desire a low distortion bin where the images at the edges are so tightly compressed as to distort the image size? Wouldn't 90-95% sharp to the edge with close to normal image scale at the edges (perhaps a little "bowing') suffice for even the edge obsessive?
After looking through the Nikon SE and the EDG, I know that you can have your cake and eat it too. Designers do not need to resort to extreme low distortion to achieve sharp edges and sacrifice smooth panning. They need to go back and read Kohler and rediscover the wisdom that was lost.
<B>
But to be on the safe side, I would refuse to buy a Brocks saddle. Not that the myth of the Rolling Balls become reality after all. B
Brock, It seems reasonable to consider that there are 'scientific' reasons or mathematical descriptors, even equations illustrating that rolling ball exists as an optical phenomenon (sp?). However, it seems than many users either a) do not see RB or b) see it and are not bothered by it.
As consumers, we often consider others opinions when trying to form a view on whether to purchase an item. We also seek objective information from places such as this.
However, I must say that your threads about rolling ball come across as if you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Swarovision bins in particular rather than trying to discuss rolling ball in general. Which is odd as you haven't even looked through a pair. Your argument would carry so much more weight if you had actually looked through a pair of EL SV. It's almost as if you are avoiding this. Heaven help us of course come the day you do look through a pair and find strong RB... :-C
As for the Swaro SV, so what if they have rolling ball? This is (apparently) a feature, not an error. It's there for all to see or not.
As consumers, we often consider others opinions when trying to form a view on whether to purchase an item. We also seek objective information from places such as this.
However, I must say that your threads about rolling ball come across as if you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Swarovision bins in particular rather than trying to discuss rolling ball in general. Which is odd as you haven't even looked through a pair. Your argument would carry so much more weight if you had actually looked through a pair of EL SV. It's almost as if you are avoiding this. Heaven help us of course come the day you do look through a pair and find strong RB... :-C
As for the Swaro SV, so what if they have rolling ball? This is (apparently) a feature, not an error. It's there for all to see or not.
BTW, which pop group has sung this song:
I can't get no swarovison,
I can't get no swarovision.
'cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can't get no, I can't get no.
:h?: Did they call The Rolling Balls? ... Or was it The Rolling Brocks? ... or what was the name again?
I can't get no swarovison,
I can't get no swarovision.
'cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can't get no, I can't get no.
:h?: Did they call The Rolling Balls? ... Or was it The Rolling Brocks? ... or what was the name again?
brocknroller
porromaniac
Pomp,
The deniers do not hush so easily, my friend.
But know this... Whenever they's a denial against the truth being told, I'll be there. Whenever they's a denier flamin' a rolling baller, I'll be there ... I'll be there with a handkerchief when guys get nauseous after they've looked through a bin with RB.
An' when young optics designers seek the wisdom of the past and return to the "circle of condition" again, I'll be there along with the ghost of old August Köhler to celebrate the triumph.
"Joad"
:-O! "When the Wise Man points at the moon, the Fool looks for distortions."
There goes the edge of the moon chromatic aberration test.
Thanks a lot, Sancho.
How have I managed to not be one of the multitude of 'deniers' in this massively meaningless thread?
I've actually been spending a lot of time trying to see RB, and the other day I thought I used the exact right pan speed, direction, and distance to see RB, but it turned out I was wrong.
I have no doubt it exists in the eyes and minds of many, just not me. Of course my RB-less glasses are the 10x32 SV's which are apparently so rarely purchased that no one knows if RB is present on these or not. I'll have to borrow a pair of 8x32 SV's one day, maybe I can join in the RB club.
To reiterate, I do not deny RB exists for some people.
I've actually been spending a lot of time trying to see RB, and the other day I thought I used the exact right pan speed, direction, and distance to see RB, but it turned out I was wrong.
I have no doubt it exists in the eyes and minds of many, just not me. Of course my RB-less glasses are the 10x32 SV's which are apparently so rarely purchased that no one knows if RB is present on these or not. I'll have to borrow a pair of 8x32 SV's one day, maybe I can join in the RB club.
To reiterate, I do not deny RB exists for some people.
OsageArcher
Well-known member
To reiterate, I do not deny RB exists for some people.
And not only does RB exist - we have ample evidence that both RB-OCD and RB-ADD exist, too!
My 10x32 SVs also do not seem to exhibit it much if at all, I never seem to notice it...
And not only does RB exist - we have ample evidence that both RB-OCD and RB-ADD exist, too!
My 10x32 SVs also do not seem to exhibit it much if at all, I never seem to notice it...
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Brock! :storm: I see it - but I dooouwnnnn believe it! (o)<
Thank God ! (Buhdda, Krishna, the great Flying Spaghetti Monster, Baba lluah, or whatever deity of your choice you wish to insert - or not! as the case may be in this equal a/gnostic ~ a/theist forum)
that no-one in their right mind would let you within cooee of a binocular design directorate. Apart from just contradicting yourself above (different k values, ay Brock ?!) you definitely don't speak for me, and you keep forgetting that you speak for one person, and one alone. Perhaps in order to remember that the "individual" and their "individual" visual distortion characteristics have a bearing on any "effects" seen, or indeed whether this even matters a "cracker", and to see the error of your ways, you might consider this sage advice:Chosun :gh:
In many it's an effect. In Brock it's gone beyond and is also an affect. The cause is the grand crusader instinct (and possibly another factor or two). |=)|
Last edited:
