Is 8x32 or 8x42 the best Birding format? (1 Viewer)

[Tom Bombadil]

I find it interesting in that given all of the different sizes and magnifications of current production binoculars, that no one (that I know of) makes a 7x32, and I suspect that would be my favorite. Celestron makes a 7x33 Granite ED, but I've never seen one. A 7x30 would be tempting too, the only one of those I know of is the Steiner.

 

[ceasar]

I find it interesting in that given all of the different sizes and magnifications of current production binoculars, that no one (that I know of) makes a 7x32, and I suspect that would be my favorite. Celestron makes a 7x33 Granite ED, but I've never seen one. A 7x30 would be tempting too, the only one of those I know of is the Steiner.

EO has the 7x33 Granite ED in stock now. Huge FOV!

Bob

 

[typo]

I've come a bit late to this thread and missed that some interesting science was being discussed. I'm sure I haven't followed everything but Alexis in particular seems to have done a good job of keeping things on track. It's not an area of science that I know a great deal about, and I know I've only skated over the surface a very complex topic but I have managed to extract a few details that are pertinent to the discussion.

I suppose all of us imagine the view that we 'see' is a faithful reproduction of the image projected on our retinas. It's not. The raw information has been subjected to a whole range of physiological and psychological manipulations which in places parallels significant Photoshopping on the macro and micro scale scale and at times, a fair bit of CGI as well.

When light strikes the photo receptors of the eye a chemical conversion of a protein occurs and when 'enough' is produces a signal is sent along the optic nerve. What constitutes 'enough' is not fixed, it is modulated by the other receptor activity going on around it so the sensitivity can be cranked up or damped down. On top of that the photochemical degrades so if 'enough' isn't produced in a given time then no signal is produced. Now we have a dynamic situation where for each receptor there is a finite amount of time for a signal to be produced or not. If if a signal is produced there is a insensitive period where it can't fire again. It sort of compares to an exposure time, but rather than the image being processed frame by frame it's an asynchronous process, which means there is a finite time required for all the information in the view to be accumulated and sent for further processing. If the flash of information is too short no image or only a partial image reaches the brain. For film or TV the frequency of the images means that there is insufficient time for individual frames to be sent to the brain and processed before the next is shown. We get a situation where the information from one frame is still getting sent when the information from the next is simultaneously on it's way. The result is that at 24 frames per second or faster the view scene appears continuous.

Even that description is only scratching the surface of the mechanisms involved. Besides the control at the retinal level there are several intermediate stages on the way to the brain where pre-processing occurs, but the fastest time an event can reach the brain is in the order of 1/10th of a second, and generally what we might call an image will take around 1/5th of a second to form.

That's probably more than enough for now but if you do a search on something like "cone temporal sensitivity modulation" you should find more on the story. It's not easy stuff to read but believe it or not this paper is more legible than most:
http://macboy.uchicago.edu/~eye1/PDF files/Swanson Ueno JOSA 87.pdf

David

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Good stuff there!
The re-firing period and the depletion are much like the action of serotonin at synapses..
...accumulation. firing, recycling.

And from there to the cortex, where it may take multiple 'frames' to improve the signal-to-noise.
Try reading a small font in the light and dark (where you can just see the font)
....it's interesting, the time differences.

 

[Troubador]

I've come a bit late to this thread and missed that some interesting science was being discussed. I'm sure I haven't followed everything but Alexis in particular seems to have done a good job of keeping things on track. It's not an area of science that I know a great deal about, and I know I've only skated over the surface a very complex topic but I have managed to extract a few details that are pertinent to the discussion.

I suppose all of us imagine the view that we 'see' is a faithful reproduction of the image projected on our retinas. It's not. The raw information has been subjected to a whole range of physiological and psychological manipulations which in places parallels significant Photoshopping on the macro and micro scale scale and at times, a fair bit of CGI as well.

When light strikes the photo receptors of the eye a chemical conversion of a protein occurs and when 'enough' is produces a signal is sent along the optic nerve. What constitutes 'enough' is not fixed, it is modulated by the other receptor activity going on around it so the sensitivity can be cranked up or damped down. On top of that the photochemical degrades so if 'enough' isn't produced in a given time then no signal is produced. Now we have a dynamic situation where for each receptor there is a finite amount of time for a signal to be produced or not. If if a signal is produced there is a insensitive period where it can't fire again. It sort of compares to an exposure time, but rather than the image being processed frame by frame it's an asynchronous process, which means there is a finite time required for all the information in the view to be accumulated and sent for further processing. If the flash of information is too short no image or only a partial image reaches the brain. For film or TV the frequency of the images means that there is insufficient time for individual frames to be sent to the brain and processed before the next is shown. We get a situation where the information from one frame is still getting sent when the information from the next is simultaneously on it's way. The result is that at 24 frames per second or faster the view scene appears continuous.

Even that description is only scratching the surface of the mechanisms involved. Besides the control at the retinal level there are several intermediate stages on the way to the brain where pre-processing occurs, but the fastest time an event can reach the brain is in the order of 1/10th of a second, and generally what we might call an image will take around 1/5th of a second to form.

That's probably more than enough for now but if you do a search on something like "cone temporal sensitivity modulation" you should find more on the story. It's not easy stuff to read but believe it or not this paper is more legible than most:
http://macboy.uchicago.edu/~eye1/PDF files/Swanson Ueno JOSA 87.pdf

David

Nice summing up David. This is fascinating stuff.

Just goes to show that whenever you need an accurate account of an event, the last thing you want is an 'eye-witness'.

Lee

 

[Alexis Powell]

Thanks David! --AP

 

[WJC]

I've come a bit late to this thread and missed that some interesting science was being discussed. I'm sure I haven't followed everything but Alexis in particular seems to have done a good job of keeping things on track. It's not an area of science that I know a great deal about, and I know I've only skated over the surface a very complex topic but I have managed to extract a few details that are pertinent to the discussion.

I suppose all of us imagine the view that we 'see' is a faithful reproduction of the image projected on our retinas. It's not. The raw information has been subjected to a whole range of physiological and psychological manipulations which in places parallels significant Photoshopping on the macro and micro scale scale and at times, a fair bit of CGI as well.

When light strikes the photo receptors of the eye a chemical conversion of a protein occurs and when 'enough' is produces a signal is sent along the optic nerve. What constitutes 'enough' is not fixed, it is modulated by the other receptor activity going on around it so the sensitivity can be cranked up or damped down. On top of that the photochemical degrades so if 'enough' isn't produced in a given time then no signal is produced. Now we have a dynamic situation where for each receptor there is a finite amount of time for a signal to be produced or not. If if a signal is produced there is a insensitive period where it can't fire again. It sort of compares to an exposure time, but rather than the image being processed frame by frame it's an asynchronous process, which means there is a finite time required for all the information in the view to be accumulated and sent for further processing. If the flash of information is too short no image or only a partial image reaches the brain. For film or TV the frequency of the images means that there is insufficient time for individual frames to be sent to the brain and processed before the next is shown. We get a situation where the information from one frame is still getting sent when the information from the next is simultaneously on it's way. The result is that at 24 frames per second or faster the view scene appears continuous.

Even that description is only scratching the surface of the mechanisms involved. Besides the control at the retinal level there are several intermediate stages on the way to the brain where pre-processing occurs, but the fastest time an event can reach the brain is in the order of 1/10th of a second, and generally what we might call an image will take around 1/5th of a second to form.

That's probably more than enough for now but if you do a search on something like "cone temporal sensitivity modulation" you should find more on the story. It's not easy stuff to read but believe it or not this paper is more legible than most:
http://macboy.uchicago.edu/~eye1/PDF files/Swanson Ueno JOSA 87.pdf

David

Good job Typo. But was that categorically different from my:

"Photographic emulsions "collect" light; CCD chips "collect" light; brains work on one instant at a time" that I published in #145, and which generated so much heat? |=(|

 

[typo]

Bill,

I wasn't highlighting that post, but now you mention it, I really don't know what you are trying to say in that statement. It doesn't make any sense to me so it's had to say if it's "categorically different". Taking the component parts, as I guess Alexis did, it suggests, perhaps wrongly, that you have a notion of how the eye and brain works that is quite different from ours and current scientific understanding.

The term 'collect' is a bit inaccurate for my liking but you could say that the cumulative biochemical changes in the photo receptors of the eye 'collect' the light in a comparable way to film and CCD much as Alexis pointed out. From there on the story gets much, much more complex.

Maybe I'm being dumb but what connection does "brains work on one instant at a time" have to do with anything, let alone the rest of the sentence? There is certainly no magic instantaneous projection of an image to some projector screen in the brain. The path from the the photoreceptor to a concious image is a relatively slow, extremely tortuous, technically inaccurate, electrochemical process. I really don't know a lot about the brain, but from the little I've gathered it's wrong to state it works on "one instant at a time" but concious thought is only a fraction of what it does and even that doesn't fit the description.

There are a lot of strange ideas posted on the forum, and most pass without comment. I'd missed that one but I think it's good that others tried to share some knowledge on the subject.

Cheers,

David

 

[ceasar]

Good job Typo. But was that categorically different from my:

"Photographic emulsions "collect" light; CCD chips "collect" light; brains work on one instant at a time" that I published in #145, and which generated so much heat? |=(|

Bill

Wasn't that in response to a statement about a 10x50 binocular "collecting" more light?

Perhaps a better word would have been "gathering" more light? Or simply "lets more light in."

Bob

 

[WJC]

Bill

Wasn't that in response to a statement about a 10x50 binocular "collecting" more light?

Perhaps a better word would have been "gathering" more light? Or simply "lets more light in."

Bob

A larger LENS collects more light.

SENSORS in the eye do not. At least, not enough to write home about.

Things with the brain do not always work as we think they should.

I'm just an optical screw-turner, and don't know about the photo-chemical processes that others do. Look out the window in the daytime. Then, cover one eye. Did the image diminish in brightness by 50%? why not? Your light intake did.

Bill

 

[WJC]

Bill,

I wasn't highlighting that post, but now you mention it, I really don't know what you are trying to say in that statement. It doesn't make any sense to me so it's had to say if it's "categorically different". Taking the component parts, as I guess Alexis did, it suggests, perhaps wrongly, that you have a notion of how the eye and brain works that is quite different from ours and current scientific understanding.

The term 'collect' is a bit inaccurate for my liking but you could say that the cumulative biochemical changes in the photo receptors of the eye 'collect' the light in a comparable way to film and CCD much as Alexis pointed out. From there on the story gets much, much more complex.

Maybe I'm being dumb but what connection does "brains work on one instant at a time" have to do with anything, let alone the rest of the sentence? There is certainly no magic instantaneous projection of an image to some projector screen in the brain. The path from the the photoreceptor to a concious image is a relatively slow, extremely tortuous, technically inaccurate, electrochemical process. I really don't know a lot about the brain, but from the little I've gathered it's wrong to state it works on "one instant at a time" but concious thought is only a fraction of what it does and even that doesn't fit the description.

There are a lot of strange ideas posted on the forum, and most pass without comment. I'd missed that one but I think it's good that others tried to share some knowledge on the subject.

Cheers,

David

David:

A photographic emulsion will collect photons--if the shutter is left open--until the phosphers become saturated and bleed together, destroying the image. Yet, you can look at a scene from any room in your house all day long and at the end of that day, the images will not have gotten any brighter.

I think so many have looked beyond the mark in what I have been trying to say. But, I'm an old guy and happy as a clam to let others believe what they choose.

How many thousands of words were used on two threads recently illustrating that Leupold "manufactured" binoculars? My face-to-face discussion with their rep, and having been in the plant twice, was not enough to dissuade the opinionated, having no personal contact with either, who believe everything they might read in an ad? |=o|

Bill

 

[typo]

David:

A photographic emulsion will collect photons--if the shutter is left open--until the phosphers become saturated and bleed together, destroying the image. Yet, you can look at a scene from any room in your house all day long and at the end of that day, the images will not have gotten any brighter.

If the biological shutter mechanism stayed open in the similar way you would have a comparable consequence. We usually call it blindness. Silver halides are not phospers or phosphors by the way. (A correction, they can be phosphors but do not luminess in photographic use.)

I think so many have looked beyond the mark in what I have been trying to say. But, I'm an old guy and happy as a clam to let others believe what they choose.

Bill

Bill if you think I'm wrong on any point, please

Can you direct me to the published (refereed) doctrine?

Cheers,

David

 

[elkcub]

All,

I picked up on this discussion only a day or so ago, and I'm not quite sure what the issue is. However, the speed at which neural information is processed, leading to various levels of perception and behavioral responses has been an ongoing subject of research in neuropsychology for many years. For those interested, this 20 yr. old article by Martin Tovée should put some things in perspective. The methodological problem, as you will see, is that one needs to distinguish different levels of perception, e.g., form, identity, movement, etc. In any event, it's complicated and perceptual processing speed can't be reduced to a single number.

Ed

 

[typo]

Thanks Ed, an interesting report. I've seen a couple of similar publications before, but I confess I struggle with a lot of this neuronal stuff. They also reported that there are relatively fast and slow pathways depending on the nature and duration of the stimuli. Recognition like events were slow while those associated with alarm were fast. Maybe a naive interpretation but it makes sense to me that you don't have to recognise what it is that scares you or makes you jump.

David

 

[WJC]

If the biological shutter mechanism stayed open in the similar way you would have a comparable consequence. We usually call it blindness. Silver halides are not phospers or phosphors by the way. (A correction, they can be phosphors but do not luminess in photographic use.)



Bill if you think I'm wrong on any point, please

Cheers,

David

150212

Hi David:

While I have done “engineering” for impressive organizations, I have NEVER professed to be an engineer. I don’t profess to understand all the photo-chemical reactions that others do, either. However, I have been in the field long enough to know certain things about human nature; one is to know when it is best for me to just walk away. It may seem cowardly—boy, have I seen plenty of those folks—but I have real things to do that might lead to a productive end. Therefore, since this dead horse continues to be beaten, I will state my case, again, that my words may hang me or vindicate me … depending on the reader.

I have always dealt with REAL WORLD optics and not so much with the academic, one definition of which is: “not of practical relevance.” I have offered practical evidence that anyone can verify or reject.

I will close with two points:

“Too often an education goes to the head and not to the mind.” —Aristotle (attributed)

And

“Photographic emulsions “collect light”; CCD chips “collect light”; sensors in the eye do not—at least in such duration as to make sense in this discussion. If it were not so, every time you tried to concentrate on a new image, that image would be convoluted by the residuals from the LAST image viewed. Were THAT not so, our brains would be flooded by light … but no images.

I am pleased, however, to let others talk it to death. :t:

Bill

PS While I don’t want you to think I’m being cranky, I need not put my life on hold to research articles relating to questions that anyone on the forum can solve empirically for themselves.

 

[elkcub]

150212

... If it were not so, every time you tried to concentrate on a new image, that image would be convoluted by the residuals from the LAST image viewed. Were THAT not so, our brains would be flooded by light … but no images.

Bill

PS While I don’t want you to think I’m being cranky, I need not put my life on hold to research articles relating to questions that anyone on the forum can solve empirically for themselves.

Bill,

If I understand what you're saying, your position is basically correct. The eye does not accumulate light indefinitely or it would become functionally blind. Once exposed to light, the neural system requires a recovery period. The attached abstract summarizes how the eye accomplishes this with unconscious fixational movements.

• The authors counteract fixational eye movements with an optical feedback control system.
• "Neural adaptation," means that the cells saturate under constant stimulation and will not respond without a recovery period.

Is there any disagreement here? Anyone?

Ed

 

[WJC]

Bill,

If I understand what you're saying, your position is basically correct. The eye does not accumulate information indefinitely or it would become functionally blind. Once exposed to light, the the neural system requires a recovery period. The attached abstract summarizes how the eye accomplishes this with unconscious fixational movements.

• The authors counteract fixational eye movements optically with a feedback control system.
• "Neural adaptation," means that the cells saturate under constant stimulation and will not respond without a recovery period.

Is there any disagreement here? Anyone?

Ed

Thanks Ed:

I should have said "accumulates" instead of "collects" for certain. But with the many who piped up, I thought what I was saying covered my thoughts well enough for anyone to get my drift.

I was astounded when it was taken that I was from mars and was met with substantiations dealing with "beetles," optical "noise," and suspended bullets.

That's why I was willing to drop it and let folks think what they wanted. :cat:

Bill

PS Mark Twain said: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot than open it and remove all doubt."

 

[OPTIC_NUT]

Accumulate seems fine.
Accumulate until it triggers, like neurons all over.
Time-triggered as well, but that's what accumulates as well. ..like sensors...
You can call it something more precise,
but that made more than enough sense to me, physiologically.
The accumulation, recharge, and depletion are well-known. The trigger timing is known
(you have to know it for moving pictures and Tv and computers).

More than close enough.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...I was astounded when ...I ... was met with substantiations dealing with "beetles," optical "noise," and suspended bullets....

Sorry, Bill, to get you so bent out of shape. My #146 and later posts were written in reaction to your post #145 in isolation, which I guess I took too literally and didn't put into the proper context (maybe skimmed the earlier part of the thread too quickly). The time period over which photoreceptors accumulate light (and "refresh") is much shorter than the amounts of time that you were apparently discussing.

--AP

 

[elkcub]

Thanks Ed, an interesting report. I've seen a couple of similar publications before, but I confess I struggle with a lot of this neuronal stuff. They also reported that there are relatively fast and slow pathways depending on the nature and duration of the stimuli. Recognition like events were slow while those associated with alarm were fast. Maybe a naive interpretation but it makes sense to me that you don't have to recognise what it is that scares you or makes you jump.

David

Not so naive. Evolutionists would argue that death would precede recognition often enough to inhibit any other evolutionary path. I love these teleological arguments; they never fail to explain.

Ed