'Rolling Ball' definition (1 Viewer)

barshnik · Mar 30, 2012

Yes, I did a search, but gave up after a few hundred posts about which glass has how much rolling ball.

I'm fairly new here, and would like a quick, concise definition of 'rolling ball'. Hopefully one of my binoculars will have it so I know what not to like.

What is it, and how do I best look for it?

Thanks,
John F

typo · Mar 30, 2012

John,

I've never experienced the 'rolling ball effect' as usually described by sufferers on the forum. It seems to be a wave like flow in the geometry of the view as you pan across a scene. Holger Merlitz has written several articles on the subject.
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/

Basically somewhere about a hundred years ago binocular designers discovered that introducing pincushion distortion into the optics neutralised this wavy effect. This was widely adopted by most manufacturers until Swarovski in particular produced the EL SV with a flat field and near zero pincushion. The forum appears to be divided whether this was a positive development or not. It's easy to appreciate the rationale for static viewing (like astronomy) but I have to say that even though I don't see the 'rolling ball' I don't like the combination for general use. In my case at least, I think the use of aspheric lenses seem to be closer to the source of the problem than pincushion alone.

David

newfie ghost · Mar 30, 2012

The nikon premier and the swarovision seem to be guilty as charged. It bothers some folks but not others. Basically the image seems to roll when you pan. The positive side is that glass that has rolling ball does have exceptional edge sharpness and low distortion. Too much pincushion and straight lines appear bent. I will warn you though, this topic is often heated on here.

looksharp65 · Mar 30, 2012

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/globe_faq.html

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/distortion.html

barshnik · Mar 31, 2012

Hmm, thanks folks, it seems to be a little witchcraft maybe, and I don't seem to be susceptible to it. I'm diabetic, and low blood sugar affects vision in many unexplained ways - for example, DLP video projectors will show much more pronounced 'rainbow' effects with low blood sugar. I was thinking 'rolling ball' might be similar, but not for me.

Ironically, my next glasses will be the Swaro SV EL 8x32's, which a few folks have implied shows 'rolling ball.' Can't' wait.

John F

brocknroller · Mar 31, 2012

barshnik said:
Yes, I did a search, but gave up after a few hundred posts about which glass has how much rolling ball.

I'm fairly new here, and would like a quick, concise definition of 'rolling ball'. Hopefully one of my binoculars will have it so I know what not to like.

What is it, and how do I best look for it?

Thanks,
John F

John,

To answer your last question, it's best not to look for it. But you won't have to, because if you are a fellow "sufferer," it will come looking for you.

Holger's graphics show the two main characteristics of "rolling ball" (aka "the globe effect"): the image appears to roll over a positively shaped surface, such a ball or globe.

So you see a curved image and as you pan with the binoculars, it creates the illusion of motion because the center of the image looks larger than the edges. So objects appear to get smaller as they approach the edge as if they were "rolling" off the edge of a globe.

Here's the amazing part. Even though you can measure distortion (pincushion or lack of it), people have different tolerances for how little pincushion they need to get a smooth image while panning. According to Holger, it depends on the distortion in your own eyes. In fact, he has a test you can take to find out how much distortion your eyes have.

The other strange fact about "rolling ball" is that it's not just a matter of either you see it or you don't. Some people see it for a couple seconds, minutes, days, or even weeks before adapting to it.

So if you don't know if you are immune or a fellow "rolling baller," and you are contemplating buying a bin that is known to cause "rolling ball," such as a Nikon HGL, SV EL, Kowa Genesis, etc., the "try before you buy" approach that experienced users often recommend may not be enough.

You need more time (up to two weeks) to see if you will adapt to the "rolling ball" the way the chickens in an experiment with the "inverted prism goggles" adjusted to an upside down world.

If you don't see "rolling ball" initially, you probably won't over time, though there was one case on BF where a user didn't see it initially but eventually saw it and couldn't tolerate it, but that's rare.

However, less rate are cases where the user sees it, tolerates it, but eventually loses tolerance for it.

Once you know how you react to "rolling ball," you will know whether or not bins with low distortion suit you.

Brock

Steve C · Mar 31, 2012

barshnik said:
Hmm, thanks folks, it seems to be a little witchcraft maybe, and I don't seem to be susceptible to it. I'm diabetic, and low blood sugar affects vision in many unexplained ways - for example, DLP video projectors will show much more pronounced 'rainbow' effects with low blood sugar. I was thinking 'rolling ball' might be similar, but not for me.

Ironically, my next glasses will be the Swaro SV EL 8x32's, which a few folks have implied shows 'rolling ball.' Can't' wait.

John F

I'm with Brock here. You don't have to look for rolling ball. Strangely enough I had never in my life seen RB and figured it was maybe a figment of imagination or something. Imagine my total surprise when it was so bad in the new Swarovision EL I nearly dropped the binocular. I figured it was pretty strange than the most sophisticated binocular on the market was what it took yo show me in clear, uncertain terms what RB is. Most Swarovision users seem to deny its existence, and I really hope you are not affected when you see the view through yours.

elkcub · Mar 31, 2012

I probably shouldn't comment, but what the heck. A bit of pedantry once in a while should be tolerable.

So-called "Rolling Ball" is not a property of the binoculars: it is a perceptual response of the observer using the binoculars under certain conditions. The binoculars don't change optical characteristics over time, but the observer may modify his perceptual response through adaptation. Adaptation can be based on either learning or perceptual modification (or both). For instance, the observer may learn to avoid behaviors that induce rolling ball, which effectively eliminates the perceptual stimulus. Or, the observer could restructure (rewire) how the brain interprets visual signals, which eliminates the perceptual response. The human is pretty clever along these lines, some are anyway, but adaptation always involves mental work either to avoid the stimulus or modify the response. An instrument which doesn't produce the undesirable perceptual response in the first place, therefore, will be less intrusive and easier to use over the long haul, which some folks would attribute to being "more natural."

Swarovski made a better human engineered product with the 8x42 SLC HD design. But, that's only my opinion, and where I put my money.

End of statement. :smoke:

Ed

ronh · Mar 31, 2012

Ed my man,
The choice is not between rolling ball and perfection, but rolling ball and pincushion distortion. Pincushion distortion is like, a totally messed up image at the edge of the field. Telephone poles bend, tall buildings threaten to collapse, the very horizon at sea dips and swoops hilariously. Glad you're used to it! I hear you humans are amazingly adaptable to your own screwups. (You'll get past that if you don't wipe yourselves out first.)
Zork from Bork, where the binoculars rork

brocknroller · Mar 31, 2012

Ed,

I think I pretty much said the same thing earlier, only less pedantically.

Although there are a couple points I want to dicker about.

1. "For instance, the observer may learn to avoid behaviors that induce rolling ball, which effectively eliminates the perceptual stimulus."

This is true. If you don't pan, the ball won't roll, but who doesn't pan while birding except for Henry?

2. "Or, the observer could restructure (rewire) how the brain interprets visual signals, which eliminates the perceptual response."

You mean w/out brain salad surgery? This sounds like a pretty good trick. I'm interested in hearing more. How do I rewire my brain so I won't see the "rolling ball" and chromatic aberration in an 8x42 HGL/Premier? Note: If animal sacrifice is involved, I'm not interested.

Brock

elkcub · Mar 31, 2012

Zork,

Holger has shown that some amount of optical distortion is necessary to minimize the conditions needed to produce a globe effect (rolling-ball perception). But, let's be fair, that is much less than what's needed to produce a "...totally messed up image at the edge of the field. [Where] Telephone poles bend, tall buildings threaten to collapse, the very horizon at sea dips and swoops hilariously." That's what I call Leica's fun-house effect, evident in the old BA/BN series if you risk looking up at tall buildings in mid-town Manhattan. But, I do agree with you that any visible distortion requires some amount of perceptual adaptation. Take your pick.

Brock,

I do admit to using your comprehensive post as a template to fashion my humble contribution. It's merely a short synopsis. There is some question in my mind, though, about how rare the awakening to rolling-ball might be when the design of the binoculars favors it. Time and circumstance march on, you know, and will probably tell.

I should clarify that to me a "...a better human engineered product" isn't perfect. It's a design that optimizes visual task performance over a wide range of needs for a target population.

Ed

barshnik · Mar 31, 2012

This is an incredibly interesting phenomena, and I thank you all for your input.

John F

brocknroller · Mar 31, 2012

elkcub said:
Brock,

I do admit to using your comprehensive post as a template to fashion my humble contribution. It's merely a short synopsis. There is some question in my mind, though, about how rare the awakening to rolling-ball might be when the design of the binoculars favors it. Time and circumstance march on, you know, and will probably tell.

I should clarify that to me a "...a better human engineered product" isn't perfect. It's a design that optimizes visual task performance over a wide range of needs for a target population.

Ed

Ed,

"There is some question in my mind, though, about how rare the awakening to rolling-ball might be when the design of the binoculars favors it.

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that if more sports optics companies made binoculars with low distortion that users en masse will adopt to it? IOW, like the chickens with the inverted prism googles, it was the only view they were able to see, so they had to adapt.

I wonder if they did all adapt or if some were like "rollingballers" who never adapted, and they died from starvation because they kept pecking at the sky for their food.

I tried the 8x42 and 10x42 HGs, each for a month, and never adapted; however, I did comparisons with other binoculars during that time which did not exhibit "rolling ball".

So I've always wondered if I hadn't used any other bins during the time, just the two HGs, if I would have adapted?

Well, as mooreorless would say, it's a "mute" point anyway, since I wouldn't want to limit myself to using only bins that had "rolling ball" since they are all roofs.

But I thought you had some technique for me to adapt to "rolling ball".

One of the maladies I've incurred over the years was chronic labyrinthitis.

I got up one morning and the room was spinning. I laid back down in bed, but that make it worse. Dizziness is a sign of stroke, so I was concerned even though I was only in my early 40s, but I wasn't "dizzy," as if I were about to pass out, but rather I had vertigo like Jimmy Stewart experienced when he looked down from tall buildings. (Kim Novak as the "femme fatale" was great in that movie).

Then I remembered reading a similar story about Alan Shepard, the astronaut, who got grounded because of an inner ear problem that caused vertigo, which started one day when he woke up from bed.

So I rode it out and saw my doctor the next day, and he set me up with some tests at the hospital. By then, the vertigo had settled down, but when the technician blew warm, moist air into the affected ear, my eyes started darting back and forth like someone with nystagmus and the vertigo returned in full force.

Apparently, the balance mechanism in one of my ears has stopped working. The doctor said I might have had a "silent" ear infection caused by a virus. Could be, I guess, but it seems that when doctors don't know what caused a problem, a virus is a pretty handy excuse.

In Shepard's case, in order to be able to fly in space again, doctor's pierced his his eardrum with a fine instrument and destroyed the balance center in his inner ear so his other ear could take over with the balance.

Anyway, to get to the point for the ADD crowd (if they are still reading), the techie gave me some exercises to do to retrain my brain to take visual cues from my environment rather than from my inner ear.

These consisted of turning my head and stopping at certain points and then focusing on an object.

As long as I have visual cues to orient me to what's up and what's down, I'm okay, although colds, allergies, and eating too much salt can trigger the vertigo.

Because I need light to see visual cues, I left my astro club since I can't go to dark sites anymore since the moment I close my eyes (or it gets totally dark), I start stumbling around like a drunk.

The last time I went to Cherry Springs State Park (a "dark sky" park in northern PA), I got disoriented in the dark and went off the bank of a steep drop on my way to the port-a-potties. That was the end of my nighttime hobby and the beginning of my daytime hobby, birding.

I was able to retrain my brain to ignore the inner ear and take cues from the environment about my spatial orientation. I thought you had some trick like that to overcome "rolling ball".

Simon S · Mar 31, 2012

Rolling ball is field curvature I think you will find.

elkcub · Mar 31, 2012

Simon S said:
Rolling ball is field curvature I think you will find.

Sorry, Simon.

Rolling ball (perception) results from zero distortion (a design parameter) in conjunction with panning movements by the user.

Field curvature (another parameter) is design independent of distortion.

Ed

elkcub · Mar 31, 2012

Brock,

I was referring to:

...If you don't see "rolling ball" initially, you probably won't over time, though there was one case on BF where a user didn't see it initially but eventually saw it and couldn't tolerate it, but that's rare. (my underling)

What I meant by the design of the binoculars favoring rolling ball perception should be evident in post #15 above. In short, no distortion. "Awakening" means, to quote yourself, "...where a user didn't see it initially but eventually saw it..."

Ed

elkcub · Mar 31, 2012

brocknroller said:
Ed,

"There is some question in my mind, though, about how rare the awakening to rolling-ball might be when the design of the binoculars favors it.

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that if more sports optics companies made binoculars with low distortion that users en masse will adopt to it? IOW, like the chickens with the inverted prism googles, it was the only view they were able to see, so they had to adapt.

I wonder if they did all adapt or if some were like "rollingballers" who never adapted, and they died from starvation because they kept pecking at the sky for their food.

I tried the 8x42 and 10x42 HGs, each for a month, and never adapted; however, I did comparisons with other binoculars during that time which did not exhibit "rolling ball".

So I've always wondered if I hadn't used any other bins during the time, just the two HGs, if I would have adapted?

Well, as mooreorless would say, it's a "mute" point anyway, since I wouldn't want to limit myself to using only bins that had "rolling ball" since they are all roofs.

But I thought you had some technique for me to adapt to "rolling ball".

One of the maladies I've incurred over the years was chronic labyrinthitis.

I got up one morning and the room was spinning. I laid back down in bed, but that make it worse. Dizziness is a sign of stroke, so I was concerned even though I was only in my early 40s, but I wasn't "dizzy," as if I were about to pass out, but rather I had vertigo like Jimmy Stewart experienced when he looked down from tall buildings. (Kim Novak as the "femme fatale" was great in that movie).

Then I remembered reading a similar story about Alan Shepard, the astronaut, who got grounded because of an inner ear problem that caused vertigo, which started one day when he woke up from bed.

So I rode it out and saw my doctor the next day, and he set me up with some tests at the hospital. By then, the vertigo had settled down, but when the technician blew warm, moist air into the affected ear, my eyes started darting back and forth like someone with nystagmus and the vertigo returned in full force.

Apparently, the balance mechanism in one of my ears has stopped working. The doctor said I might have had a "silent" ear infection caused by a virus. Could be, I guess, but it seems that when doctors don't know what caused a problem, a virus is a pretty handy excuse.

In Shepard's case, in order to be able to fly in space again, doctor's pierced his his eardrum with a fine instrument and destroyed the balance center in his inner ear so his other ear could take over with the balance.

Anyway, to get to the point for the ADD crowd (if they are still reading), the techie gave me some exercises to do to retrain my brain to take visual cues from my environment rather than from my inner ear.

These consisted of turning my head and stopping at certain points and then focusing on an object.

As long as I have visual cues to orient me to what's up and what's down, I'm okay, although colds, allergies, and eating too much salt can trigger the vertigo.

Because I need light to see visual cues, I left my astro club since I can't go to dark sites anymore since the moment I close my eyes (or it gets totally dark), I start stumbling around like a drunk.

The last time I went to Cherry Springs State Park (a "dark sky" park in northern PA), I got disoriented in the dark and went off the bank of a steep drop on my way to the port-a-potties. That was the end of my nighttime hobby and the beginning of my daytime hobby, birding.

I was able to retrain my brain to ignore the inner ear and take cues from the environment about my spatial orientation. I thought you had some trick like that to overcome "rolling ball".

Brock

Many studies have been reported using optical image inverters, the first having been done by George Stratton on himself in the late 1890s. Later studies using lower animals were done for practical purposes of experimentation, and also to study the generality of so-called neural plasticity lower on the phylogenetic tree.

I don't know if all specimens in any given cohort adapted, but there's always the possibility of a pathological issue preventing it. I believe that re-adaptation time in both directions improves with practice, so for the practical minded there is a remote chance that future binoculars could be designed with no image inverter at all and reliance simply placed on the users' ability to adapt. As you have nicely stated, such adaptation learning requires adequate motivation, so alternative binoculars with prisms would need to be taken away. :eek!:

Ed

Nixterdemus · Apr 1, 2012

It might be nice if they offered some type of standardized formula for how much/little pin cushion. Maybe throw in lens curvature as well.

I'm mystified/intrigued on why 5-6mm of eye piece extension, 8x42 Caldera, makes so much difference in the rolling ball to me.

ronh · Apr 1, 2012

Ed,
Louis Bell's book "The Telescope" show a finely made prismless Keplerian binocular by Steinheil, intended for comet seeking. I guess the idea is, in the pre-coating era of its manufacture, keep the number of elements to a minimum, even at the expense of a right side up image.

Bell says of it, "...clear diameter of objectives of 1 3/8 inch, magnification of 5, and a brilliant and even field of 7 1/2 degrees. The objectives are triplets...the oculars are achromatic doublets...".

That would be a prize collector's item wouldn't it?
Ron

newfie ghost · Apr 1, 2012

ronh said:
Ed,
Louis Bell's book "The Telescope" show a finely made prismless Keplerian binocular by Steinheil, intended for comet seeking. I guess the idea is, in the pre-coating era of its manufacture, keep the number of elements to a minimum, even at the expense of a right side up image.

Bell says of it, "...clear diameter of objectives of 1 3/8 inch, magnification of 5, and a brilliant and even field of 7 1/2 degrees. The objectives are triplets...the oculars are achromatic doublets...".

That would be a prize collector's item wouldn't it?
Ron

No prisms? Wow, I would like to see that. Make my world turn upside down. Probably help for brightness though, and wouldn't be an issue for stargazing.

'Rolling Ball' definition (1 Viewer)

John F

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

John F

porromaniac

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

porromaniac

Silicon Valley, California

John F

porromaniac

Well-known member

Silicon Valley, California

Silicon Valley, California

Silicon Valley, California

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread