View Single Post
Old Thursday 9th January 2020, 02:12   #71
Forum Member

Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Italia
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
OK, this is the bit that you really need to explain more. Moreover, you need to explain how to employ or develop the techniques that you claim to use.
I don't know the technique, it's all automatism of the eye and visual perception (it was instinctive for me right from the start). But I noticed that it helps to improve a lot of habit and familiarity with vision in motion. On the contrary, from what I understand that the birder does. He looks for stable images avoiding any vision in motion. And in doing this, he gets used to the firm vision.

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
The way that I have understood this passage is as follows. You are arguing that, for two reasons, that details that are only just resolved by the eye in a 10x view will be easier to perceive when they are instead magnified 100x, even when hand-held. The first reason [with which I agree] is that at 100x, those details will now be very comfortably within the eye's ability to resolve them (and indeed, many more finer details will be available than at 10x).

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
The second reason is that, since at 100x the rapid tiny shaking movements due to hand-holding will become translated into apparently long motions [To that, I agree], that you think [And here, I disagree] will make seeing the details easier because they can now be tracked rather than being lost in too fine and too rapid motion.
I don't think. I see it with my eyes.

But perhaps here we need to repeat a fundamental thing that seems not yet clear.
If your hand shake is raised to 10x as a 120 arcosec large figure (for example), when you look in a 100x, that same shake will be 1200" (10 times as large).
- And if this were not understood and accepted (at least theoretically), it would not be possible to continue further.

The wide movement of the 100x will now be so wide that the saccadic and tracking muscles are able to chase it. This causes a more stable and complete image to arrive to the retina, than the eye can stabilize at 10x. And therefore, the details visible with the 100x, which in proportion are 10 times as much, will have an even greater value than the 10x.
It is not a matter of FOV.

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell View Post
What are perceived as points of light composing the 10x perceived view will now be perceived as motion-blurred discs of light composing the 100x perceived view.
No, it does not! The detail of the 100x is real and is 10 times greater than that of the 10x.
The 100x image is not a 10x photo enlarged 10 times!
If anything, the opposite is true: the 10x image is a 100x photo reduced by 10 times (e.g. from 100Mp to 1Mp) and therefore with 10 times less detail to see.

EDIT: I corrected an incorrect number.

Last edited by Rico70 : Thursday 9th January 2020 at 06:42. Reason: EDIT: I corrected an incorrect number.
Rico70 is offline  
Reply With Quote