David
Some websites can't face the 'naked' truth.
Buclizine?
I think you mean Bunnahabhain or Bruichladdich....
Lee
-
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.
Resolution vs Sharpness (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter A2GG
- Start date
David
Some websites can't face the 'naked' truth.
Buclizine?
I think you mean Bunnahabhain or Bruichladdich....
Lee
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Lee,
I rather enjoyed Port Charlotte from the Bruichladdich distillery but Bunnahabhain might be enjoyed by more.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:
Arthur
The Bruichladdich distillery also produces a superb fine gin called The Botanist.
Well worth try with a good quality tonic and lime slice.
Lee
WJC
Well-known member
And just when you think things couldn’t get worse, there goes Bill rearing his ugly head. There are things that can be SEEN that cannot be RESOLVED. There, that might keep things lively for a while.
EXAMPLE: A discussion came up on an optical engineering forum I frequent in which one of the super geeks (spoken with much admiration) noted that a certain guy wire could be SEEN near a conference location that was considerably too thin to be RESOLVED, based on Rayleigh and Dawes findings. It was determined that diffraction of the wire against the blue-sky background is what made it NOTICEABLE along its length.
You may try this wherever you are. Hold your thumb and index finger at arm’s length and bring them together slowly, against a bright or moderately bright background. You will notice that they APPEAR to touch before the really do.
You may note that the top half of the image attached is considerably darker than the lower half. That is until a couple of fingers are placed on the dividing line. Then, it becomes plain both are exactly the same shade. We don’t always SEE what we think we do.
A SIDE NOTE, ALTHOUGH RELATED: That’s why it’s foolish to claim that one AR coating provides noticeably better light transmission than in another binocular of the same aperture, magnification, and care in production. People love to jump to that conclusion while ignoring several other optomechanical realities and the wide variance in physiologies that play a large role in the comparison. :cat:
Bill
Attachments
Bill,
If you were fortunate enough to have 20/10 eyesight you can resolve a letter of line pattern with periodicity of 60 arcseconds. When you look at the night sky, a large star like betelgeuse is about 0.06 arcseconds or about 1000 times smaller. Just imagine how bright it would appear if you could actually resolve it?
David
If you were fortunate enough to have 20/10 eyesight you can resolve a letter of line pattern with periodicity of 60 arcseconds. When you look at the night sky, a large star like betelgeuse is about 0.06 arcseconds or about 1000 times smaller. Just imagine how bright it would appear if you could actually resolve it?
David
WJC
Well-known member
Thanks, Andy. I have used that and other things to illustrate what people often claim to see ... they really, medically, scientifically, can’t. But as long as people would rather spend days beating their chests in pontification than 15 minutes in researching a topic they CLAIM to be interested in .... And it is why those who REALLY know what they’re talking about wouldn’t touch one of these bino forums with a ten-foot pole. For them, peeing up a rope is not an attractive hobby. :cat:
Bill
Last edited:
Bill, you might find 15 minutes on this a useful place to start.
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/psf.htm
David
http://www.yorku.ca/eye/psf.htm
David
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Ah, PSF, MTF, not to mention my favorite OPD. I have two hard keys for Zemax-EE but not only have I not turned it on for more than 10 years, I now use the iMac, exclusively, a platform on which Zemax won't run.
Thanks, David. That was helpful. :cat:
Renze de Vries
Well-known member
Nice try Bill but no. I've used all my fingers on the dividing line and still I see the top half considerably darker than the lower half. Now would I consult an optician? I'm well prepared to believe the eyes and brain are able to pull tricks on you, but not in this case. At least not to me.
Renze
Attachments
Last edited:
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Renze:
Actually, the “try” is quite good. The graphic was created by a researcher at MIT to prove the very point I was trying to make. Please see post # 47. I believe you will see that others are not having the same problem. Then, I think you will find that the problem lies in your brain’s preconceived notions. Don’t feel alone; it once had me, too. As I have tried to point out concerning micro “improvements” in binocular technology, psychology often trumps scientific realities. :cat:
Bill
A2GG
Beth
I had the same experience. The two tones only changed very slightly, but one still distinctly darker than the other.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
OK Bill - I believe ya .... but only just ! :cat:
Like Renze, if I place fingers over the central curving to hinge illusion part, I visually still notice a slight difference in the shades of the plates (no doubt due to the bright plain blue 'sky'
and the mottled 'ground' .............. so, .............I scienced the sh*t out of it ! :-O
I screenshotted the pic, then,
I made a copy and rotated that copy upsidedown, and then,
I made a collage of the two - cropping out the background, and then and then,
I blacked out the central illusion part .........
Leaving ........
Two horizontal strips of grey - consistent in shade top to bottom and side to side :t: So OK :t: Recommend the doubting Thomases try something similar ...... :brains:
BUT ---- I can still see a slight 'green ham' warm side colour cast to the Zeiss SF !! fer schizzle !!! o
(my eyes are probably trained in colour nuance more than most though :cat:Chosun :gh:
For me the top looks dark coloured but with a shiny surface while the bottom half looks white but with a matt shadowy surface. If I cover the join it makes no difference and whatever I do I can't get away from the impression that the top might be dark coloured but its shiny and the bottom might be very pale but its very matt and so not looking bright.
Nurse! Nurse! More whisky!!
Lee
Nurse! Nurse! More whisky!!
Lee
Last edited:
You could be right Andy and if the green is ham-green this can be particularly tricky.
Lee
mooreorless
Well-known member
smaller version works for me, but if I click on it to make it "bigger" does not work for me no matter what I try, cover shadow etc. etc.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Cut out two holes in a piece of paper that will allow you to see only a good patch of each central gray patch, blocking all edges, background, shadow, etc, and you should be able to re-train your brain to see the same color pretty quickly if even at that stage it insists on saying their are two colors. As Bill and others mentioned, this is a very classic purposefully created and very clever demonstration of an optical effect. Myself, I definitely have to cover all the background and all the shadows in order to see the same colors...
