Maybe a Zeiss with its "loco-tec" coatings 3.
And don't forget the Schott Choo-Choo glass.....
Lee
Maybe a Zeiss with its "loco-tec" coatings 3.
Brock, sorry if you've clearly stated this, but it's difficult to go back a lot through your mostly pretty long posts! How many people you know of (incl. you) regulalry experience RB - i.e. feel and don't adapt to it? (If you vaguely remember me in this connection, what I said is that once I strongly felt what I take to be r. ball or r. bowl looking through a bin labelled Nikon but suspect may be a fake. I do see a mild form of it through some bins but can adapt to that.) Just the figure, thanks.
Ed, I wholly agree, that Pier's experience would be expected for someone on the edge of affectation, given the time away from the SV's, compounded by the ensuing vascillation between optical formulas.
Brock, no matter who coined the term, there's a vast body of scientific evidence to support "neural" plasticity. I don't know that I share Ed's doubts re: permanence /temporary effects, but I'd wager that individual responses to timeframes and frequency are as varied as the numbers of individuals themselves. What you describe above is modification of situational, and behavioural factors.
However, you seem to be forgetting about the 300lb gorilla in the room. Your equation RB = RB = RB is flawed, since k1 ≠ k2 ≠ k3, and you don't have to be Einstein to see that it also lacks c, and f(x, y, z)
The whole RB "phenomenon" consists of physical, physiological, neural, opto-neurological processing, behavioural, situational, and importantly psychological factors.
For some, I imagine those psychological factors have more bearing than others !! 8-P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Elite athletes the world over just breathed a collective sigh of relief !! No longer do they have to spend years, and even decades, training themselves to produce flawless 'muscle memory' responses under extreme competitive stress - they can just take a relaxing holiday on a tropical island, and then just rock up on the day an' she'll be right mate ! :t:
Yes, I can just see it know - BF nominated for Nobel Laureate for significant contribution to civilisation ?!! 3
Perhaps one of the saddest things I've ever read here, was along the lines of a newbie saying something like "I researched reviews, and read quite a lot here on BF, and I'm interested in bin xyz - but I'm terrified of RB ......."
No need to worry matey, it only effects a small number of people, and most of what isn't in your eyes will be in your mind !! :h?: :brains:
Chosun :gh:
Brock, ....... Just the figure, thanks.
Your all encompassing "pizza with everything to go" theory is so complex that there's no way to evaluate it. But the mind can be tricky and human behavior is complex, so perhaps expecting RB adaptation to be either only neural or only behavioral might be too simplistic.
Also, experts in different disciplines see problems from the perspective of their discipline. As my doctor told me, "Surgeons see every health solution involving a knife, while general practitioners see them in terms of medicines."
As to my axiom RB=RB=RB, that means, if a person who sees RB in very low distortion bins sees "rolling ball" in one LD bin, he will see it in all LD bins. Granted, the tolerance threshold will vary from person to person, but below that threshold, the person will always see RB.
If Emma, or whoever it was that you were referencing above was concerned about seeing RB in a bin hat was notorious for it, that's a good thing. Better be forewarned about it and buy from a dealer with an ample return period to give yourself enough time to adjust than to buy one, see RB, and then return it the next week before you've had time to adjust.
If that person in question had read my responses to newbie questions on RB, I almost always stipulate that an adjustment period could be needed, and it's best to allow oneself enough time to adapt. If you haven't adapted in two weeks (longest period of adjustment reported thus far), chances are slim that you will adjust given a long time frame, but you could be the exception so take as much time as allowed by the return period.
I also now recommend that during the period of adjustment not to use any other bin, because switching from a bin with AMD to pincushion might delay or prevent adaptation.
I tried the You Tube silhouetted nude illusion and found that it didn't matter if I looked at their heads or their butts, they rotated or moved back and forth at random.
Brock, thanks. If not a precise count even a "r-b-park" figure will do. Actually, it should be useful for yourself to have that info at hand! Or how about reckoning the % of people affected - again, very roughly. You can copy this in your reply, or stress the words "very roughly", if you're worried it may be a bit off and might be brought up against you! V. rough % of people - all people and/or regular bin users - who see it and cannot adapt at all, and who see it and can adapt for that session only. I'm sometimes asked basic questions about bins so that's useful to know!
BTW, ignore CJ's accusations re my "homework". In order to find out how digital "jiggery-poo"© affects our visual and other experiences I'm to engage in the extreme abstinence of not watching a screen for a day. It will get me further back in my reading of at least two people on this forum who I'm struggling to keep up with anyway. (Okay, CJ, soon - but you know my soon! Actually, have to do some bird surveys which should enforce that on me - hope I remember to do the follow-up.)
Brock, thanks. If not a precise count even a "r-b-park" figure will do. Actually, it should be useful for yourself to have that info at hand! Or how about reckoning the % of people affected - again, very roughly. You can copy this in your reply, or stress the words "very roughly", if you're worried it may be a bit off and might be brought up against you! V. rough % of people - all people and/or regular bin users - who see it and cannot adapt at all, and who see it and can adapt for that session only. I'm sometimes asked basic questions about bins so that's useful to know!
BTW, ignore CJ's accusations re my "homework". In order to find out how digital "jiggery-poo"© affects our visual and other experiences I'm to engage in the extreme abstinence of not watching a screen for a day. It will get me further back in my reading of at least two people on this forum who I'm struggling to keep up with anyway. (Okay, CJ, soon - but you know my soon! Actually, have to do some bird surveys which should enforce that on me - hope I remember to do the follow-up.)
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either ).
Mark
Nice post, Mark!I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either ).
Mark
The real question to answer is which bin is better: the 8X32 Swarovision or the 8.5X42 Swarovision.
Being someone who can see RB effect and given it has been a factor in my bino choices, the fact that I now have a pair of Swarovski 8x32 SV right here might give an indication that I am clearly not bothered by the very slight amount visible here.
These are so incredibly bright, neutral in transmission, built well and free of CA that I had to have it as my next pair. The lack of CA in particular is very impressive. It is certainly prone to flare that is somewhat able to be compensated by pupil positioning.
But my days of using the Leica 10x42 are over. My 8x32 SE will also have plenty of shelf time from here not because of its optics; but because it lacks the same compact handling and ease of use. It's floppy rubber eye cups and eye positioning demands are a world away from just lifting these to your eyes and observing.
A big thumbs up for the SV from me and the ball rolling effect is nothing compared to the Nikon HG I first observed the effect in back in 2005.
If the SV isn't the perfect bino yet, its the closest I've got to it and I have owned some good glass, and luckily very good specimens of them.
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either ).
Mark
Hi Mark
I find I am in agreement with much of what you say here, and this pretty much sums up why I don't do critical comparisons of my bins with other models. I really don't want to sensitize my 'attention apparatus' to short comings that otherwise don't make their presence felt during normal viewing ..... Lee
Nice post, Mark!
Allow me to add that rolling ball is nothing more than a perceptual response to a specific form of light distortion and, as such, varies with each individual. It's been suggested that uninformed people (read that as stupid) may not be aware of rolling ball simply because they are stupid. How stupid is that?
You have correctly argued that there are at least two kinds of observers: those that observe and those that obsess. Seek RB, CA, AMD, etc. and you will find it. Look past the binocular to the M/F Pileated pair feeding at your suet poles and, in an obviously ignorant stupor, you see two magnificent birds feeding. Nothing more, nothing less. Just two birds in fresh mating plumage. Panning, often quickly, you observe as they move from tree to tree in their relentless search for carpenter ants. You're mesmerized as the male presses an ear against an aging oak, listening for movement. Observation at its finest.
Later, after a great day of observation, you log on to BF only to discover that your entire birding day was ruined by rolling ball. Thankfully, you're too tired to obsess about it and too stupid to care.
PS
The real question to answer is which bin is better: the 8X32 Swarovision or the 8.5X42 Swarovision.
Brock, thanks. As I said, am sometimes asked basic things regarding bins, so like to know the approx. likelihood of r. ball, also r. bowl if that high: how many see it, how many cannot adapt... say, 10% see it, 5% don't get over it...
Mark, Lee, Pileatus, CJ (in short, Dear All), there's another category: we're not immune, not badly affected either, we don't obsessively seek, but some annoying impulse makes us try to note these things on the fly. (Don't know whether "annoying impulse" is a valid excuse in USA law.) Believe me, I want to look for and at birds, not CA.
Just as I want to look at birds or other wildlife and not at RB or pincushion. What elkcub, mooreorless, and GeeJayW were referring to above ..... some people may see effects of the RB phenomena - because they want to - is completely and utterly false as is the conjecture that they, themselves, don't see it because they don't want to see it.
They don't see it, because they can't see it, not because of some Übermensch Will to Power or Amazing Kreskin trick of mind. Or in the case of "semi-neural plastics," they see it and it doesn't bother them, because they can partially adapt to it (maybe they'd even fully adapt if they didn't switch btwn bins with greatly varying levels of distortion).
Believe me, if they saw the curved space-time I see through the full sized HGLs, there's no way they could get past the optics. .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archer_akela/2547274788/lightbox/
<B>
I think it's not so much about "adaptation" as it is about "attention." What do you "pay attention" to? Attention is a fixed quantity. How do you want to spend it?
I've been switching between the SV, the FL, and all the rest (seven in all I think) for two years now. No problem. If I "pay attention" to the pincushion I can see it. If I "pay attention" to the AMD I can see it. Fortunately, I'm actually paying attention to the birds instead. I don't care about that other stuff.
But some people can't see past the objective lens, can't see the forest for the pincushion, or the AMD, or the size of the bin, or the shape, or (for God's sake!) the serial number, or the...
I think once Holger got his hands on an SV, he actually deleted all reference to the SV on his RB page. It doesn't fit the formula he was using (correct me if I'm wrong about that. I haven't been paying much attention to that either ).
Mark
Nice posts boys! :t:
Mark, you are a certified living example that in your case (physically you might not be that susceptible to the effect anyway) out of the "multi-topping pizza theory" (I prefer to regard it as multi-disciplinary science) the "psychological factor" (positively, for you) trumps all the others for you, such as 'swapping between optical formulas'.
You don't let any pesky phenomena get in the way because you don't want to - your attention / concentration (as Pileatus echoed) - is on the subject.
It was to point out what these guys were helpfully trying to get folk to twig to ....... the "psychological factor" can work for you ...... or agin' you!This is what elkcub, mooreorless, and GeeJayW were referring to above ..... some people may see effects of the RB phenomena - because they want to.
...
Believe me, if they saw the curved space-time I see through the full sized HGLs, there's no way they could get past the optics. .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archer_akela/2547274788/lightbox/
<B>