pimpelmees
Well-known member
give him to me .....:t:
-
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.
Rolling Ball: what do I do?! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter emmalibertine
- Start date
brocknroller
porromaniac
binomania
Well-known member
Hello. I try to write my impressions in my poor English I use a Swarovski Swarovision 8.5x42 for almost two years. As Brock said there is a period of adjustment. This adaptation will be canceled when you do not use for a while 'time the binoculars.
In addition to this the perception of the RB is very subjective. When my friends use my Swarovision have different perceptions.
For example, while testing the Zeiss HT I neglected my Swarovision. After two weeks of no-use I have had much trouble with the RB visibile in my Swarovision
Now my brain is addicted again.
I enjoyed the new Nikon EDG series. because it has flat field as Swarovski Swarovision but has also a little 'angular distortion to limit the RB.
I advise you to try also a Nikon EDG
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni
In addition to this the perception of the RB is very subjective. When my friends use my Swarovision have different perceptions.
For example, while testing the Zeiss HT I neglected my Swarovision. After two weeks of no-use I have had much trouble with the RB visibile in my Swarovision
Now my brain is addicted again.
I enjoyed the new Nikon EDG series. because it has flat field as Swarovski Swarovision but has also a little 'angular distortion to limit the RB.
I advise you to try also a Nikon EDG
Best Regards from Italy
Piergiovanni
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Hi Piergiovanni,
I appreciate your comments. What you've described is not surprising to a behavioral scientist familiar with adaptation phenomena; indeed, it would be more or less expected. I've been rather skeptical, frankly, of Holger Merlitz' suggestion that the globe illusion actually disappears (even for some people) after a period of 'perceptual' adaptation. Much more likely, in my opinion, is that the illusion's enabling behavior, i.e.,"panning," is modified or adjusted to inhibit the phenomenon from occurring. This is easy to conjecture, since disrupting the smooth flow of visual stimulation necessary for the illusion to occur could be accomplished by several techniques, consciously or unconsciously. These include overt suppression of panning altogether, or replacing it, for example, with a succession of interrupted point-and-look sequences. It should not take much to interfere with smooth flow of the retinal images. Other behavioral adaptations might include voluntary adjustment of saccadic eye movements, which might have a similar effect for the individual.
Because such behaviors require effort, however, they would probably be abandoned quickly when switching to a binocular that places no such demand on the observer. Nonetheless, as a prediction, if one owned several binoculars, including an SV, it would probably become routine to switch from one to the other without taking notice.
My personal solution to the SV's potential for triggering the nasty globe illusion (which I did experience once or twice), was to select Swaro's 8x42 SLC HD. I'm curious why this fantastic model almost never gets mentioned when considering alternatives. True, it does not use a field flattener ... but I consider that a blessing.
Regards,
Ed
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I agree Ed, about the SLC-HD, a great bin, to me better than the SV, but rarely gets a mention.
The best roof I have used, so far.
The best roof I have used, so far.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Hi Piergiovanni,
I appreciate your comments. What you've described is not surprising to a behavioral scientist familiar with adaptation phenomena; indeed, it would be more or less expected. I've been rather skeptical, frankly, of Holger Merlitz' suggestion that the globe illusion actually disappears (even for some people) after a period of 'perceptual' adaptation. Much more likely, in my opinion, is that the illusion's enabling behavior, i.e.,"panning," is modified or adjusted to inhibit the phenomenon from occurring. This is easy to conjecture, since disrupting the smooth flow of visual stimulation necessary for the illusion to occur could be accomplished by several techniques, consciously or unconsciously. These include overt suppression of panning altogether, or replacing it, for example, with a succession of interrupted point-and-look sequences. It should not take much to interfere with smooth flow of the retinal images. Other behavioral adaptations might include voluntary adjustment of saccadic eye movements, which might have a similar effect for the individual.
Because such behaviors require effort, however, they would probably be abandoned quickly when switching to a binocular that places no such demand on the observer. Nonetheless, as a prediction, if one owned several binoculars, including an SV, it would probably become routine to switch from one to the other without taking notice.
My personal solution to the SV's potential for triggering the nasty globe illusion (which I did experience once or twice), was to select Swaro's 8x42 SLC HD. I'm curious why this fantastic model almost never gets mentioned when considering alternatives. True, it does not use a field flattener ... but I consider that a blessing.
Regards,
Ed
Ed,
What happened to your theory of neural plasticity? I've built a whole lexicon of terms based on that theory, which even Holger quoted. It's out there now!
Here's a snippet from Wikipedia on "neural plasticity" for those who either missed or ignored this discussion.
"The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity#Applications_and_examples
Have you abandoned the idea that the brain rewires itself to adapt to a distorted world view to make it look "normal" and now think that adaptation is related to birder's behavior (maybe even unconscious behavior) in adjusting movements of the bins or the eyes to minimize RB effect?
I can say that I have learned to minimize the effect of Rolling Bowl (in which the image appears to roll over a negatively curved surface due to a high level of pincushion) by panning slowly. That is an example of adaptive behavior. But with RB, I've tried everything to adapt except using the low distortion bin exclusively. During my two separate months with two bins with a high amount of AMD (8x42 and 10x42 Nikon HGs), I compared them with my SEs and EIIs and Audubons. I mainly used the HGs, but not exclusively.
Whatever the case, Pier's experience shows that "if you don't use it, you lose it" regardless if that's the rewiring or the adaptive behavior. If minimizing or eliminating RB is due to behavioral adaptation, then what can be learned, can be learned again.
What I suggest is that Pier have someone videotape him while he's using the SV EL the first day when he sees the RB, and then again when he's adapted, and then compare both videos to see which behavior he has changed that has allowed him to adapt. If it's the way he moves his eyes, that will be harder to tell unless he rests the eyecup on his brow so that his eyes can seen and be videotaped from the side and he pans with the bin.
If the adaptation model has changed, I'm going to need to work on new terminology! However, I can't do that until we find out which behavior(s) users change in order to adapt to RB. Plus, if adaptation is due to behavior changes, then anyone, even a "rollingballer" like me should be able to emulate the behavior and reduce or eliminate RB, and then you can trade in your SLC-HD for a SV EL.
Brock
Last edited:
My better half has 8x42 SLC-HD and much prefers them to my 8.5x42 EL SV.
Mike Penfold
Well-known member
James,
I'm interested in a comparison between the FL and SLC HD for your test of focusing speed.
Just wondered if the sample of the SLC HD you tried had an updated focus wheel mechanism, compared to the one I looked at a couple of months ago.
The FL's share the ultra-fast focusing of the second generation Bausch and Lomb Elites.
I'm looking at 8x42 and 8x32 roofs with a focusing speed much like 10x32 EL WB's, a little over 1.5 turns stop to stop, which can be focused from about 10m to infinity without taking your finger off the focus wheel. The HT is on the list, with a larger focus wheel which may influence ergonomics; a magnesium body; and an apparent interest in QC and service -- but AFAIK it's not available here yet.
Mike
I'm interested in a comparison between the FL and SLC HD for your test of focusing speed.
Just wondered if the sample of the SLC HD you tried had an updated focus wheel mechanism, compared to the one I looked at a couple of months ago.
The FL's share the ultra-fast focusing of the second generation Bausch and Lomb Elites.
I'm looking at 8x42 and 8x32 roofs with a focusing speed much like 10x32 EL WB's, a little over 1.5 turns stop to stop, which can be focused from about 10m to infinity without taking your finger off the focus wheel. The HT is on the list, with a larger focus wheel which may influence ergonomics; a magnesium body; and an apparent interest in QC and service -- but AFAIK it's not available here yet.
Mike
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Ed,
What happened to your theory of neural plasticity? I've built a whole lexicon of terms based on that theory, which even Holger quoted. It's out there now!
Here's a snippet from Wikipedia on "neural plasticity" for those who either missed or ignored this discussion.
"The role of neuroplasticity is widely recognized in healthy development, learning, memory, and recovery from brain damage. During most of the 20th century, the consensus among neuroscientists was that brain structure is relatively immutable after a critical period during early childhood. This belief has been challenged by findings revealing that many aspects of the brain remain plastic even into adulthood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity#Applications_and_examples
Have you abandoned the idea that the brain rewires itself to adapt to a distorted world view to make it look "normal" and now think that adaptation is related to birder's behavior (maybe even unconscious behavior) in adjusting movements of the bins or the eyes to minimize RB effect?
I can say that I have learned to minimize the effect of Rolling Bowl (in which the image appears to roll over a negatively curved surface due to a high level of pincushion) by panning slowly. That is an example of adaptive behavior. But with RB, I've tried everything to adapt except using the low distortion bin exclusively. During my two separate months with two bins with a high amount of AMD (8x42 and 10x42 Nikon HGs), I compared them with my SEs and EIIs and Audubons. I mainly used the HGs, but not exclusively.
Whatever the case, Pier's experience shows that "if you don't use it, you lose it" regardless if that's the rewiring or the adaptive behavior. If minimizing or eliminating RB is due to behavioral adaptation, then what can be learned, can be learned again.
What I suggest is that Pier have someone videotape him while he's using the SV EL the first day when he sees the RB, and then again when he's adapted, and then compare both videos to see which behavior he has changed that has allowed him to adapt. If it's the way he moves his eyes, that will be harder to tell unless he rests the eyecup on his brow so that his eyes can seen and be videotaped from the side and he pans with the bin.
If the adaptation model has changed, I'm going to need to work on new terminology! However, I can't do that until we find out which behavior(s) users change in order to adapt to RB. Plus, if adaptation is due to behavior changes, then anyone, even a "rollingballer" like me should be able to emulate the behavior and reduce or eliminate RB, and then you can trade in your SLC-HD for a SV EL.
Brock
Sorry, Brock, but I don't recall using the term "neural plasticity" to explain adaptation to the globe illusion, or any other illusion. Holger and others may have, but you'll find it hard to verify my participation. I've remained mum on the subject largely to avoid boring technical distinctions. However, what is not sufficiently evident in the snippet you quoted, is that the term applies to more or less permanent structural changes, either during normal maturation, or as is sometimes seen during recovery from a devastating injury, ... Gaby Giffords' being a case in point.
That brain structures would change to diminish annoying visual illusions induced by a man-made device, therefore, strains credibility. Indeed, the fact that one might go from one adaptive state to another, and then back again in a short period of time, argues strongly against such a hypothesis. Much more likely is that some technique is learned, consciously or not, to interfere with the illusion-enabling mechanism. The technique may be different in each case, but we do note that the illusion can't occur without the active participation of the observer in the first place.
While we're at it, I should also point out that the oft-referenced chicken experiment with inverted images is an urban legend, inadvertently started by Steve Ingraham, I believe, in discussing something he probably heard incorrectly. Relying on a close friend of mine, who is very familiar with the literature, initial attempts to have chickens peck for grain wearing prisms was totally unsuccessful. Prisms were used that inverted the image and provided a lateral target displacement of 20 degrees. Further studies, however, showed that by using lower power prisms chickens could be trained to cope with progressively increasing displacements, until 20 degrees was finally achieved. Their perceptions or inner experiences were not discovered since chickens don't talk.
Finally, my friend, although I resonate with your proposal to videotape Pier's adaptation process in an effort to prove things one way or another, the technical problems would be daunting to say the least. Then, of course, there is the sobering issue of individual differences, yourself being an example of someone who simply will not adapt when others find it possible. Why is that? 8-P
Regards,
Ed
Last edited:
mooreorless
Well-known member
Quote:
Finally, my friend, although I resonate with your proposal to videotape Pier's adaptation process in an effort to prove things one way or another, the technical problems would be daunting to say the least. Then, of course, there is the sobering issue of individual differences, yourself being an example of someone who simply will not adapt when others find it possible. Why is that?
Regards,
Ed
End of Quote:
Ed, He will look for "it" every time.8-P
Finally, my friend, although I resonate with your proposal to videotape Pier's adaptation process in an effort to prove things one way or another, the technical problems would be daunting to say the least. Then, of course, there is the sobering issue of individual differences, yourself being an example of someone who simply will not adapt when others find it possible. Why is that?
Regards,
Ed
End of Quote:
Ed, He will look for "it" every time.8-P
Last edited:
If he actually ever looks through a pair himself, that would be a start...:smoke:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Ed,
That's what I'm trying to find out. As to moorehair's answer -- not true. I saw RB before there was even a name for it and before any reviewer ever mentioned it in a review. As Pier writes in his reviews of bins with RB, the history of RB goes back a long way to when Zeiss decided to add pincushion to make panning smoother. Before that, if you were a "rolingballer" and you had to use optics, tough noogies.
Since can't link to it, here's an excerpt:
"In 1940, all binoculars were designed to create images with no distortion, then at home Zeiss decided to apply a minimum of angular distortion of binoculars even if the conservative part of the designers, Heinrich Erfle, Konig Albert and Otto were Eppenstein absolutely opposed.
In 1945, thanks to Hermann Slevogt Sonnefeld and was offered a good compromise, it meant the ability to create binoculars with a small amount of angular distortion that could partially eliminate the 'rolling ball effect. Then, thanks to Kohler, is applied to all products terrestrial optical Zeiss what is called "circle of condition", that is a good compromise between containment of the distortion and the effect just mentioned. This parameter, which will be analyzed in the following and a specific article, was for years a reference point for all designers of optical ground."
If a user's adaptation to RB is not neural but behavioral, as you suggest, behavior can be modified. Just as in the example I mentioned about me learning to pan slowly with the 8x30 EII in an open environment with a tree line or buildings in the background. I tried that again, and what I actually do is pan for a short distance, stop briefly, pan again, stop, and so weiter. So it isn't just panning slowly, but stopping and starting that helps stop the ball from rolling.
This might also work to minimize or eliminate RB in a bin with moderately low distortion. With the Nikon HGs, as soon as I start panning, RB appeared. Even in the static view, the centerfield bulged out, which was more noticeable when I had an object centered such a tree trunk.
If you didn't bring up the term "neural plasticity," I wonder who did? Wasn't me. I just picked up the baton and ran with it from there. Hopefully, whoever it was will step forward rather than remaining "mum on the subject largely to avoid boring technical distinctions".
I gather from the wikipedia definition that "neural plasticity" goes beyond brain injury and maturation levels to include adult brains adapting to new situations. Here's another excerpt and a link to the article:
"Neuroscientific research indicates that experience can actually change both the brain's physical structure (anatomy) and functional organization (physiology). Neuroscientists are currently engaged in a reconciliation of critical period studies demonstrating the immutability of the brain after development with the more recent research showing how the brain can, and does, change."
Neural Plasticity
I find it strange that Pier would forget his adaptive behavior and take days to get his groove back. I haven't ridden a bike in about four years, but I would bet that if I got on one tomorrow, no problemo, besides an aching leg/back afterward. Some things you can stop doing for years and yet pick up right where you left off. The more physical the activity, the easier it seems to remember how to do it. More sensory memories perhaps.
Anyway, it would sure be a scientific breakthrough if you could figure out how people adapt to RB. No biggie since there's only a few bins that currently have very low distortion that a birder would want to use, but perhaps there are larger implications for adapting to unfamiliar environments. For example, in a space craft, there is no "up" or "down". You drop something and it either "hangs" there or continues in the direction of the motion imparted on it until hitting something inside the spacecraft.
Here's another example, if a person's balance center in his ear gets damaged, he can do eye exercises to train his brain how to ignore the signal going from his ear to his brain telling him he's falling or moving when he's not. Perhaps there's something like that for RB.
If there was some kind of adaptive behavior that would help people not see CA, that would be even more useful. In the case of the Nikon HGL, it could solve two problems at once - RB and CA.
One useful behavior we already know that helps reduce CA -- keep the IPD set correctly. More of an issue with porros since I have to reset the IPD to get a "perfect circle" at various distances.
<B>
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
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, 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.
Torview
Well-known member
How would you look at the Faraway Trains?
Maybe a Zeiss with its "loco-tec" coatings 3
.