"Phase Compensation of Internal Reflection" by Paul Mauer, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56, 1219 (1 Viewer)

Tero,

I mostly use both a Finn stick and the IS - the belt and suspenders approach. Seriously, though, the stick alone does not do nearly as much to stabilize the image as does IS, but what it does is dramatically help in holding up the binocular for a prolonged time. Walking poles are not for me, though I have seen walking sticks that have a nice wooden knob at the handle which threads off to reveal a 1/4" thread for a camera or such.

Kimmo

Kevin Purcell said:

Making optics is understood.

Click to expand...

Yes, "theory of optics" is well established.

Kevin Purcell said:

There are no "breakthoughs" left to be made.

Click to expand...

There is ALWAYS a way to improve a device by looking at it from a different way. Inventions as ancient and establsihd as "hammer" and "bow" have been improved recently (reduced-vibration hammer that uses a tuning fork in the handle and the compound bow). In the same way there is a chance binoculars can be improved too and by improvement I don't mean a 5% increase in the light transmissio or 10% reduction in weight, etc.

During the past 8 months, I have made what I believe are major breakthroghs in the design of rifle scopes. I am in the process of patenting three of my designs. I have some ideas -although they are in very early stages- that might improve binocular/telescope designs too. My study is now full of books and patents on optics and optical instrument design! I have also started teaching myself how to use ray tracing software. I used MATLAB for mathematical analysis for my rifle scope ideas. Obviously, it would be more efficient if I use professional raytracing programs instead of writing my own algorithms in MATLAB.

So, no, I don't agree that there are no "breakthroughs" left to be made in the feild of binocular design!

"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible."
-T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Aarabia)

Kevin Purcell said:

Au contraire (and I've posted on this before ... earlier in the thread ... )

http://birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1302914&postcount=17

But it's also on another thread with links to the original.

Zeiss 10x40B Dialyt had the same optical design but changed coatings over its lifetime.

You can even do a three way comparison giving two sets of results: single layer versus multilayer (T*) AR and PC (P*) and no PC (both with T*)

T* makes a small difference.

P* makes a big difference.

The main issue with lack of PC is a loss of resolution perpendicular to the roof (from the diffraction pattern I've seen resolution drops between 2x to 3x).

EDIT: here's the text from

http://home.europa.com/~telscope/listpr50.txt



The site index (with lots of random interesting stuff!) is at

http://home.europa.com/~telscope/binotele.htm

Click to expand...

Here is the older thread that is interesting reading, about the importance
of phase coatings.

Jerry