Interview with the new head of Zeiss Sports Optics (1 Viewer)

adhoc · Aug 27, 2018

I find that my head spins a bit (more) in trying to read this thread so excuse me if some of what follows is said above somewhere.

1. It is well known that the human female sees more color gradations than the male on average. E.g.:

Psychology Today, 2015. [Link] "...This sensitivity was most evident in the middle of the color spectrum. With hues that were mainly yellow or green, women were able to distinguish tiny differences between colors that looked identical to men..."

This is cited a lot on the internet: Research at Newcastle University ?~2010 showed that the average human can perceive 1 million different colors, but a small percentage of women may see 100 times this!

2. Chosun Juan is of that spoilt sex. It seems that many on the forum are not aware of this.

3. For Chosun: You sometimes comment on HTs (you should know what that means) and "bambis". What about piglets? ;-)

Troubador · Aug 27, 2018

Tringa45 said:
Perhaps Troubadoris has a fourth colour receptor, and Chosun too?

John

You might be right there John.

If Troubadoris starts saying things like 'hmm, those curtains are a nice kind of greeny-hammy colour' then I am in big trouble..... :eek!:

Lee

Hauksen · Aug 27, 2018

Hi John,

Tringa45 said:
Perhaps Troubadoris has a fourth colour receptor, and Chosun too?

I just looked up "Tetrachromacy" in Wikipedia, and couldn't make much sense of it ... is there an established view on how frequent this actually is, and how it works physiologically?

I rarely agree with my girlfriend on colour descriptions either, and that's independend of whether we're using different optics or the naked eye.

Regards,

Henning

Tringa45 · Aug 27, 2018

Hi Henning,

Agree, there's a lot of "fachchinesisch" on the English Wikipedia site, but the German site suggests that up to 12% of women have an orange or yellow receptor between the green and red.

John

typo · Aug 28, 2018

Hauksen, Tringa,

I'm sure you are aware of colour blindness and how it's more prevalent in men. These are genetic mutation that significantly alter the function of one or more of the three photo receptors for the short, medium and long wavelengths, or blue, green, red if you prefer. In recent years dozens of other mutations have been discovered, of which the most common results in a single amino acid change in the pigment of the L (red) receptor and shifts the sensitivity spectrum by a few nanometres. The result is a small difference in red/green discrimination. About 45% of men have one version and 55% the other. The interesting thing here is that the gene for the receptor is carried on the X chromosome. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, meaning they will only have one version or the other. Women have two X chromosomes so have two copies of the gene. They can have two copies of one version, two copies of the other or one copy of each. Technically with a blue, green and two different copies of the red they are tetrachromats. At least some studies have shown that this group have the highest levels of colour discrimination. A similar, but less comon variant also occurs with the green receptor, which is also carried on the X chromosome which means it's possible for a woman to have 5 colour receptors, but I've not seen any corresponding performance data. We now know there is considerably more variation in receptor function at the molecular level than was once thought.

David

Hauksen · Aug 28, 2018

Hi David,

typo said:
We now know there is considerably more variation in receptor function at the molecular level than was once thought.

Thanks a lot for the great summary! The thing I'm having difficulties figuring out: How does the eye get from a reflector with a shifted sensitivity peak to the neural representation of a fourth colour? The English Wikipedia article mentions that the variant receptors are usually "wired" to the same old three colour "channels", which logically would result in a deterioration of colour view as the two different receptor types connected to the same colour would create a less well-defined sensitivity peak.

Regards,

Henning

RogP · Aug 28, 2018

According to In Focus Herts someone at Zeiss has said that we should get an 8x32 SF in time for Birdfair next year.Would be nice to have that confirmed - I'd like to have some lighter bins than my 8x42's and really don't want to have to switch to Swarovski!

Troubador · Aug 28, 2018

Hmmm. I quizzed a few Zeiss folks about this and nobody was prepared to comment, but then, I am not a dealer so maybe In Focus got the inside info. I don't think there is any point in trying to get more info out of Zeiss about this at the moment because they will probably want to keep their competitor's guessing. But next spring might be a better time to give them a poke and see what they say.

Lee

typo · Aug 28, 2018

Hauksen said:
Hi David,

Thanks a lot for the great summary! The thing I'm having difficulties figuring out: How does the eye get from a reflector with a shifted sensitivity peak to the neural representation of a fourth colour? The English Wikipedia article mentions that the variant receptors are usually "wired" to the same old three colour "channels", which logically would result in a deterioration of colour view as the two different receptor types connected to the same colour would create a less well-defined sensitivity peak.

Regards,

Henning

You might imagine that the tree colours would be transmitted as separate pathways but nothing is that simple when it comes to neurology. The three signals are first processesed into red/green and blue yellow/ratios in the retina then and goes through several complex intermediate stages on it's way to the visual cortex. I really can't pretend to understand much of it. I've not seen any explaination of how this may differ with tetrachromics, but I'm guessing it is the heterogeneity of the red receptor sensitivity, particularly in the yellow/orange part of the spectum, that refines those red/green and blue yellow ratios to give more precise colour discrimination. But really, your guess is as good as mine.:-O

David

Chosun Juan · Aug 28, 2018

typo said:
Hauksen, Tringa,

I'm sure you are aware of colour blindness and how it's more prevalent in men. These are genetic mutation that significantly alter the function of one or more of the three photo receptors for the short, medium and long wavelengths, or blue, green, red if you prefer. In recent years dozens of other mutations have been discovered, of which the most common results in a single amino acid change in the pigment of the L (red) receptor and shifts the sensitivity spectrum by a few nanometres. The result is a small difference in red/green discrimination. About 45% of men have one version and 55% the other. The interesting thing here is that the gene for the receptor is carried on the X chromosome. Men have an X and a Y chromosome, meaning they will only have one version or the other. Women have two X chromosomes so have two copies of the gene. They can have two copies of one version, two copies of the other or one copy of each. Technically with a blue, green and two different copies of the red they are tetrachromats. At least some studies have shown that this group have the highest levels of colour discrimination. A similar, but less comon variant also occurs with the green receptor, which is also carried on the X chromosome which means it's possible for a woman to have 5 colour receptors, but I've not seen any corresponding performance data. We now know there is considerably more variation in receptor function at the molecular level than was once thought.

David

Thanks for the nice summary David :t:

Perhaps I should have charged more for my work! :-O

Chosun :gh:

Hauksen · Aug 28, 2018

Hi David,

typo said:
You might imagine that the tree colours would be transmitted as separate pathways but nothing is that simple when it comes to neurology. The three signals are first processesed into red/green and blue yellow/ratios in the retina then and goes through several complex intermediate stages on it's way to the visual cortex.

Thanks again! It seems the Wikipedia article is using mental models of colour perception that are too simple to do the topic justice.

Regards,

Henning

jring · Aug 28, 2018

Troubador said:
He replied: “First of all there has not been 220 job losses because many jobs have been transferred. Eighty jobs in those functions which are close to the customer (this means product development and management, marketing, digital innovation and sales) have been moved to Oberkochen to merge with those departments there, and 70 jobs have been created in other parts of our manufacturing network, which principally means our factory in Hungary.
...
“To be very clear, Wetzlar remains Sports Optic’s key manufacturing site, with all critical components being manufactured there and all final assembly and quality assurance performed there. Some pre-production (prototyping) parts and some optical parts will be made in Hungary and of course there are some parts that have always been sourced outside of Zeiss Group for example rubber armour and eye-cups. For our main Victory products all optical components will be produced by Zeiss, the sole exception being the Zeiss Pockets which were developed by Zeiss but are produced in Japan to achieve the right price”.

Hi,

for reference the numbers announced by Zeiss and given to the press last fall were the following:

Sports Optics headcount at Wetzlar pre layoff: 330
Transferred to Oberkochen (development, marketing managment etc). 80
Production job reduction in Wetzlar: 140
Staff left in Wetzar past layoffs (Final assembly, service & repair): 110

Source (german only) https://www.mittelhessen.de/lokales...-und-verlagert-220-Stellen-_arid,1080630.html

Mr Schmitz has not really corrected these numbers - he just commented that the 80 jobs transferred to Oberkochen were not really lost (maybe, if the employees in Wetzlar were actually offered to move there and were able to) and the same goes for 70 more production jobs moved to Hungary (well, not really - I don't think any of the employees in production was offered to move to Hungary and work there at local rates and even if they were - who would take this offer).
This leaves another 70 jobs unaccounted for from the numbers given by Zeiss in last fall - so probably these were completely axed rather than moved?

He also stated that "Wetzlar remains Sports Optic’s key manufacturing site, with all critical components being manufactured there" and "For our main Victory products all optical components will be produced by Zeiss, the sole exception being the Zeiss Pockets..."
Before the layoffs there also was only the Victory production left in Wetzlar - one wonders how they managed to reduce the headcount needed to build them with only 110 staff left from 250 (excluding the 80 moved to Oberkochen which had nothing to do with production)...
Plus of course these 110 also do customer service and repairs in addition to production....

Puzzled,

Joachim

Troubador · Aug 28, 2018

Hi Joachim

Thanks for your post, in fact there were some changes after the press release that you mention as a result of negotiations with the works council which reduced the job losses.

But the main point is that Wetzlar remains the main production site and all commercial and development activities will be stationed in Oberkochen and all of the changes were made without any employment terminations or dismissals.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Lee

Binastro · Aug 28, 2018

Regarding colour perception discussed here, the T.V. programme on now on Channel 9 or BBC Four should be a real eye opener.

Horizon 1/15 'Do you see what I see' 28 August 2018 22.00 to 23.00 BST.

It should be available on i-player.

There are so many points covered one really has to see the programme in full, but basically colour doesn't exist except in our brain.
Colour constancy. Blue light and circadian cycle. Feelings and colour. Performance enhancement with red. Time changing with colour etc etc.
Also knowledge of what colour a banana should be in changing light levels.

So much to digest.

Enjoy.

Troubador · Sep 7, 2018

Binastro said:
basically colour doesn't exist except in our brain.

Enjoy.

Not entirely true. Light certainly has a wide range of frequencies and these are perceived not only by human brains and those of other animals but also by many, many insects.

Lee

typo · Sep 7, 2018

Even within that program the experts disagreed. The argument is largely philosophical.

The electromagnetic spectum includes gamma rays, microwaves, and radio waves, but our planet happens to be bathed with a small, but chemically absorbable band of frequencies emitted by our closest star. Biological organism have developed mechanisms to utilise the absorbed energy from specific wavelengths in various ways, including the generation transmissible electronic signals. We just attribute names to specific ratios of the three separate electronic impulses. Is that colour?

The Mantis shrimp has 12 different photoreceptors. You might imagine they are extremely good at colour discrimination. Their sensing of the electromagnetic spectrum is considerably more complex than ours, but their ability to distinguish different wavelengths is comparatively very poor. What we call colour is not a factor in their world. Does colour exist, or is it a figment of our imagination?

David

chris6 · Sep 7, 2018

With apologies in advance |=)|

Well clearly our idea of what 'exists' can only be based upon our experience, however limited, as interpreted by consciousness to produce our 'reality'.

With the involvement of the imagination, this also very much depends upon language and upon experiential testing of the 'facts', as primarily presented by education: although the world looks flat with the sun going from East to West, we can now experience it directly as being round, and as revolving in the solar system.

That Tv programme revealed that certain people did not have have words for certain shades. They were also said to be unable to discriminate between such colours and those which are more generally recognised, and I think it was suggested that this showed they could not see them.

I cannot remember whether those people were found to possess the same receptors in their eyes or not but, if not, then this conclusion would have been a corollary. Otherwise it might have been more sensible to have gone on to conclude that it may have resulted from not learning or practicing the appropriate mental symbols, and of course we we left wanting to know if with time they could learn the difference....

This might have been a better way of explaining how colour really does exist in our reality, rather than just confusing the issue - Typical BBC!

I read somewhere that when Captain Cook's ship first appeared in a tropical bay the natives did not notice it, and carried on as before. Without the same sort of consideration a BBC programme might well have insisted 'the ship did not exist' rather than 'it did not exist for them'.

As long as most people can agree, we have a common reality, and in that sense colour clearly exists for our culture but, when cultures mix, our reality may not always be shared.

Troubador · Sep 8, 2018

Chris it strikes me that there are some similarities between the perception of colour and our perception of the solidity of objects. At the particle level these objects are far from a substance of continuous density but the strong forces between particles creates a substance that is for all everyday purposes totally solid, just as for all everyday purposes colour exists.

Lee

chris6 · Sep 8, 2018

Lee, that seems right and thanks. Socrates may have planted the seeds of this understanding with "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing", the boundaries ever extended by science, while Certainty would be a lot more reassuring.

Hence perhaps the appeal, however pessimistic and potentially misleading of "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun...Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us." (Eccl. 1:9-10)

The interweb is a wonderful thing!

Troubador · Sep 8, 2018

chris6 said:
Lee, that seems right and thanks. Socrates may have planted the seeds of this understanding with "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing", the boundaries ever extended by science, while Certainty would be a lot more reassuring.

Hence perhaps the appeal, however pessimistic and potentially misleading of "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun...Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us." (Eccl. 1:9-10)

The interweb is a wonderful thing!

Indeed and many things written in the Bible had already been written about in the legends of surrounding kingdoms, for example the great flood features in legends from Mesopotamia and Persia.

Lee

Interview with the new head of Zeiss Sports Optics (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Moderator

Forum member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum member

Roger Payne

Moderator

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Forum member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread