Distortion Characteristics of Three Swarovision Models (1 Viewer)

I was finally able to photograph the distortion characteristics of an 8x32 SV in a store recently. I confess to feeling a bit lazy just now about processing and uploading those images along with earlier photos I made of distortion in the 8.5x42 and 12x50 models, so for now I’m just reporting the results. Maybe I’ll get around to posting the images later.

You’ll have to take my word for it that the photos all look really really similar. The three SV models I’ve seen all show the same form of compound distortion, and in amounts the are either identical or close to it. The tiny differences in the photos could be true differences among the models, but they are just as likely to be artifacts of a certain sloppiness that goes along with in-store testing like this. It’s certainly safe to say that these three models (including an early and recent production 8.5x42) have distortion characteristics that cluster very closely together and are quite different from any other alpha binoculars. They represent an approach that introduces some pincushion distortion within the inner 60-70% or so of the field, but then reverses the distortion curve, nearly canceling the pincushion in the outer part of the field and straightening out lines near the edge. That leads to considerable angular magnification distortion near the edge, probably about as much as there would be if no pincushion distortion were present at all.

Other alpha brand models I’ve photographed show very different profiles. Zeiss (FL) applies about enough pincushion to correct angular magnification distortion. Leica (Ultravid 8x42) uses a little more pincushion than is needed to correct positive AMD and so winds up with a little reversed AMD. Nikon (EDG, SE) applies straightforward, but mild, pincushion that isn’t enough to fully correct AMD.

I know there have been subjective reports of differing amounts of “rolling ball” among the Swarovision models and suggestions that new production differs from early production. From what I have seen and photographed I can find no significant difference in the actual distortion of the different models that would explain those reports. I suspect differences in panning behavior, visual field contents and brains are more likely explanations.

FWIW, I personally experience no problems panning with any of the SV’s. Obviously, other folks have different experiences with the same binoculars. For those who are disturbed by the globe effect in one SV model, changing to another model will probably not cure anything, but I wouldn't rule out the placebo effect.

Thanks Henry, very interesting. Oddly enough, when I compare my SV 8.5x42 to my SV 8x32, again and again, panning similarly, using the same tree-line with each binocular alternately, (and using my only brain), I can detect "Globe Effect" in the former, and none in the latter. Also, I can detect a small amount of pincushion in the SV 8x32 (e.g. moving a level horizon to the top or bottom of the FOV), whereas I can detect none in the SV 8.5x42.

Thanks Henry for your evaluation of AMD in the Swarovision line--I haven't viewed an 8x32 but I have looked through the 8.5x42 & 12x50 Swarovisions, and could not pick up the rolling ball in either when panning. I think Swaro has felt confident with their 'AMD formula' and felt like they didn't need to tweak it with the 8x32s. Always enjoy your posts! :t:

Thanks for the report Henry. What a relief, maybe. So much has been said about the SVs rolling ball, at least it might not have to be resaid in different ways for each model. But Sancho's impression is not encouraging!

It's like Company Seven's ad for the 10x50 Ultravid: "there's Voodoo inside this binocular".
Ron

Sancho,

To quote the great Chico Marx: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?!"

Henry

henry link said:

Sancho,

To quote the great Chico Marx: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?!"

Henry

Click to expand...

:-O And as Groucho said, "A child of five would understand this. Somebody go get a child of five!"

And as Harpo said: honk, honk, honk, honk, honk, honk!

Google translation: Three cheers for the placebo effect!

I can say one thing about the SV models, the image makes me say.........wow.

Rolling ball seems to be a very personal experience. I can't see why anyone who would spend this much money would not test before they buy.

I tried a 8.5 for a few hours today, for the 1st time. I have had some time with the 10x42 SV and thought the distortion effect to be tame and not bothersome.

For me, as I must fall into the ''brain damaged'' camp, the rolling ball-type distortion was noticeable and intrusive. I was surprised with the effect and just when and where it was experienced. It was pretty mild on distances, apart from the outer edges rolling up [compressing], kinda like my old 10x40 Dialyt does but was very obvious at shorter distances. I didn't have to pan to see it, just gently roll the bin around and the whole field seems to bend and flex, as if the image is projected onto a mylar that is being twisted.

Even at close-focus distances, this unequal stretching and compressing across the field was easy to see. In some ways, it looked like a bin with way too much pincushion. I found it more distracting the more I used it. That said, the central sweet spot is huge and gorgeous, probably more than enough for any user if they don't object to the distortion.

Personally, after trying both the 8.5 SV and the 8x42 SLC-HD, I much prefer the SLC for it's more typical view, even with the mildly soft edges. The SLC represents [for me] perhaps the best view I have seen in a binocular, ever. Now I need to try the HT.......

James wrote: In some ways, it looked like a bin with way too much pincushion.

Indeed it does, whether it's "rolling ball" or "rolling bowl," the image appears to roll over a curved surface - positively curved in the former and negatively curved in the latter, but each distortion when taken to the extreme produces a similar "rolling" effect caused by the changes in image size from center to the edges in those individuals who do not adapt to these spherical or Riemannian geometries or in the case of the SV EL, Mobius geometry.

Interesting that James didn't see RB in the 10x42 model. Others have also found this to be true for them, no RB (or less) in the 10x42 than in the 8.5x model. Ditto for the 8x32 SV EL. Is it the placebo effect, as Henry speculates, or is there a more tangible explanation?

According to Henry, RB is less noticeable the smaller the AFOV.

The 8.5x SV EL has an AFOV of 65.6* -- wide angle. The 10x42 has an AFOV of 64*, still wide angle, but less.

Could we fall back on the theory that < AFOV=< RB for the explanation? That's cutting it pretty close in terms of AFOV, with only a 1.6* difference in over greater than 64*.

Could 1.6* AFOV make enough difference that some people can't see RB with a WF 64* SV EL but do with a WF 65.6* SV EL with the same distortion pattern? Perhaps this true with semi-neural plastics, who can adapt, but only within certain limits.

James should try the 10x50 SV EL, which has a slightly larger AFOV than the 8.5x model (66*). If he doesn't see the RB in the 10x50, then his sensitivity to RB is not due to the size of the AFOV. If he does, then perhaps his cutoff for detecting RB in the SV ELs is somewhere between 64* AFOV and 65.6*.

Of course, to rule out the placebo effect, he'd have to be blindfolded so he couldn't see which bin was which.

The other possibility that occurred to me is that although the overall distortion pattern is the "similar" in all three models, the transition zone, which Henry states is somewhere between 60-70%, might not be located at the same distance from the center in all three models. Perhaps a variance of the transition zone could make a difference in whether or not some people see RB in various models.

According to previous discussions, there are a small number of users who see a small band or arc of blurriness at the transition zone between pincushion and AMD in the SV ELs. Apparently, some people are very aware of exactly where the "Mobius strip" flips.

Is it possible that the 8.5x SV EL's EP is designed differently such that the transition zone is located closer in than in the other two bins, bringing the AMD closer to the viewer's central vision? Since Henry never processed the photos, we don't know about that. So for now, why people see varying amounts of RB in different SV EL models remains a mystery.

The reason I'm seeking an alternative explanation is that placebo effect only works if there's an expectation going in that there will be a difference. The difficultly I find with this explanation is if someone who is neural plastic can adjust to RB in certain models, then how could they not be neural plastic enough to adjust to the RB in the 8.5x SV EL? After all, not everyone sees RB in the 8.5x model, why would these individuals have the expectation that they would see it only in the 8.5x model?

I'd like to hear from James and others who see RB in the 8.5x SV EL but not in the 10x and/or the 8x32 what their initial expectations were going in to try these three models? If they expected to see it in some models and not others.

If they had no expectations, we can rule out the placebo effect, if they did, and they matched their experience, then Henry's on to something.

<B>

Brock,

When I tried the 10, I expected to see it [RB] as I had read so much about it. I was surprised how benign the effect appeared to be, but I didn't have the 10 for as long as the 8.5 and didn't have as many opportunities to see the effect.

If I tried the 10 again, I might well see the same effects as in the 8.5. For me, at short distances, the image of the 8.5 appeared as if each corner of the image was being tugged in the opposite direction, as if looking at the image under rippling water. Certainly not the expected bulging centre and edges falling away.

I don't think I would ever trade the extra 10% of edge sharpness [that isn't perfect BTW] for the distortion effect that I think I would see all the time. The SLC-HD, to me, is the far better compromise.

Thanks for that Henry. Very interesting.

Will be nice to have a look at those photos and see if you've captured what I described in a previous thread.

Tim

Yes, I really want to see the photos as this thread about SV distortion profiles is making my head hurt. I sit for hours with my 10x32 SV's and don't seem to be able to see distortion as described. I've been playing with the snap shot adapter, taking pictures of a tall block wall across the street, then looking carefully at the photos. All I see other than straight, evenly spaced lines is a very slight bowl shaped curvature of the horizontal lines near the top of the image.

My damaged eyes and brain do not manage to process 'rolling ball' no matter how hard I try to see it, so maybe the 'compound distortions' of the SV's are similarly unprocessed by me. Maybe the pictures will help.

John F

barshnik said:

Yes, I really want to see the photos as this thread about SV distortion profiles is making my head hurt. I sit for hours with my 10x32 SV's and don't seem to be able to see distortion as described. I've been playing with the snap shot adapter, taking pictures of a tall block wall across the street, then looking carefully at the photos. All I see other than straight, evenly spaced lines is a very slight bowl shaped curvature of the horizontal lines near the top of the image.

My damaged eyes and brain do not manage to process 'rolling ball' no matter how hard I try to see it, so maybe the 'compound distortions' of the SV's are similarly unprocessed by me. Maybe the pictures will help.

John F

Click to expand...

If you removed every piece of glass from an SV some BF'er would come along claiming they saw unacceptable distortion!

Pileatus said:

If you removed every piece of glass from an SV some BF'er would come along claiming they saw unacceptable distortion!

Click to expand...

Some see it, some don't - why do some take this all so personally, trying to make the ''rolling ballers'' into some sort of out-of-norm cult?

Wasn't my praise of the SLC-HD as the best piece of glass I have used enough? Or do I have to pretend that the SV's distortion doesn't exist?

My first look through the 2 latest Swaro 8x32's the immediate impression was that they blew away my lovely Leica 8x32BNs....BUT when I panned across the bushes 20m in front of me the rolling ball effect (which I had never heard about at the time) made me feel dizzy. I do suffer from motion sickness (I'm the wimp when I take my daughter to the fairground) and I feel that this maybe the reason that some see it and others don't. Although these bins look fabulous on a fixed view the "panning problem" makes them a no no for me unfortunately.

Yes, the "static view" is fabulouscious, and that would be fine if "rolling ballers" were taking still photos, but it's unsuitable for the "moving picture" world of birds.

It's good to see more "rolling ballers" coming out of the closet, so to speak. From the remarks above, you can see how we, the minority reporters, are treated like pariah by the Flatlanders.

I say it time we "roller ballers" stood up for our right to see the world as it really is rather than as the Flatlanders see it. Why should we not be able to enjoy the SV ELs like others do?

If you pr-ck us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?

WE "rolling ballers" hereby demand that Swarovski provide an option with the SV EL at no extra cost to those who request it - a pair of eyeglasses with AMD to 60-70% and pincushon from there out to the edges to counteract the "mustache effect".

Then, and only then, will there be true equality in the premium optics world. Only then, can we "rollling ballers" stand up and proudly say, Ich bin ein Tyrolean!

Herr Brock

brocknroller said:

Yes, the "static view" is fabulouscious, and that would be fine if "rolling ballers" were taking still photos, but it's unsuitable for the "moving picture" world of birds.

It's good to see more "rolling ballers" coming out of the closet, so to speak. From the remarks above, you can see how we, the minority reporters, are treated like pariah by the Flatlanders.

I say it time we "roller ballers" stood up for our right to see the world as it really is rather than as the Flatlanders see it. Why should we not be able to enjoy the SV ELs like others do?

If you pr-ck us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?

WE "rolling ballers" hereby demand that Swarovski provide an option with the SV EL at no extra cost to those who request it - a pair of eyeglasses with AMD to 60-70% and pincushon from there out to the edges to counteract the "mustache effect".

Then, and only then, will there be true equality in the premium optics world. Only then, can we "rollling ballers" stand up and proudly say, Ich bin ein Tyrolean!

Herr Brock

Click to expand...

Brock,- Not to press too hard; but..... have you ever seen even a "static view" through a SV??

stephen b said:

Brock,- Not to press too hard; but..... have you ever seen even a "static view" through a SV??

Click to expand...

Chauvinism aside, rolling ball is rolling ball is rolling ball. It doesn't matter what brand bin it is, if it has very low distortion, and you see "rolling ball" in one brand, you will see them in all brands. The possible exception (at least in theory) is a bin with low distortion that has a narrowish AFOV.

The fact that you are asking such a naive question can only mean one thing. You are not one of us, but a Flatlander!

<B>

I am not very appreciative of the SV's sharp edge, and mildly annoyed by its RB in panning. But one place I think the SV would be ideal is looking out to sea. I am seriously landlocked here in NM, but on my occasional trips to the coast have taken various binoculars and observed out to sea with great pleasure.

The horizon of the sea, what a sight! Is it perfectly flat, or does it seem to bend a little? I will never try to work out the answer mathematically, nor look the answer up in a book. I only want to look, and wonder. My soul needs to see that, once in a while. And yeah, then go get some fried oysters.

With pincushion distortion, that magical flat horizon turns comic and ridiculous, dipping and swooping in alarming ways that I would not fault in a landscape of foliage and rocks. But, not what I came to the coast for.

My good old Fujinon 7x50 is essentially distortion free, and aided by its narrow apparent field, does not violate this planetary wonder. The SV would be similar, but with a wider field, and for what it's worth, a sharp edge to boot. As far as rolling ball, well, there's not much to roll. The distant water doesn't contain a lot of detail, nor does the sky, so only very little of that effect is noticed, mainly the shape of the horizon.

Our household SV has not been to the coast yet, but when it goes, I will also take the Fujinon, and compare views, and puzzle.

High and Dry,
Ron