What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Big fan of Porro prism .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Holger Merlitz" data-source="post: 3574168" data-attributes="member: 84262"><p>Your example of the spider worm thread is interesting, because it may well be unresolvable in our binocular. A similar case shows up with power lines, which are observed at a distance of several km: We can see them, even though their diameters remain well below the theoretical resolution limit. In this case, we do not receive an image of the power line itself, but rather its diffraction pattern. I have observed that some binoculars are capable of showing these lines at high contrast, as nicely black lines in front of the bright sky background, while others display them as very fine, yet grey lines. Are these differences consequences of different levels of aberration control, or rather rooted in different approaches to stray light control, or do they display different qualities of lens surface smoothness due to polishing, or even a tiny amount of stray light generated inside the glass elements? In the latter case, the coating technology (and hence the transmission value) may be of relevance, and we know that the Habicht is particularly strong in that discipline. </p><p></p><p>For optics used in astronomy, it is common to analyse the wavefront error of the system, which leads to the Strehl number. It essentially tells which fraction of light is shifted away from the primary maximum of the diffraction pattern into secondary (and further) maxima. Now, binocular optics are commonly so bad that they do not even show nice diffraction patterns, because those are blurred by their residual aberrations - few binoculars are actually diffraction limited at full aperture. Hard to say what is going on inside a binocular which happens to show those ultra thin, unresolved threads at a particularly high contrast. The question arises whether those regular black/white patterns used for the test charts do actually test such a feature accurately. Fourier optics is a delicate field, and regular patterns, due to their symmetry, may lead to phenomena that differ from the imaging characteristics of a single, unresolved line. </p><p></p><p>Cheers,</p><p>Holger</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Holger Merlitz, post: 3574168, member: 84262"] Your example of the spider worm thread is interesting, because it may well be unresolvable in our binocular. A similar case shows up with power lines, which are observed at a distance of several km: We can see them, even though their diameters remain well below the theoretical resolution limit. In this case, we do not receive an image of the power line itself, but rather its diffraction pattern. I have observed that some binoculars are capable of showing these lines at high contrast, as nicely black lines in front of the bright sky background, while others display them as very fine, yet grey lines. Are these differences consequences of different levels of aberration control, or rather rooted in different approaches to stray light control, or do they display different qualities of lens surface smoothness due to polishing, or even a tiny amount of stray light generated inside the glass elements? In the latter case, the coating technology (and hence the transmission value) may be of relevance, and we know that the Habicht is particularly strong in that discipline. For optics used in astronomy, it is common to analyse the wavefront error of the system, which leads to the Strehl number. It essentially tells which fraction of light is shifted away from the primary maximum of the diffraction pattern into secondary (and further) maxima. Now, binocular optics are commonly so bad that they do not even show nice diffraction patterns, because those are blurred by their residual aberrations - few binoculars are actually diffraction limited at full aperture. Hard to say what is going on inside a binocular which happens to show those ultra thin, unresolved threads at a particularly high contrast. The question arises whether those regular black/white patterns used for the test charts do actually test such a feature accurately. Fourier optics is a delicate field, and regular patterns, due to their symmetry, may lead to phenomena that differ from the imaging characteristics of a single, unresolved line. Cheers, Holger [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Swarovski
Big fan of Porro prism .
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top