Binocular Light Transmission Chart (5 Viewers)

[eronald]

Which is why I said: "Weight? Yes. Ergonomics? Yes. Style? Maybe. But optical performance? Very rarely."

I covered my bases. :cat:

Bill

Bill,

The view through an instrument is a "percept". It is not a physical "thing" or even an imaginary "concept", it is an evoked reaction to the viewing of the scene through the instrument.

As such, equipment that mediates the view needs to be evaluated not only with respect to certain physical measures of transmitted scene values, but above all according to how people describe their perception.

One of the factors that color your own perspective on these issues is your training in the military, which is an organisation that expects its members to suck it up and get on with the job. The common soldier doesn't choose a color of uniform, cuisine of your food, or I guess binoculars whenin the military - people who are assumed to be smart have made the purchasing decision of what food a soldier should eat to be prepared and have stamina, what color a uniform should be so as not to stand out in the desert or in the snow, and what image a scope or observer's instrument should present to be used for a task.

Let me restate that: the military deliberately demands every soldier abstract away the pleasurability of the user experience, in the same way that the military demands she abstract away any considerations or second thoughts about the morality of the use of force.

In civilian life, people are expected to make choices all the time. The choice of food, the choice of clothes, whether or not they should break their neighbour's nose, it is all up to them. They can decide to eat food they like or stuff which makes them feel like vomiting. And they are also at liberty to choose their binoculars.

Which is why civilians start thinking about "do I like this pair" and start describing the percept, using very vague terms to describe and communicate psychophysical effects that are evoked by the use of the instrument rather than the objective measures that can be derived by direct inspection of the instrument.

BTW, in color, a subject I am familiar with, the perceptions of trained observers are often considered more important and even precise than any measurements. I say this as an ex-member of the ICC, the International Color Consortium which is one of the standards bodies for photo and printing color.

The task of a standards making body is very often to try and translate word descriptions into items which can be checked, assessed and quantified. But one should not assume that when a quality has not been (yet) been quantified this means that it has been deemed unimportant. An example in photography is texture loss, a digital photography issue which impacts skin tone in portraits of people, which is mathematically hard to define but very annoying as one can see from cellphone photos that show "plastic skin".

I was in a park yesterday and saw a bird around the edge of the pond. I used my binoculars and looked for features. I noted the strange green legs, an orange beak with a yellow end and dark plumage with a white band at the tail. It walked around with a ducking weaving long-legged stride, then got into the water and swam like a duck, maybe twenty yards away. I got home and looked it up, of course it's a common gallinule. My experience stayed in the mind better because I like my binoculars, their use is effortless, and so I have a good mental image of what happened, no fiddling or interpreting the color even though it was already late in the day. The instrument's presentation and qualia were woven into the perception I had then and into the memory that is with me now.

Edmund

 

[WJC]

Bill,

The view through an instrument is a "percept". It is not a physical "thing" or even an imaginary "concept", it is an evoked reaction to the viewing of the scene through the instrument.

As such, equipment that mediates the view needs to be evaluated not only with respect to certain physical measures of transmitted scene values, but above all according to how people describe their perception.

One of the factors that color your own perspective on these issues is your training in the military, which is an organisation that expects its members to suck it up and get on with the job. The common soldier doesn't choose a color of uniform, cuisine of your food, or I guess binoculars whenin the military - people who are assumed to be smart have made the purchasing decision of what food a soldier should eat to be prepared and have stamina, what color a uniform should be so as not to stand out in the desert or in the snow, and what image a scope or observer's instrument should present to be used for a task.

Let me restate that: the military deliberately demands every soldier abstract away the pleasurability of the user experience, in the same way that the military demands she abstract away any considerations or second thoughts about the morality of the use of force.

In civilian life, people are expected to make choices all the time. The choice of food, the choice of clothes, whether or not they should break their neighbour's nose, it is all up to them. They can decide to eat food they like or stuff which makes them feel like vomiting. And they are also at liberty to choose their binoculars.

Which is why civilians start thinking about "do I like this pair" and start describing the percept, using very vague terms to describe and communicate psychophysical effects that are evoked by the use of the instrument rather than the objective measures that can be derived by direct inspection of the instrument.

BTW, in color, a subject I am familiar with, the perceptions of trained observers are often considered more important and even precise than any measurements. I say this as an ex-member of the ICC, the International Color Consortium which is one of the standards bodies for photo and printing color.

The task of a standards making body is very often to try and translate word descriptions into items which can be checked, assessed and quantified. But one should not assume that when a quality has not been (yet) been quantified this means that it has been deemed unimportant. An example in photography is texture loss, a digital photography issue which impacts skin tone in portraits of people, which is mathematically hard to define but very annoying as one can see from cellphone photos that show "plastic skin".

I was in a park yesterday and saw a bird around the edge of the pond. I used my binoculars and looked for features. I noted the strange green legs, an orange beak with a yellow end and dark plumage with a white band at the tail. It walked around with a ducking weaving long-legged stride, then got into the water and swam like a duck, maybe twenty yards away. I got home and looked it up, of course it's a common gallinule. My experience stayed in the mind better because I like my binoculars, their use is effortless, and so I have a good mental image of what happened, no fiddling or interpreting the color even though it was already late in the day. The instrument's presentation and qualia were woven into the perception I had then and into the memory that is with me now.

Edmund

Edmund:

As you were kind enough to agree with the facts in my earlier post, I will be kind in your observations as well. Please, however, remember that my years in the fleet were surpassed, by a large measure, with doing repairs for civilians ... civilians with opinions. Frequently WRONG opinions. Throughout that time, I was gathering data with which to help others.

I don’t, for even a moment, want to give an impression that I discount each opinion as it relates to a given individual. NOT AT ALL. But, hopefully, you will admit that too often OPINION congeals into REALITY and can take the onlooker in directions that really shouldn’t be traveled.

All opinions are welcomed—and for the individual—valuable. But many are a detriment to the craft as a whole. Case in point: with two posts over on CN, I gave a THOROUGH explanation of dioptric accommodation and the important reasons for learning to stare. Not understanding that precludes so many other things people like to complain about.

But just ONE post away from the last of mine, a member shared that he has used several binoculars and has had to fiddle with the focus on each because of “FOCUS DRIFT.” And after making that pronouncement, he continued with, “It’s the eyes.”

No, in MOST cases it’s not the eyes!!! It’s the brain and the individual’s choosing to believe ERRONEOUS OPINION over PROVEN FACT.

So many people claim they come to binocular forums to learn. Yet, as scripture says, “They strain at gnats and swallow camels.”

My postdoc friends think I am foolish for even frequenting such forums. But I believe everyone who is knowledgeable about his craft should be willing to occasionally walk through the flames and putdowns to help the truth seeker.

Do I think I am always right? Of course not! I remember I was wrong about something back in 1958. But give me a break ... I was only seven years old!!! :eek!::cat:

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” — Dr. Richard Feynman

 

[eronald]

Edmund:

As you were kind enough to agree with the facts in my earlier post, I will be kind in your observations as well. Please, however, remember that my years in the fleet were surpassed, by a large measure, with doing repairs for civilians ... civilians with opinions. Frequently WRONG opinions. Throughout that time, I was gathering data with which to help others.

I don’t, for even a moment, want to give an impression that I discount each opinion as it relates to a given individual. NOT AT ALL. But, hopefully, you will admit that too often OPINION congeals into REALITY and can take the onlooker in directions that really shouldn’t be traveled.

All opinions are welcomed—and for the individual—valuable. But many are a detriment to the craft as a whole. Case in point: with two posts over on CN, I gave a THOROUGH explanation of dioptric accommodation and the important reasons for learning to stare. Not understanding that precludes so many other things people like to complain about.

But just ONE post away from the last of mine, a member shared that he has used several binoculars and has had to fiddle with the focus on each because of “FOCUS DRIFT.” And after making that pronouncement, he continued with, “It’s the eyes.”

No, in MOST cases it’s not the eyes!!! It’s the brain and the individual’s choosing to believe ERRONEOUS OPINION over PROVEN FACT.

So many people claim they come to binocular forums to learn. Yet, as scripture says, “They strain at gnats and swallow camels.”

My postdoc friends think I am foolish for even frequenting such forums. But I believe everyone who is knowledgeable about his craft should be willing to occasionally walk through the flames and putdowns to help the truth seeker.

Do I think I am always right? Of course not! I remember I was wrong about something back in 1958. But give me a break ... I was only seven years old!!! :eek!::cat:

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” — Dr. Richard Feynman

Bill,

It's always a pleasure to converse with a fellow member of the Always Right Society, from across the pond, and I feel very honored to meet a member of such long standing We are lucky to be able to indulge in endless discussions which are highly enjoyable even in the absence of alcoholic beverages

After reading you here, I have made a conscious decision to try not to refocus, and mostly it works.

Paradoxically, it is easy to shoot down false assumptions, even though it may be worthwhile.

However, figuring out the reason for a sensation or an experience is often much harder, because of the psychophysics. Rolling ball is an example where people seem to have figured it out well enough now so now one could design around it - and still the 8x42 Zeiss SF demonstrates a touch of it, I know because I tried it.

Rolling ball is a typical example of something you don't measure directly, you need to get observers to report, and then you can work out the statistics of a phenomenon which gets reported in a recurrent way by some but not all users, and whose importance is rated differently by those who do report it.

False color, dead color rendering, bright sky discomfort, edge blur discomfort, uncomfortable weight distribution, one would assume that all these things would now be quantified and testable and all designs perfect. One of the key advantages of the incumbents is that they seem to understand these issues well enough while newcomers run through the quantifiable specs and often end up with instruments which work fine but do not please.

Edmund

 

[Troubador]

One of the key advantages of the incumbents is that they seem to understand these issues well enough while newcomers run through the quantifiable specs and often end up with instruments which work fine but do not please.

Edmund

Equally, and for reasons you have already suggested, one can have binos with modest specifications but which please greatly for reasons that are hard to define, and which become favoured companions despite the availability of more objectively impressive models.

Lee

 

[eronald]

Equally, and for reasons you have already suggested, one can have binos with modest specifications but which please greatly for reasons that are hard to define, and which become favoured companions despite the availability of more objectively impressive models.

Lee

You're so right!

All welcome, Troubador, the newest member of the Always Right Society! B

Edmund

 

[[email protected]]

My wife says I THINK I am always right but she says I'm NOT!:king:

 

[[email protected]]

You're so right!

All welcome, Troubador, the newest member of the Always Right Society! B

Edmund

He's the moderator he's got to be right!:t:

 

[eronald]

He's the moderator he's got to be right!:t:

You're right about that

Edmund

 

[[email protected]]

You're right about that

Edmund

I'm always right! Oh no did my wife hear that!

 

[Troubador]

I'm always right! Oh no did my wife hear that!

If we all had to run our proposed posts by our wives/girlfriends (or both!) before we posted, I suspect Birdforum might be a different place!

Lee

 

[eronald]

If we all had to run our proposed posts by our wives/girlfriends (or both!) before we posted, I suspect Birdforum might be a different place!

Lee

Per bylaws of the Always Right Society, only one person in a couple can be a member at any time, but one can step down and nominate the other

Edmund