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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 3252787" data-attributes="member: 665">I agree, now if you can just convince Jerry, who keeps quoting Dobler's lower estimate, even though it's not clear where Dobler got his 5-10% figures from or if they represent all who see RB or only those who see it and can't adapt to it, which was the group Zeiss was interested in contacting when designing the SF. I hope to get answers to those questions. If the numbers are from a study, and it's been published online, I will send you the link or forward it to you if it's sent to me via email. What leads you to estimate 30% see RB? You make an interesting point about not knowing whether trying newer sample SV ELs and finding less RB is due to Swaro tweaking the formula or if you are getting used to the "mustache effect." I wondered about that, too, that is, once someone is exposed to the PC/AMD pattern in the SV EL or some other low distortion bin, if months later, they were exposed to it again, if the brain "remembers" that pattern and then compensates for it? Sort of like immunization therapy where an allergist keeps exposing you to the allergens until your body adjusts and is no longer sensitive to it. If Swaro has tweaked the SV EL's distortion formula, it should be easy to tell by doing what Henry did with the circle photos and comparing the original SV ELs to the latest ones made. Brock</blockquote>