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="elkcub" data-source="post: 3161426" data-attributes="member: 14473">This is partly what leads me to hypothesize that flat field technology attempts to fit the system's Petzval curvature to the retinal surface.  If the main idea is to allow the eye to rotate to see the field edge clearly, would that not be accomplished best by matching the system's Petzval curvature to the retina's?  Then, when the eye rotates the field edge would position over the eye's central angle of vision while still being in focus.   I guess an optimized system would include modeling the user's eye dynamics, which includes rotation geometry, pupil clipping, and so forth.  Tradeoffs would be involved.  And it would also tend to optimize peripheral vision for the purposes nature intended: object and motion detection.I realize this is very oversimplified.  For one thing, the eye's center of rotation is anterior to it's geometric center, and other constraints enter the picture, such as ray clipping by the pupil, and instinctive repositioning at the eyepiece. This, however, is my current understanding as to how the thing work.  I can also envision a wide range of implementation differences between manufacturers, resulting in a confusing array of preferences and perceptual adaptation opportunities in the user population.  (Heads up, Pileatus !)Your thoughts ... or anyone else's?EdPS.  Incidentally, I would be a bit cautious about drawing strong conclusions from camera images in this area, because cameras are designed with flat film planes in mind — so it could be misleading.  Here, we are talking about projecting into basically spherical caps.</blockquote>

Verification