• 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.

Interview with Zeiss Senior Optical Scientist (1 Viewer)

range

Well-known member
FWIW

Range’s link in post #76 is to a Zeiss promotional event. The page is 50 MB in size, mainly due to 37 full size images from the event
The images include: those who were at the event, the band that performed, the food available and the night skyline
And there are no particularly informative images of the Zeiss products

So especially is you’re using a handheld device you may not wish to open it

My one takeaway is that:
The attendees preferred to use the seagull hold on binoculars
i.e. elbows out, so little skeletal support to minimise muscular tension
(thanks to PeterPS for the descriptor, from: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/swarovski-nl-8x42-first-impressions.393180/page-38#post-4068439 )


John
I think I should put a data warning on pages I referenced. We usually don't have this limit here, i.e. my monthly package is 100GB which I never used over halfway.
The "seagull" hold is typical here, maybe we should try another hold.
 

tenex

reality-based
I think that one reason for their popularity, is the association of the triangular shape made by the arms with strength and support
I don't imagine most people think about it at all, this "seagull" hold just happens naturally because we don't often pull our elbows together. (It's also ubiquitous in films...) Upon actually thinking, elbows below make more sense.

Thomas Steinich's comments simply lead me to believe that he is also familiar with Gibson's work, and that to some extent it guides his thinking. Since I'm reading between the lines, however, I could be wrong.

If you don't mind me saying, even if I were to agree with your interpretation of the article you're still being far too dismissive of Gibson's insights. For that you'd have to read his actual research papers.
As I noted, I've read only Goldstein's brief article, so my comments were largely a summary of his reaction to Gibson. That said, you did not respond to any of the points I quoted or raised, or suggest any way in which Gibson's theory could influence the design of a binocular, which I'm having a hard time imagining.
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
As I tried to suggest earlier, your comments were misapplied and not based on an understanding of Gibson's work. That said, rhetorical questions are not designed to be answered. ;)

Let's let it go. 🙏
Ed
 

tenex

reality-based
As I tried to suggest earlier, your comments were misapplied and not based on an understanding of Gibson's work. That said, rhetorical questions are not designed to be answered. ;)

Let's let it go.
No, let's not. My comments were not "misapplied" and my question was not "rhetorical": How would Gibson's theory influence the design of a binocular? I don't know; you might. I took the trouble to read the article you linked; you can take the trouble to offer an example of how it's relevant here.
 
Last edited:

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
No, let's not. My comments were not "misapplied" and my question was not "rhetorical": How would Gibson's theory influence the design of a binocular? I don't know; you might. I took the trouble to read the article you linked; you can take the trouble to offer an example of how it's relevant here.
The reason I mentioned Gibson's theory in post #59, and attached the article by E. B. Goldstein, was as a plausible framework for research into the perception of distance and space induced by binoculars. I was led to think that he might be oriented that way, particularly since his title is Senior Optical Scientist, rather than Senior Optical Design Engineer. I might or might not have been correct in my assumptions about that, but I hope this answers your question.

Ed
 
Last edited:

tenex

reality-based
Thanks Ed, but no, "perception of distance and space" does not answer my question. What specific aspects of Gibson's theory could be relevant to binocular design, and how? (A single example would do.) Assuming Gibson's theory was actually correct, of course; I didn't easily find evidence of that.

Or perhaps you didn't mean to suggest anything so specific? Steinich used the word "gradient", Gibson used the word "gradient", maybe Steinich has read Gibson. Was that all? If so, sorry to have made too much of your remark.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top