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="Surveyor" data-source="post: 1281999" data-attributes="member: 50720">Ronh; Another thought before I retire from this thread. A few years ago I bought a camera software package to try MTF testing for binoculars but had to give up on it because the only way I could capture the image was taking a picture of the image through the eyepiece so I was doing a MTF of the whole binocular plus the camera lens. I could not figure out a way to separate the two systems. It is far simpler to get the lens aberrations by another source such as star testing, interferograms or other means and calculating the MTF curves. There are computer programs available that once you identify the lens errors you can calculate and generate various reference curves such as MTF, interferograms, 3d wave front plots or regular wave front plots, point spread functions, etc. This is the way I approach the problem now. Still a whole lot to learn though. In the article we have no way of knowing their a) test setup b) whether they measured existing lens errors or c) introduced known errors and then modeled the result to extrapolate various performance points. I suspect it was a combination of all three since it appears they were trying to evaluate different configurations of the same components. I could guess all night and probably come up with a dozen scenarios and math that fits their data but in the end, since we do not know their actual conditions, we just have to rely on their description of their results. Have a good night.Ron</blockquote>

Verification