I will 2nd that Henry! :t:
I think that even though the view through a binocular consists of a 'system' comprising instrument + observer (+ target and environment that matter!
that steps to quantify the optical characteristics of the instrument are extremely valuable. Especially when attempted to a disclosed 'scientific' method that in essence should be repeatable, open to changes in assumptions and starting conditions, and able to be critiqued and improved upon.
'Removing' the 'human' 'variable' as far as possible (even though that's nowhere near complete) is worthwhile and much appreciated. :t:
Folks making the point that 'their' viewed experience is the only thing that counts is correct - for them as a 'unique' individual 'system'. Even though we share common DNA, environment, broad range of behaviours, physiology, and development etc, and instruments are designed to accommodate the 'normal' user ('normal' as in the statistical sense), our own makeup may present an entirely different 'view' compared to other people. All are correct for themselves. Besides we've all been living with our 'own' 'views' for our entire lives, and thus are 'normalised' to it's peculiarities - so much so that we may not even notice.
Hence my earlier question to Ed about just what exactly is 'normal' human vision.
Other users and different instruments are great - they can bring these 'peculiarities' into stark relief. We have already seen such a phenomena even with the few scant reports of viewing the SF.
So keep up the good work henry! :t: It does help :cat:
Chosun :gh: