What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Omid's Invention - Binoculars with Convergent or Divergent Field of View
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="looksharp65" data-source="post: 3621533" data-attributes="member: 83771"><p>You're welcome!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>True, and I actually didn't think of the added complication of the resulting base up/down effect due to rotation when IPD is adjusted.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Excuse me, but I'm lost here. I understand that your main goal is to increase the resulting true field of view by reducing the common area seen with both eyes. Your analysis that the image of an object will be seen closer to the medial parts of the respective FOV's is correct. It is also correct that this requires added convergence, but I'm puzzled why you seem to consider this an advantage. </p><p>A traditional porro does almost exactly this when used at finite distance.</p><p>Once the right and left image of the object gets too close to the medial edge of the FOV, visual discomfort appears. This may be the result of either excessive convergence strain or difficulty to center the object in the narrow almond-shaped common area. That's why IPD adjustment helps. That's also why wide FOV's make traditional porros reasonably useful even at fairly close distance.</p><p>A traditional porro's best asset is the wide spacing between the objectives, where the added parallax will enhance the 3D perception.</p><p>It is not the convergence of the eyes that enhance the 3D perception.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you got the effect right - the light bends towards the prism base in your Fig. 2(a).</p><p>If you put base in prisms like in that figure, or for that matter one prism (makes no difference if you spread the prism power on one or two prisms), the eyes must diverge to not deliver a double-image. </p><p>Re the Fig. 3(b) regardless of whether it's central or peripheral light rays, when they converge like that, they don't come from the same object, i.e. diplopia will occur.</p><p></p><p>Regards,</p><p></p><p>Lars</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="looksharp65, post: 3621533, member: 83771"] You're welcome! True, and I actually didn't think of the added complication of the resulting base up/down effect due to rotation when IPD is adjusted. Excuse me, but I'm lost here. I understand that your main goal is to increase the resulting true field of view by reducing the common area seen with both eyes. Your analysis that the image of an object will be seen closer to the medial parts of the respective FOV's is correct. It is also correct that this requires added convergence, but I'm puzzled why you seem to consider this an advantage. A traditional porro does almost exactly this when used at finite distance. Once the right and left image of the object gets too close to the medial edge of the FOV, visual discomfort appears. This may be the result of either excessive convergence strain or difficulty to center the object in the narrow almond-shaped common area. That's why IPD adjustment helps. That's also why wide FOV's make traditional porros reasonably useful even at fairly close distance. A traditional porro's best asset is the wide spacing between the objectives, where the added parallax will enhance the 3D perception. It is not the convergence of the eyes that enhance the 3D perception. And you got the effect right - the light bends towards the prism base in your Fig. 2(a). If you put base in prisms like in that figure, or for that matter one prism (makes no difference if you spread the prism power on one or two prisms), the eyes must diverge to not deliver a double-image. Re the Fig. 3(b) regardless of whether it's central or peripheral light rays, when they converge like that, they don't come from the same object, i.e. diplopia will occur. Regards, Lars [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Omid's Invention - Binoculars with Convergent or Divergent Field of View
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top