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="looksharp65" data-source="post: 3626799" data-attributes="member: 83771">Again, it is not the horizontal-medial displacement of the image per se that creates a better 3D perception, it is the real parallax that's greater when the objective lenses are further apart. The medial image displacement is a side effect of the parallax. So while a slightly larger total (while not binocular) FOV could be obtained, the benefits of a better 3D view of a porro design will not be gained.The benefits of a decreased parallax for close viewing are clear and apparent when using reverse-porro design binoculars. The Papilio takes it a step further with its physically converging tubes coupled to the focus setting.When you mention "your design" I take it you plan to combine these two advantages by utilising a design with flipping prisms. I think it's time to produce a simple model to back your claims. The technical challenges aside (they have been mentioned earlier in the thread) but the simplest of models, using trial lenses in front of the objective lenses and behind the ocular lenses, would be enough to assess whether or not your ideas rest on firm ground and whether or not they they can produce  real and unrestricted advantages for each of these two situations.The requirements to back your claims would be:A visibly larger FOV beyond what's obtainable with super wide angle eyepieces, coupled with binocular near vision at about 40 cm with a minimum real eye convergence like the Papilio design.When assessing the general effect of prisms, single-side mounting is sufficient. I'm interested to learn about the progress.//L</blockquote>

Verification