So I assume you didn’t read the preceding posts where it was explicitly discussed what was meant by this line of discussion?
I've read it several times myself, to try and 'see' what you're describing, and I've been unable to translate your perceptions into something that correlates to my own when I look through the binoculars I have at hand, so am myself in the dark on 'flatness' of certain views, as it does not seem to pertain to the amount of the image in focus, nor depth of field, but instead a linear distortion. and if the image is static, how does one 'know' what its true depth character is? (unless utterly familiar)
It makes me wonder, if this distortion creates a 3d effect, even in one eye (as in looking through a camera lens), does the world when viewed with one's own eyes, sans any optical aid, look correspondingly flatter in comparison?
Edit: A greater apparent field of view is something that is readily perceivable. No argument there as far as providing a more 'immersive' view. I agree with that. And if one distortion profile creates a wider AFOV then another, I can see why some might prefer that. I think the description and perception of "compression" of depth is the part that I do not get. Magnified, narrow fields of view generally compress depth naturally, as regular image scale often appears distorted relative to a wide field view at low or zero magnification.