• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

The Eye-Brain Connection (1 Viewer)

Bencw

Well-known member
Thanks Robert, that's interesting. I had a sort of vaigue awareness of this, as I knew that our eyes actually see things upside down like a lens does, it is our brain which turns it the right way up, like a binocular prism does.
 

WJC

Well-known member
This is from a recent article in an audiophile publication I subscribe to, I found it interesting and thought I would share it. The link below is mentioned in the article.

Robert

http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jun/thevisionthingma227

This is partly why so many of the "comparisons," "VSs," "Shootouts," etc., are, for the most part, wasted space. Your realities are not your neighbor’s realities.

Each person’s brain is wired differently and each person has their own receptors, thresholds of recognition, and tolerances for: fatigue, illness, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, meds, even water (or lack thereof)—which are always in flux. Now, add to this that each SIMPLE bino has 18+ optical surfaces to deal with, each with their Rxs tied to glass types, glass melts, minuscule design errors, errors in spacings, errors in figuring and testing, minute errors in test equipment, and much more, and you have a very shaky stack of performance anomalies. This is true without considering the thermal cells that can’t be seen, but, which lie between the target and objective lenses. Yes, in good binoculars they are quite small. But, they are REAL and illustrate why two binos of the same make and model (produced in succession) will differ in quality owing to anomalies in production and all the variances in an individual’s visual acuity.

And bringing up REALITIES like this is why I am taken to task for talking “down” to our members. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth; I occasionally try to talk people “up” to where they are better informed on subjects they talk endlessly about. I’m glad I was potty-trained early on; I think not being would have caused real problems in … high school! :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
On the one hand though, it is probably true to say that across the human race there is a broad, average perception of most visual phenomena. For example most of us would agree on what the Eifel Tower or Pyramids of Egypt look like and most of us would recognise and agree on an absolutely rubbish pair of bins and an absolutely stunning pair.

Personal preference however drills us down to the fine details of what people perceive and the fine nuances of what one person puts a high value on and what another person couldn't care less about. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details and its here where disagreements lie.

Lee
 

WJC

Well-known member
On the one hand though, it is probably true to say that across the human race there is a broad, average perception of most visual phenomena. For example most of us would agree on what the Eifel Tower or Pyramids of Egypt look like and most of us would recognise and agree on an absolutely rubbish pair of bins and an absolutely stunning pair.

Personal preference however drills us down to the fine details of what people perceive and the fine nuances of what one person puts a high value on and what another person couldn't care less about. And, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details and its here where disagreements lie.

Lee

Abso-darn-lutely! And when discussing things the average observer CAN see and pass along to his or her neighbor, such comparisons are very valuable.

Yet, how many times have you seen comparisons of things that have been pushed into the stratosphere--miles above the recognition and understanding of those claiming to recognize and understand.

I don't throw stones at my neighbor. From time to time, I do throw out thoughts aimed at making them think about what they just said, hoping to cause them to stand back and ponder a little more.

In my case above, I didn't mention: blackening of edges, baffling, size and position of field stops, quality of coatings, and much more. The deep end of the pool is not safe for most of us. It just takes us into meaningless territory--from a real world standpoint, anyway.

Things recognizable to the average observer are well worth the describing and comparing. Things that go well beyond the mark are not, and can be confusing and detrimental to the guy or gal who's going out next Saturday to drop his or her dollars on a new binocular.

Just a thought. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

Steve C

Well-known member
I have begun to think that the differences in the eyes of any two observers are only half of the equation. The other half is the perceptions of the users. If one picks up what is generally regarded as a superior binocular, then a superior binocular will be what is seen. If one picks up what is less well regardless as a superior binocular, then a less than superior binocular will be seen. The acid test would be a blind test. Could everyone pick out a ZEN Prime HD from a Swarovski SLC-HD if they were both cast onto the stage in the same frame and armor? That way we would not know beforehand what we were looking at before it came up to the eye.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I have begun to think that the differences in the eyes of any two observers are only half of the equation. The other half is the perceptions of the users. If one picks up what is generally regarded as a superior binocular, then a superior binocular will be what is seen. If one picks up what is less well regardless as a superior binocular, then a less than superior binocular will be seen. The acid test would be a blind test. Could everyone pick out a ZEN Prime HD from a Swarovski SLC-HD if they were both cast onto the stage in the same frame and armor? That way we would not know beforehand what we were looking at before it came up to the eye.

Steve
I think the word you meant to use here "The other half is the perceptions of the users" might have been 'preconceptions'. And its true that if someone gives you a glass of wine and says 'OMG you just have to taste this, its the finest pinot noir I have ever tasted' you are going to approach the tasting in a certain way. Almost certainly its the same for bins too.

Lee
 

looksharp65

Well-known member
Mostly everything we experience is being filtered by subconscious mechanisms and interpreted by the brain to deliver a manageable package of information.
Typically, the visual system forms 80 percent of the conscious sensations. But even then, an absolutely huge part of the signals the eyes deliver is dismissed at a subconscious level. Without generalizations and prejudice to filter the wealth of information, our brains would not last many days.
As an exception to the rule, a small number of savants are able to devour and reproduce the visual reality with no other filtering mechanisms than the eye's limitations regarding wavelengths and low light levels.
The most well-known example is Stephen Wiltshire, who can take a ten minute helicopter trip and return to draw a panoramic scene of a metropolis like London, detailed down to every single window!
That comes with a cost, he's autistic and to some extent disabled.

While binoculars and vision is very interesting to us geeks, I would like to raise the question how eyewitness testimonies are so highly regarded "in some corners of the world", if I may say so.
Few things are as unreliable as eyewitnesses, and what I wrote above is only one reason.
This is definitely not legally secure for the defendants.

//L
 

mfunnell

Registered Confuser
Steve
I think the word you meant to use here "The other half is the perceptions of the users" might have been 'preconceptions'. And its true that if someone gives you a glass of wine and says 'OMG you just have to taste this, its the finest pinot noir I have ever tasted' you are going to approach the tasting in a certain way. Almost certainly its the same for bins too.

Lee
I agree that preconceptions can colour results, and that objectivity is an aspiration rather than something truly achievable. Nonetheless, and going with your wine analogy (where blind testing is easier) I can give an example where a preconception didn't turn out. My father is rather prone to springing "tests" on people and once tried a set of wines on about a dozen of us (friends and family) - 8 different shiraz ranging from vin (tres) ordinaire through Grange Hermitage (one of the world's better and more expensive wines) - numbered glasses for each of us, and a secret ballot for our rankings and identifications (if we had any of the latter).

"Why waste the good stuff on you lot if you can't tell the difference?"

As it turns out, we all got the rankings pretty much the same (a few swapped around in the middle of the pack), all identified the Grange, and were all in rough agreement with published rankings. We were also pretty good at picking wine styles and regions.

That was rather a backfire: now that we've proved we can identify and appreciate the good stuff, we insist that Dad provide it!

By analogy, I'm pretty sure that quite a few people here really can see differences in view through binoculars, even down to subtleties. As with wine, I think that interest can refine appreciation. I'm not putting myself in that category. Yet. (For binoculars: plenty of interest in wine!) Though I seem to be working on it, despite having no initial intention to do so.

...Mike
 

WJC

Well-known member
Steve, Lee, and Looksharp65:

You have all hit the nail on the head. However, you will need to do it exactly like that again in 72 hours for some. It's not just children who have short attention spans.

In addition, experience has shown that many people would ignore the information they claim to want, given by experts in the field--with graphic and scientifically accepted examples--simply because they don't recognize the names rather than Google those names. Instead, they will choose to cling to opinions of armchair experts who they ALSO don't know, because those experts have time to come to BF and the authorities don't.

Am I being harsh, or just dealing in realities? :cat:

Stealing from Steve:

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have--T.R.
 
Last edited:

Steve C

Well-known member
Steve, Lee, and Looksharp65:

You have all hit the nail on the head. However, you will need to do it exactly like that again in 72 hours for some. It's not just children who have short attention spans.

In addition, experience has shown that many people would ignore the information they claim to want, given by experts in the field--with graphic and scientifically accepted examples--simply because they don't recognize the names rather than Google those names. Instead, they will choose to cling to opinions of armchair experts who they ALSO don't know, because those experts have time to come to BF and the authorities don't.

Am I being harsh, or just dealing in realities? :cat:

Stealing from Steve:

"Do what you can, where you are, with what you have--T.R.

No I think you are dealing with realities. The problem will quickly become..."Steve have you lost your marbles, of COURSE I can objectively determine which is the better glass!". Well maybe so, maybe not. There has to be some reason why certain alpha owners claim to see things beyond the ability of their optic to see. I am not wanting to start an argument here, but as an example on one forum a while ago one fellow was touting the superiority of his new Swarovski spotter and its ability to determine the size and number of growth rings on Bighorn Sheep at over two miles. There is this little thing called the Dawes Limit he'd apparently never heard of. The thing is, you have to be able to shut off the little voice in the back of your mind and just use the optical instrument. Therein lies the ultimate level of user satisfaction. Some people need to spend all they can spend on a certain class of optical instrument, other need to spend less to do this. That does not make one group better or worse than the other, just different.

I sometimes wonder about the line between perception ans preconception, but I was actually meaning preconceptions, good catch Lee.

Hey I stole that from TR, you can use it yourself all you want as far as I can see ;)
 

WJC

Well-known member
No I think you are dealing with realities. The problem will quickly become..."Steve have you lost your marbles, of COURSE I can objectively determine which is the better glass!". Well maybe so, maybe not. There has to be some reason why certain alpha owners claim to see things beyond the ability of their optic to see. I am not wanting to start an argument here, but as an example on one forum a while ago one fellow was touting the superiority of his new Swarovski spotter and its ability to determine the size and number of growth rings on Bighorn Sheep at over two miles. There is this little thing called the Dawes Limit he'd apparently never heard of. The thing is, you have to be able to shut off the little voice in the back of your mind and just use the optical instrument. Therein lies the ultimate level of user satisfaction. Some people need to spend all they can spend on a certain class of optical instrument, other need to spend less to do this. That does not make one group better or worse than the other, just different.

I sometimes wonder about the line between perception ans preconception, but I was actually meaning preconceptions, good catch Lee.

Hey I stole that from TR, you can use it yourself all you want as far as I can see ;)

Bully good . . . I gave him credit!

Speaking of which, where is T.R. when you need him more than at any other time in our nation's existence?
 

WJC

Well-known member
I’m sorry, Steve, it’s too late not to start an argument; bring up things like Dawes Limit, which many have never heard of (and, having just been reamed by someone on another thread, I must hasten to say that I am speaking about the hunter Steve alluded to and not anyone on this list). It’s as if you expect reason and empirical logic to step aside for uninformed opinion. You should have seen from my experiences that the truth—if not covered in candy and molasses—can get you in trouble with many of the very folks you’d like to help.

The following story has political overtones, but has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with liars.

John Kerry’s story about American “atrocities” in Vietnam has yet to be settled in court. Even to now, it's all been show and bluster. About 10 years ago, he was defending the allegations of a soldier named Campbell, who claimed he could make out uniforms and weapons in a village TEN MILES AWAY, using the Navy’s large “high-powered” ship’s binoculars. He, like so many on these hobbyist lists, was of the opinion that saying it makes it so.

Well, I had been called on as an “expert witness” in more than one trial relating to optical realities, and was asked by a law firm in Philadelphia to stand by to refute Campbell’s claims at just the right moment to tighten the liar’s noose. As a chief Opticalman, who had repaired several of the units he said he used and who had manufactured from scratch several of those Big Eye objectives, I felt I could do the job quite handily. I was prepared to photograph (through a big eye) along a ten-mile stretch of flat ground in temperate Western Washington—as opposed to the ever-steaming rice patty climate over which he made his supposed observations. Or, call on a friend who was a Senior Chief Quarter Master and who was prepared to say he (the Senior Chief) couldn’t make out huge Navy semaphores at that distance.

Most on bino lists don’t know (and needn’t care) that ALL the makes and models of the Navy Big Eyes are 20 power … and only 20 power—clever opinions notwithstanding. And, before someone mentions the 6” 25 or 40-power Fujinon used by the Coast Guard, I will point out that I said NAVY, not COAST GUARD.

When my waiting in the wings with my teeth sharpened was discovered, they dropped the suit; certain people could not afford to be sullied by the truth. What a shame, I would have enjoyed the hunting expedition.

But, I can see where Sen. Kerry would want us to believe the story. After all, his boat took “machine gun fire,” for “90 minutes,” while only “75 yards from shore” without taking a single hit. Either the Vietcong was using shotguns, or, like the Enterprise, they “had their shields up.” :cat:

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. —Winston Churchill

Cheers,

Bill
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
No I think you are dealing with realities. The problem will quickly become..."Steve have you lost your marbles, of COURSE I can objectively determine which is the better glass!". Well maybe so, maybe not. There has to be some reason why certain alpha owners claim to see things beyond the ability of their optic to see. I am not wanting to start an argument here, but as an example on one forum a while ago one fellow was touting the superiority of his new Swarovski spotter and its ability to determine the size and number of growth rings on Bighorn Sheep at over two miles. There is this little thing called the Dawes Limit he'd apparently never heard of. The thing is, you have to be able to shut off the little voice in the back of your mind and just use the optical instrument. Therein lies the ultimate level of user satisfaction. Some people need to spend all they can spend on a certain class of optical instrument, other need to spend less to do this. That does not make one group better or worse than the other, just different.

I sometimes wonder about the line between perception ans preconception, but I was actually meaning preconceptions, good catch Lee.

Hey I stole that from TR, you can use it yourself all you want as far as I can see ;)

Dead right Steve.
There are many attributes of bins, described by some as good and others as bad, that are debated hotly on here, but which I would have thought you would never notice or think about if you were actually using your bins to look at something.
Such analysis and debate may bring clarification but most of the time I just think "OK, I hear you and thats interesting, but does that spoil the view of a bird or animal, and I don't mean in a 'its there so its got to be affecting what you see' kind of way, I mean would it grab your attention so you can't see the detail you want or it distracts you so much you can't concentrate on the subject.

Lee
 

WJC

Well-known member
Dead right Steve.
There are many attributes of bins, described by some as good and others as bad, that are debated hotly on here, but which I would have thought you would never notice or think about if you were actually using your bins to look at something.
Such analysis and debate may bring clarification but most of the time I just think "OK, I hear you and thats interesting, but does that spoil the view of a bird or animal, and I don't mean in a 'its there so its got to be affecting what you see' kind of way, I mean would it grab your attention so you can't see the detail you want or it distracts you so much you can't concentrate on the subject.

Lee

151124

Hi Lee:

This goes a long way in explaining what I talk, grumble, complain, etc. about. If you enter the forum through the back door, have a look at all the forums, and how many people are on each, you will notice that the binocular forum has 5 to 20 times as many participants as the average of all the other forums. Why? Because the others are documenting their life with birds, and not discussing, pontificating (guilty), arguing about nuances above their level of human recognition. Some people will always take that last statement as just me being rude; others will recognize it as the truth—convenient or not.

And then, there are some poor souls who want optical knowledge, but who I have to walk away from because they are SO new, their terminology is skewed to such an extent that it is as though we’re speaking in two tongues. For example: the person who talks about his binocular not focusing when he is really addressing collimation, and then, when a friend “helps” him, starts describing the problem in terms of “parallax,” which doesn’t really apply.

I get in trouble for trying to raise the bar. You can’t bake a cake without breaking eggs; you just can. And, my more thin-skinned neighbor takes offense when it’s done in such a way as to do the job. Please don’t hate me … well, okay, if you must … but there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding, regarding things the above mentioned want to talk about, that would help them in conversation, help them in practice, and help them at the sales counter. Yet, so many find so much comfort in the sandbox. It’s just easier to speculate than to research. Annoying? Perhaps. Accurate? Without doubt.

But most hobbyist forums are the same.

Does the 270 shoot “flatter” and “reach farther” than the 30-30, 303, 308, etc. Can it place bullets accurately at 200 yards?

FACT: Yes it can!

REALITY: Most kill shots on moderate-sized targets are taken AT LESS THAN 100 YARDS; most of those under 50 yards. That’s why the lowly 30-30 has taken more venison than any other weapon on the planet. So, do you want to hunt and save money on ammunition or do you need an expensive shoulder buster that needs ammunition that may be hard to find?

And before someone drags me through the mud because I mentioned hunting, let me hasten to say that I haven’t fired a rifle in over 40 years, and hopefully will never, again. I own a Marlin 336 CS, the lowly 30-30. When I was in my 20s, I could wield this little gun like a pistol; at 64, I find it has put on quite a bit of weight. Then too, is the fact that if I had to use a shoulder cannon, as an old cripple, I would have a hard time getting the meat back to the truck. Besides, I like beans just fine. Also, like the bino world, things aren’t always as they appear: the cartridge was invented by Winchester and, for some time, the Marlin 336 has been actually been MANUFACTURED by Remington. Realities, realities, realities; we’re surrounded by realities that, if attention is paid to them, can save money and up our knowledge of any hobby. :cat:

Quasi-rant off.

Hugs and kisses,

Bill
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
151124

Hi Lee:

This goes a long way in explaining what I talk, grumble, complain, etc. about. If you enter the forum through the back door, have a look at all the forums, and how many people are on each, you will notice that the binocular forum has 5 to 20 times as many participants as the average of all the other forums. Why? Because the others are documenting their life with birds, and not discussing, pontificating (guilty), arguing about nuances above their level of human recognition. Some people will always take that last statement as just me being rude; others will recognize it as the truth—convenient or not.

And then, there are some poor souls who want optical knowledge, but who I have to walk away from because they are SO new, their terminology is skewed to such an extent that it is as though we’re speaking in two tongues. For example: the person who talks about his binocular not focusing when he is really addressing collimation, and then, when a friend “helps” him, starts describing the problem in terms of “parallax,” which doesn’t really apply.

I get in trouble for trying to raise the bar. You can’t bake a cake without breaking eggs; you just can. And, my more thin-skinned neighbor takes offense when it’s done in such a way as to do the job. Please don’t hate me … well, okay, if you must … but there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding, regarding things the above mentioned want to talk about, that would help them in conversation, help them in practice, and help them at the sales counter. Yet, so many find so much comfort in the sandbox. It’s just easier to speculate than to research. Annoying? Perhaps. Accurate? Without doubt.

But most hobbyist forums are the same.

Does the 270 shoot “flatter” and “reach farther” than the 30-30, 303, 308, etc. Can it place bullets accurately at 200 yards?

FACT: Yes it can!

REALITY: Most kill shots on moderate-sized targets are taken AT LESS THAN 100 YARDS; most of those under 50 yards. That’s why the lowly 30-30 has taken more venison than any other weapon on the planet. So, do you want to hunt and save money on ammunition or do you need an expensive shoulder buster that needs ammunition that may be hard to find?

And before someone drags me through the mud because I mentioned hunting, let me hasten to say that I haven’t fired a rifle in over 40 years, and hopefully will never, again. I own a Marlin 336 CS, the lowly 30-30. When I was in my 20s, I could wield this little gun like a pistol; at 64, I find it has put on quite a bit of weight. Then too, is the fact that if I had to use a shoulder cannon, as an old cripple, I would have a hard time getting the meat back to the truck. Besides, I like beans just fine. Also, like the bino world, things aren’t always as they appear: the cartridge was invented by Winchester and, for some time, the Marlin 336 has been actually been MANUFACTURED by Remington. Realities, realities, realities; we’re surrounded by realities that, if attention is paid to them, can save money and up our knowledge of any hobby. :cat:

Quasi-rant off.

Hugs and kisses,

Bill

Bill
Dark room.
Lie down.
Now.

Lee :smoke:
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Wow . . . look at the grouse!

Bill

PS Do you know CN member Kenny Jones?

Hya Bill

Hope you are feeling better today.

Nope, I don't frequent CN and don't know Kenny.
On the other hand I live within 5 minutes of the Derbyshire Peak District where there are many Red Grouse.

Over here 'to grouse' is to grumble or complain, but this was not behind my advice to lie down in a dark room. You said you had been ranting in your post and it was such an enthusiastic rant I just thought you needed a break...
Lee
 

WJC

Well-known member
Hya Bill

Hope you are feeling better today.

Nope, I don't frequent CN and don't know Kenny.
On the other hand I live within 5 minutes of the Derbyshire Peak District where there are many Red Grouse.

Over here 'to grouse' is to grumble or complain, but this was not behind my advice to lie down in a dark room. You said you had been ranting in your post and it was such an enthusiastic rant I just thought you needed a break...
Lee

Hi Lee:

Over here, "grouse" means the same thing. My comment, though, was a "take off" on Curly Howard of the Three Stooges from a 1930s vignette. He was knocked nearly unconscious and exclaimed, "Look at the grouse!"

Hey, it was an old guy thing!

By the way, I'm no longer nestled down between the mountains of western Washington--with the Pacific breeze--and it's snowing. Yep, life in a basalt desert in southern Idaho is going to be quite different. :cat:

Have a great one.

Bill

PS Tobias has just given us an example of what all my whining about wanting to raise the bar on optical studies and cause some people to get out of the sandbox is all about. I hope others will follow suit.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top