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
Zeiss
Zeiss uses AK prisms - so why not an open bridge design?
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="elkcub" data-source="post: 1744879" data-attributes="member: 14473"><p>By "roof illusion" I assume you mean the observation that roof binoculars yield larger apparent images than Porros, but less stereopsis. (It's not an illusion, as I mentioned; it's a perceptual experience.)</p><p></p><p>There are two closely related tasks, "acquisition" and "identification." The former has to do with capturing (i.e., becoming aware of) the presence of an object in 3-space, the latter with determining what it is. The literature supports the notion that stereopsis declutters a complex visual environment and improves target acquisition. The extreme comparison would be between a binocular (two different images) vs a biocular (two identical images). It's my educated guess that incrementally improved stereopsis also improves target acquisition incrementally. </p><p></p><p>As for target identification, which necessarily follows acquisition, I don't know that stereopsis makes much difference. (Note that I have avoided reference to apparent size differences for reasons stated earlier. Apparent size is a transitory perceptual experience subject to rapid habituation.) </p><p></p><p>Down to particulars, the issue at hand with the Nikon vs Canon is: <em>"I believed I was seeing more...because it appeared larger."</em> I can't argue with causal beliefs, my friend, just suggest there may be less evident factors to consider apart from apparent size. In any case, the challenge is really for you or someone with that belief (i.e., experimental hypothesis) to <em>prove</em> that apparent size enhances target identification, rather than for skeptics to prove that it doesn't (i.e., prove the null hypothesis). </p><p></p><p>This may lend meaning to: "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Ed</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="elkcub, post: 1744879, member: 14473"] By "roof illusion" I assume you mean the observation that roof binoculars yield larger apparent images than Porros, but less stereopsis. (It's not an illusion, as I mentioned; it's a perceptual experience.) There are two closely related tasks, "acquisition" and "identification." The former has to do with capturing (i.e., becoming aware of) the presence of an object in 3-space, the latter with determining what it is. The literature supports the notion that stereopsis declutters a complex visual environment and improves target acquisition. The extreme comparison would be between a binocular (two different images) vs a biocular (two identical images). It's my educated guess that incrementally improved stereopsis also improves target acquisition incrementally. As for target identification, which necessarily follows acquisition, I don't know that stereopsis makes much difference. (Note that I have avoided reference to apparent size differences for reasons stated earlier. Apparent size is a transitory perceptual experience subject to rapid habituation.) Down to particulars, the issue at hand with the Nikon vs Canon is: [i]"I believed I was seeing more...because it appeared larger."[/i] I can't argue with causal beliefs, my friend, just suggest there may be less evident factors to consider apart from apparent size. In any case, the challenge is really for you or someone with that belief (i.e., experimental hypothesis) to [i]prove[/i] that apparent size enhances target identification, rather than for skeptics to prove that it doesn't (i.e., prove the null hypothesis). This may lend meaning to: "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." ;) Ed [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Zeiss
Zeiss uses AK prisms - so why not an open bridge design?
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