New Horizons II (1 Viewer)

[Rico70]

I was initially inclined to put all of the above in a new thread, and then link to it on this thread...

Great job, John. I'd like it to be all in a new thread (another topic).

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

John Roberts,
You did a very good job, my compliments.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Kevin Conville]

A simpler version of your futuristic idea would be binoculars whose IPD could be locked once adjusted for a particular user. Why don't we have this feature?

Now THAT’S a good idea!

 

[Rico70]

Ciao Omid,

The eye's perception of color can change depending on what part of your eye pupil is being illuminated by your binoculars. This can explain varying color perceptions that binocular users attribute to a specific binoculars model. A slight change in the IPD can effect the color balance of a scene being viewed.

Honestly, I have never heard or felt anything like this.
Are you confusing chromatic aberration with color-cast?

I noticed that if I cover my eye by a patch that has a small hole in it, my eyesight improves and I see the target with better contrast.

This seems normal to me, as you are increasing the focal ratio of the eye. In daylight conditions, the iris can no longer compensate independently. Beyond values of 3000 cd / m2, the iris can no longer compensate for the strong lighting of the sun, and it is very easy to lose contrast. See, "effect of diffraction" and "stenopic lens".

I also noticed, looking through the hole, that shifting the position of the hole over my eye by a slight amount could cause a perceived shift in the position of the image I am seeing!

This is called "perspective", but has nothing to do with the old age of the eye.

 

[Rico70]

A simpler version of your futuristic idea would be binoculars whose IPD could be locked once adjusted for a particular user. Why don't we have this feature?

Good question. The IPD is variable, from the maximum width with the focus on infinity, to the minimum width for the next focusing. If you only have to look at the stars or the views over 4-5 km, you can also block the IPD. But of course, if you have to use binoculars to observe even the closest objects, the block does not make sense.

Opticron, with the Traveler Mg model, had inserted a much smarter function, with IPD limiter. The system consists in blocking the maximum width, leaving the possibility of tightening the IPD to adapt it to the next vision.
I don't know if it's still available in the new models.
https://www.opticron.co.uk/our-products/binoculars/traveller-bga-mg-black-binoculars

 

[Kevin Conville]

Opticron, with the Traveler Mg model, had inserted a much smarter function, with IPD limiter. The system consists in blocking the maximum width, leaving the possibility of tightening the IPD to adapt it to the next vision.
I don't know if it's still available in the new models.

That does sound like a better way of doing it.

 

[Rico70]

Yes, but it is more ideal for personal binoculars. It offers uses faster adjustment in dynamic observations.
It is not a bad idea, but many good ideas often struggle to gain a foothold.

 

[John A Roberts]

IPD Lock function on Opticron Traveller Mg

Expanding on Rico’s post (#45) . . .

The Traveller’s mechanism enables a user to lock the IPD to the minimum that he or she will need i.e. at the closest focusing distance
(see Ceaser/ Bob at: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3502178&postcount=2 )

The binocular can then be:
- folded out - and flat - to be put away in a case, and
- when taken from a case, folded inward to the correct IPD for closest use

This makes sense in terms of convenience in casing and uncasing a binocular
However, for most uses it would seem preferable to be able to set one’s maximum needed IPD, and then to slightly close the IPD for nearer distances *

The Traveller’s mechanism necessarily functions as it does because of it’s simplicity
In contrast, the more complex mechanism used on the early Zeiss Porro’s, had the advantage of being able to be set to one’s generally preferred IPD,
and then be adjusted to either a lesser or greater IPD (see post #26 above)


John


* and of course the mechanism used on the Traveller could be instead made to do this, but with the loss of the ability to fold the binocular flat for storage

 

[Kevin Conville]

The binocular can then be:
- folded out - and flat - to be put away in a case, and
- when taken from a case, folded inward to the correct IPD for closest use

This makes sense in terms of convenience in casing and uncasing a binocular
However, for most uses it would seem preferable to be able to set one’s maximum needed IPD, and then to slightly close the IPD for nearer distances *


* and of course the mechanism used on the Traveller could be instead made to do this, but with the loss of the ability to fold the binocular flat for storage

I wouldn't have much use for setting the minimum IPD, just the maximum. Frankly, setting the Min IPD seems like a strange idea as anything but your distance setting would be in varying degrees of adjustment.

Also, I don't have a single case for any of my binoculars that requires the binocular to be set flat to put it in it's case.

Back to the mechanism to lock the IPD but without a stop for either min or max position: I can envision a simple small lever at the front of the hinge attached to a cam that jambs a friction disc thereby locking the IPD. Don't want it? Simply flip the lever to the "open" position and ignore it.

 

[Rico70]

John, Kevin's objection is mine too. Are you sure that Opticron works exactly the opposite of how I understood it?

Where is Pete Gamby?

 

[Omid]

Ciao Omid,
Honestly, I have never heard or felt anything like this.
Are you confusing chromatic aberration with color-cast?

Ciao Rico,

No I was referring to the actual observed color of an object. But I may have made the wrong type of prediction.

The human eye, focused correctly for green light, has slightly higher power for Blue light and slightly less power for red light. Researchers estimate the variation in eye lens power is about 2.5 diopter across the visible spectrum (Smith and Atchison, page 683). This, together with other irregularities, can affect the vergence as measured by the disparity of the retinal image formed by the two eyes causing a blue object and a red object to appear closer or farther while they are in fact located at same distance (the parallax disparity is caused by refraction error of the eye).

Now, can the color errors in the eye or the irregularities of its lens cause the color-cast of a whole image to change? hmm.. I don't know. What do you think?

-Omid

 

[John A Roberts]

IPD Lock on Opticron Traveller BGA Mg - Function Confirmed

Hi Rico (post #70),

I did a bit of Googling around and there’s a review by Alex Bardua at Outdoor Professionell, see: https://www.outdoor-professionell.de/test-opticron-traveller-fernglas-bga-mg-6x32-8x32/

It’s in German, so I had to put it through Google Translate, and it confirms the operation of the IPD lock. See both:
- the attached screen grab, especially ‘. . . You set the binocular halves individually to yourself, then turn a button and the binocular halves cannot be closer . . . ’
- along with a size comparison

In relation to the latter, I had never realised just how compact the Travellers are!
While they’re not going to compete optically with full size x32's or x30’s, they may be an interesting alternative to various x25’s *
I’ve attached a copy of the basic specifications, and more detail can be found here: https://www.opticron.co.uk/our-products/binoculars/traveller-bga-mg-black-binoculars

* e.g. compared to x25's, the x32 Travellers have a 64% larger objective area - and for a given magnification, a correspondingly larger exit pupil area


John


p.s. for comparison: a Zeiss Terra x25 vs a Swarovski EL SV x32 (from Chuck/ Chill6x6 at: https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3894494&postcount=10 )

 

[Rico70]

eye relief lock function on Opticron Traveler Mg

IPD Lock on Opticron Traveller BGA Mg - Function Confirmed

Hi John,
I also translated, but it seems to be an eye relief lock, designed not to lose the adjustment made.

[...]A really useful feature can be found in the Traveler that no other binocular manufacturer can achieve. The Hinge Lock is a locking system for eye relief. You set the binoculars individually to yourself, then turn a button and the binocular halves can not be closer. One finds this his attitude again and again.

This is really practical! The author always had his traveler loose in his jacket pocket and with other binoculars you often have to laboriously readjust the distance. Not so with the Traveler, with a handle you could check your own setting when you got it out and find it again if necessary.

The roller for the distance adjustment is located at the lower end of the articulated bridge on the Traveler. Easily accessible with the middle finger and a hat wearer, the brim is not in the way.[...]

I don't know if it is present in the new models, but it seems not. And I don't know if the extraction of the eyepiece was already "push and pull", like today (see specifications).
So, I had undoubtedly read bad or different information from reality (if these are confirmed). I realized that there was a IPD lock and that it limited the largest width. Instead, it would seem an eye relief lock.

Pete Gamby or other Opticron staff, would really be needed!

PS: they are very compact, but still weigh 380g (13.4oz) and in daylight cannot compete with 8x-10x25 pocket by weight of 250g (8.8oz). And their short focal length, also determines CA increase.

 

[Rico70]

Now, can the color errors in the eye or the irregularities of its lens cause the color-cast of a whole image to change? hmm.. I don't know. What do you think?

Hi Omid, absolutely not. The CA do not change the total color cast of the image.

Instead, the degradation of the crystalline can determine a deviated vision. Generally yellowed, but also other variations.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Rico (post #53),

When you read either my translation or yours - it’s clear from the context - what is being referred to
- Do you really think it’s referring to a ‘locking system for eye relief’ in the sense of locking the eyecup heights?
- And do you really think that the dial on the axle labelled ‘Hinge Lock’ locks the eyecup heights?

Interestingly, when I just Google Translate the word ‘Augenabstand’ it means ‘Pupillary distance’ - and not ‘eye relief’ as it is in the translated passages
(see the attached screen grab)

As one would expect, when GT translates passages of text, it translates the individual words - within the (perceived) context
If it was just a word-for-word translation dictionary it would be of very little use
And as it is not a skilled human translator it often slightly misunderstands the context, so we need to read the results with some human discernment

If really needed, I’m sure one of our German speakers can explain definitively what the passage means


John


p.s. the current blackened magnesium versions of the Traveller no longer have the IPD lock

 

[Rico70]

- Do you really think it’s referring to a ‘locking system for eye relief’ in the sense of locking the eyecup heights?

They could even have made it. Why not?
Just translated, I really thought about it, because the other option ("Hinge Lock") would have been useless. And it was anti-logic. Or maybe it's a total blockage?

Indeed, ‘Pupillary distance’ (‘Augenabstand’) can be interpreted as inter-pupillary distance, which is precisely IPD.

John, I'm still waiting for Pete Gamby for an official confirmation. But you did a great job of research and presumably I can trust of your deductions.

Of course this is how all the scaffolding I had erected falls.
I'm a little sorry, because I was fond of that good idea of the IPD limiter ... but it was only a mirage


John, I offer you more than willingly a virtual good dark beer B

 

[Omid]

Happy Sunday and it is almost Christmas so wish everybody a very joyful holiday! It would be illuminating for those of you how are interested in binocular vision to read the story of the startup company Magic Leap:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/14/magic_leap_imoney/


About two or three years ago before the emperor's new clothes were publicly revealed, I was having a conversation with some of my close associates at Café del Ray here in Los Angeles. Some of them mentioned this company and that it is developing a revolutionary virtual reality device in total secrecy. I told my friends that night that I think this company is fake. This and other companies have spent billions of dollars developing products that ignore a fundamental aspect of human vision: focus accommodation. These virtual reality devices produce a sense of depth by creating binocular disparity (parallax) between the left and right images. But none of them can create an image whose "virtual objects" require different focusing accommodation in a manner that is consistent with their parallax. The result is headache and discomfort. The 3D cinema suffers from the exact same problem (focus distance is the same for all objects: on the cinema screen).


3D TV failed. 3D cinema did not become mainstream. I predict that the current generation of virtual reality headsets will fail too.

 

[Chosun Juan]

..... It would be illuminating for those of you how are interested in binocular vision to read the story of the startup company Magic Leap:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/14/magic_leap_imoney/


About two or three years ago before the emperor's new clothes were publicly revealed, I was having a conversation with some of my close associates at Café del Ray here in Los Angeles. Some of them mentioned this company and that it is developing a revolutionary virtual reality device in total secrecy. I told my friends that night that I think this company is fake. This and other companies have spent billions of dollars developing products that ignore a fundamental aspect of human vision: focus accommodation. These virtual reality devices produce a sense of depth by creating binocular disparity (parallax) between the left and right images. But none of them can create an image whose "virtual objects" require different focusing accommodation in a manner that is consistent with their parallax. The result is headache and discomfort. The 3D cinema suffers from the exact same problem (focus distance is the same for all objects: on the cinema screen).


3D TV failed. 3D cinema did not become mainstream. I predict that the current generation of virtual reality headsets will fail too.

Ah Omid - so this is where you hang out when you are not deliberately spamming my thread. I have an LG 4K LED TV and it displays 3D Blueray DVD's fantastically just by merely wearing passive 3D glasses. So real is the effect that you are ducking and weaving at objects coming out of the screen at you (then again I have the whole setup placed at the right distances and viewing angles).

Why haven't you mentioned zoom binoculars yet? :cat: (I know you have a LOT of experience with variable magnification riflescopes [fantastic as a lightweight nature observation device!] - are these all parfocal devices?). What would be involved in designing a satisfactory zoom binocular? (one suitable for eyeglass wearers - 18mm+ ER, with a 70° AFOV - even though I see you have earlier dismissed the importance of a wide field - it's actually very much desired by BIRDERS). :eat:





Chosun :gh:

 

[Alexis Powell]

...companies have spent billions of dollars developing products that ignore a fundamental aspect of human vision: focus accommodation. These virtual reality devices produce a sense of depth by creating binocular disparity (parallax) between the left and right images. But none of them can create an image whose "virtual objects" require different focusing accommodation in a manner that is consistent with their parallax...

Can't most people adapt to such issues, given a bit of experience using the technology? And why should the experience of accommodating be so important? Many humans lack any significant focus accommodation by the time they are ~50-55 years old, and they get along well enough. Admittedly, their experience is different from the 3D virtual world you describe because much of their visual world is defocused or left unfocused most of the time (until an eyeglasses lens is put into service; and even then, in any given scene much will still be out of focus), which is different from a visual experience in which everything is in focus all the time (with no need for accommodation). Is the issue really about accommodation, or is it about experiencing limitations on depth-of-field, which exists regardless of accommodation?

--AP

 

[Rico70]

This and other companies ... ignore a fundamental aspect of human vision: focus accommodation. These virtual reality devices produce a sense of depth by creating binocular disparity (parallax) between the left and right images. But none of them can create an image whose "virtual objects" require different focusing accommodation in a manner that is consistent with their parallax. The result is headache and discomfort. The 3D cinema suffers from the exact same problem (focus distance is the same for all objects: on the cinema screen).

It is not as you say. 3D graphics can create all the necessary appearance of the various focus planes and thus give the effect of depth, as naturally happens in film photography (optical shooting).
The good or bad result depends on the digital rendering and on the technicians-producers.

I believe that the problem of headaches and tearing felt by some, is mainly caused by the polarization frequency to alternate the left and right images.

https://www.eizo.it/nozioni-pratich...ia-a-polarizzazione-3d-per-ambito-chirurgico/

https://www.agmultivision.it/glossario/s/stereoscopia-3d.html