Re: largest scope you've looked though? Impressions?


Ioannis wrote in message <1128540345.661274@athnrd02>...
>I "matt" <electro_optic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Yanaoa ooi i?ioia
>news:8pV0f.1004$Ra.674@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[snip]
>
>> hmm , micro-differences is a vague term , and 3d effect that is triggered
>in
>> the brain is an even more confusing term.
>
>Confusing perhaps to you. One can induce a triggering of the 3d effect,
>using a variety of methods, differences in brightness and shape
>notwithstading. Two notable examples are images drawn on paper with
>artificial parallax differences, such as the edges of a cube, drawn as
>though they are viewed from a different angle. In this case, the images are
>completely fake and do not represent anything real. 3d merging them forces
>the brain to perceive a 3rd dimension/depth.


1- I don't see why people feel the need to post when they have no answer. My
question was clear and got a bunch of inept replies, very little useful
stuff. I guess that's the nature of usenet, no miracles happening yet.

2- And some for Ioannis:

hey , no need to be rude. I could do that too and then it would be typical
usenet flames .
Your statement was vague and lacked substance.
I called it confusing in order to avoid you feeling insulted and stirring
any problems with you , but you're on the offense no matter what.
You said the great words of wisdom that "micro differences trigger a 3d
effect in the brain" . Duh . We all assume that most of us use the visual
cortex appropriately, although there's an urban myth about some people using
their butts instead -look up the word butthead .
My 3 y.o. could come up with more impressive b.s. than what you said .

I'm glad you're taking such a stinking pedantic approach and so generously
teach the great unwashed about parallax .
Thanks, geez, I had no freakin idea what parallax was until now. Real
valuable info in your pompous post, thanks for opening my eyes. So tell me,
did you answer my OP question , or just love reading your posts for eternity
?
Are you saying that PARALLAX is inducing the 3d effect in a dual mirror
scope ? Which I specified from the beginning to not even mention , since
that is not a cause for 3d perception in this instance.
Or maybe I misunderstood and you're saying that it's a fake cube drawn on
paper that creates the 3d effect in telescopes ? Is that a real 3d effect,
or a fake one ? I have to ask, since you called the cube images fake, a term
I'm not fully familiar with . Is it fake as in real image, virtual image,
voodoo , a forgery, or what? A fake drawing . What would be an original
worth ?
You have to forgive me here, I'm too slow for this depth of thought "3d
merging them forces the brain to perceive a 3rd dimension/depth" .
I had no idea 3d merging creates 3d perception . What a great truism
revealed so unexpectedly , a real gem. So, 3d creates 3d , did I get it
right?Or is it a tautology , I'm getting in too deep .
And how does that "force the brain" , by using a bigger hammer ? Care to
share any physiological references about this mysterious "3d merging force
that forces the brain into perceiving 3d "?


>
>The second example can be easily duplicated using Photoshop: Just pick a
>nice photo, duplicate it, and on the copy change the brightness. Then merge
>them using your eyes side by side. You will perceive a pseudo 3d effect.


Great, another pompous unrelated example. You dude started by teaching us
humble mortals that beamsplitters can be made pretty accurately, even used
terms such as dichroic , coatings, cube , etc , now you're saying that image
_brightness_ differences are to blame for the 3d effect ? Smart, why didn't
I think of it... or on second thought, how is it, 50/50 split, or not ? Or
are we trying to have it both ways? Anything but don't say I'm splitting
hairs with a fake paper cube.

>
>> In reality, no 2 images can be ever perfectly aligned, same size, etc.
>
>The images from a binoviewer, are for all practical purposes identical in
>terms of optical alignment. They are essentially the same real optical
>image, sent into two different directions.

what's practical purposes to you ? care to place some numbers on your
postulates ? What you could measure with a ruler ? With a micrometer? With
an interferometer? With your shoe sole ? What are you calling identical
images in "terms of optical alignment" ? Same wavefront aberrations ? Same
wavefront tip/tilt ? What you could make out of wood in your garage ?

>
>Such a degree of optical alignment could never be achieved in a binoscope,
>simply because manufacturing tolerances would prohibit it.

so first you're not disclosing the amount of misalignment, just calling it
good for practical purposes, but then it becomes too tight for manufacturing
tolerances ? Should we call it the impractical practical ?

>Even if the
>collimation is as perfect as possible,

Dude, perfect has no degrees of comparison. something is perfect or not
perfect. There is no less perfect, more perfect , etc. As perfect as
possible , or was that as perfect as practical ? Achieving practical
perfection , very interesting .

>there is no way to guarantee that the
>amount of light in the two images is exactly the same, thus the term
>"micro-differences".

are you talking of a legal guarantee, or what ? you just said twice in your
above posting that the amount of light can be made the same. I'm really
impressed, I had no idea what micro meant , thanks for sharing.
So, in your view, the dual primary scope has better 3d due to worse image
alignment ?Is that what you're saying , of course assuming you were trying
to say something ?


>
>> I don't buy the idea that "imperfectly aligned" images lead to 3d effect,
>> rather to literally one big headache . Think uncollimated binoculars ,
>which
>> I did have the pleasure to deal with . The result was not better 3d, but
>> doubled images , NO 3d effect at all, headaches etc.
>
>There is a threshold misalignment point, prior to which the brain merges
the
>images even if they are distinctly misaligned. What you speak of is
>alignment past this threshold point, at which point the brain cannot merge
>the two images properly. Such is not the case with either binoviewers or
>binoscopes.


ok , so if you're admitting that BOTH binoviewers and binoscopes are aligned
accurately enough to be under this threashold, then what is the difference
between them ?
Why are some people saying that binoscopes have better 3d, are you saying
that it's because of worse alignment, in which case, what is to prevent us
from deliberately misaligning any binoviewer to any arbitrary extent,
including the same as in a dual primary scope , if that's what causes the 3d
effect ? Sorry, don't buy this argument .



>
>> The nature of those "micro-differences" is what I was asking for .
>Parallax
>> induced differences are small too, actually might be way too small,
should
>> we call them nano-differences or rather femto-differences ?
>
>You can call them anything you like. This doesn't change the fact that such
>differences are there with a binoscope.
>I. N. Galidakis

How generous, you're allowing me to call "them" anything I like. How
condescending and generous .
You're postulating "them" exist, and are not shredding any light of what
might "them" be, other than equal but unequal beamsplitting , and aligned
but misaligned images in binoviewers and also in binoscopes , both under the
threshold but above some tolerances . Or something like that, dude, if I got
the gist of it. I left out the fake paper cube , sorry .
"Them" are coming , have you seen "them" during some recent abduction ? Were
they green ? In essence, it seems your reply has FAITH but no substance .
Thank you anyway.


best regards,
matt tudor



.

Quantcast