Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
[New poster here -- couldn't find anything else on this, but do point me to it if I've missed it]
Recent eye-test threw up something which, I suppose, ought to have been obvious, i.e. that my IPD varies by around 6mm depending on whether I am viewing near or distant objects. This got me thinking about miscollimated telescopes: Do we compensate for con/divergent miscollimation by con/diverging our eyes, hence changing our IPD (and necessitating different IPDs for different binoculars, depending on collimation)? If so, has anyone evaluated the relation between angle of miscollmation and IPD change?
Just a theoretical thought -- probably of limited practical use, since we set IPD by looking through the things, but...
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12599
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
You will read in various places about "conditional alignment". Conditional alignment is where the end user has the ability to move prisms to adjust collimation. By doing so, it will only be aligned at the IPD for which the adjustment was made. It may not be to far off at other IPD's, but it is a conditional alignment.
True collimation, performed by a qualified shop, will adjust the collimation so that it stays collimated at every IPD. The end user has no way of performing this level of precision.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
KennyJ
Reged: 04/27/03
Posts: 10163
Loc: Lancashire UK
|
|
I think this a very interesting question.
I think Stephen is correct about human eyes automatically compensating or "correcting" ( no pun or irony intended)
for any mis-collimation of convergence or divergence and is thus also correct to suspect it might be of little practical significance.
But I also suspect such a condition could be source of eyestrain.
I believe Ed is also spot -on with his distinction between "Conditional Alignment" and professional true collimation.
Since celestial objects are all more or less viewed at around the "infinity" end of the scale , I doubt if this is as potentially significant in astronomy viewing as it could be in close -range terrestrial work.
P.S - I bet Cory S. would know all about this !
Regards -- Kenny
--------------------
If everyone is thinking the same thing , no-one is thinking - General George S.Patton
Zeiss 7 x 42 BGAT
Captain's Helmsman 7 x 50
Nikon 10 x 42 Superior E
Swift Audubon Kestrel 10 x 50
Helios 15 x 70 Observation
Strathspey 20 x 90
Televue 76 APO
Zeiss 85 Diascope
Helios 102 f5 refractor
Various eyepieces barlows tripods mounts etc.
Panasonic Lumix DMC - TZ5 digital camera
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
Ta for the reply, EdZ.
Hmmm -- I obviously didn't phrase my question very well. What I intended to convey was not "conditional alignment" (isn't that a Bill Cook phrase?), but simple misalignment. Let me try again:
If, say, there is a 10 arcmin horizontal misalignment, do our eyes attempt to compensate for it by (e.g.) converging, or does the compensation (image melding) take place after the nerve impulses have zoomed down the optic nerve?
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12599
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
The eyes will attempt to move to make up for the misalignment. This is what leads to eye strain.
Also, I didn't exactly answer your first question. What I described is the fact that the binocular alignment can change depending on how close together or far apart you move the barrels to acommodate various individuals.
When using binoculars, if focusing on a near object, the angle of each eye's line of sight is turned measurably inward.
If my eyes are 62mm apart and I focus on an object 10 meters away, I can measure the inward angle of my eyes. But the eyes don't just tilt to see the object 10 meters away, that inward angle is accentuated by a slight convergence of the eyes. At this focus distance, it is conceiveable that IPD may no longer be 62mm, but may be only 60mm or less. Your 6mm convergence seems quite large.
You may be able to watch this happen in a mirror. As you move closer to the mirror, watch to see if you can notice your IPD get slightluy closer.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
sftonkin
sage
Reged: 02/25/04
Posts: 395
Loc: Kent, UK
|
|
I suspected as much with respect to pupils attempting to compensate -- thanks for the confirmation.
I was, however, unaware that the pupils converge if we use binocs to view a near object. I'm trying to visualise why -- I'll probably have to resort to pencil and paper :-). I had always assumed that, when one refocused the bins to something near, the eyes still stayed focused at infinity and that their optical axes remained approximately parallel. I have certainly never noticed this convergence, which is surprising as my 10x42 have a near focus of about 2m and I don't notice any change in the relationship of my eyes to the FoV (which I do if I intentionally converge my eyes).
The 6mm convergence (actually, 6.5mm) was measured by my optician (67mm for infinity, 60.5mm for close reading).
--------------------
Stephen
Hindsight: The only truly diffraction-limited system
|
EdZ
Professor EdZ
Reged: 02/15/02
Posts: 12599
Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W
|
|
As long as your pupils stay within the bounds of the exit pupil, there is room for some movement without changing anything in the view. I suspect that maximum movement measured in your eyes does not occur until you attempt reading distances of 18" to 24", and probably you experience only little movement when focused at 2m to 10m.
When I move my eyes to focus from far to near, I can tell my eye pupils drop down closer to the bridge of my nose, but only for very close distances of 20" to 10". Iv'e never noticed it at any binocular close focus distances, even though there is a measurably different angle of convergence where the two eyes focus on the same spot.
edz
--------------------
Teach a kid something today. The feeling you'll get is one of life's greatest rewards.
member#21
|
|
2 registered and 13 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 482
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 