rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
Basically a bunch of folks telling others what they can / can't see, based on what they can / can't see, wrt to the optical design variance.
Kinda like trying to explain to someone who with average color perception, the difference between sea green, moss green, hunter green, grass green and then different tints, shades and hues of chartreuse. If they can't see it ... they can't see it, no matter how much you try to show it. Show those same differences to a fashion designer and they can readily spot the diff's, and can't "unsee" it.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
Basically a bunch of folks telling others what they can / can't see, based on what they can / can't see, wrt to the optical design variance.
Kinda like trying to explain to someone who is red / green color blind the difference between sea green, moss green, hunter green, grass green and ten different tints, shades and hues of chartreuse. If they can't see it ... they can't see it, no matter how much you try to show it.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
Basically a bunch of folks telling others what they can / can't see, based on what they can / can't see, wrt to the optical design variance.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
Basically a bunch of folks telling others what they can / can't see, based on what they can / can't see.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences greatly ... others can't tell the diff.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Less Filling ... Tastes Great.
Two camps ... total naysayers who refute the contributions of the optic vs. folks who have a more acute sensitivity to visual cue variance.
Similar to how some folks can taste the differences in the palette of different varieties of grapes, while others find wines all the same and too close to care whether it was a 2025 Boone's Farm or a 1984 Bordeaux.
The combinations in lens design offer a variety of renderings, and some folks give little credence to those differences, while others are more keen to note the difference in transition rates.
In the meantime, we have yet to find a member with a "proper" A:B test example to satisfy the requirements to validate those who are of the perspective that different lenses render the visual depth cues more prominently vs. less prominently than other lenses, i.e. faster falloff rates, etc. Meanwhile, references to world class lens designers (i.e. Peter Karbe) and the optical engineering of developing faster transition rates is refuted as academic only by various members.
I'd suggest that for folks who don't believe the optics make a difference in the rendering of visual cues ... go down to Bass Pro Shops (et al) and pick up a pair of $100 binoculars, then a $200 pair, then a $500 pair. Now, go back and pick up the $100 / $200 pair. If you don't see a difference in the dimensional rendering ... then, you're likely not ever going to see the difference in our optics either.
Same for hunters and the quality of scopes they mount. The clarity and transitional rates are well appreciated by some. Others, not so much.
The rates of transition can be varied. Some folks appreciate the differences ... others don't.
YMMV
Nov 11, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16927136 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
