Steam punk, Field of view including the eye

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design and functionality of a Galilean/opera glasses style monocle mounted to reading glasses, focusing on the field of view and image size perceived by the eye. Participants explore the challenges of achieving a satisfactory image size and field of view when using optical devices, particularly in the context of steampunk aesthetics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the image seen through commercial eyeglass-mounted Galilean telescopes is too small and suggests that bringing the object closer results in an out-of-focus image.
  • Another participant explains that the fraction of vision filled with the telescope's light depends on the telescope's size and proximity to the eye, and questions whether the user wants to change magnification or field of view.
  • A participant discusses the difficulty in matching the image height of a compound lens system to the eye's field of view, mentioning the importance of the lens's focal length and diameter in determining angular field of view.
  • Some participants suggest that the commercial device may have too small a diameter, referencing the size of widefield eyepieces in telescopes as a comparison for achieving a wider field of view.
  • There is a mention of the need for the exit pupil of the compound lens to align with the entrance pupil of the eye for optimal viewing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a shared concern regarding the diameter of the commercial devices and its impact on the field of view, but there is no consensus on the best approach to resolve the issues raised. Multiple competing views on design considerations and optical principles remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific optical principles such as angular field of view, exit pupil alignment, and the impact of lens diameter on image quality, but do not resolve the mathematical or technical details involved in these considerations.

George Albercook
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry if I missed the answer in my search. I expect I'm not use the correct terms. I want to design a Galilean/opera glasses style steampunk monical mounted to my reading glasses. I already have a simple lens that I can swing in front of my one eye.

When using commercial eyeglass mounted Galilean telescopes, like for dentists or surgeons, the image is too small. My impulse is to bring the object closer to make it bigger but then it is out of focus. The problem is that the image only fills a tiny fraction of the as image available to my eye. The field of view only describes the image seen through the optics.

By comparison, if I hold a simple magnifying lens, say 50 mm diameter, close to my eye, almost the entire field of view of my eye is filled with the image.

Is there another term for the percent of the eye's field of view that is filled with the image?

Thanks
 
Science news on Phys.org
The fraction of your vision filled with [the light from the telescope] depends only on the size of the telescope and how close to your eye it is.
The magnification then determines how large you see an object - a stronger magnification means small objects appear smaller, but your field of view (how far you can see to the sides) gets smaller as well.
Which one do you want to change?
 
George Albercook said:
Sorry if I missed the answer in my search. I expect I'm not use the correct terms. I want to design a Galilean/opera glasses style steampunk monical mounted to my reading glasses. I already have a simple lens that I can swing in front of my one eye.

When using commercial eyeglass mounted Galilean telescopes, like for dentists or surgeons, the image is too small. My impulse is to bring the object closer to make it bigger but then it is out of focus. The problem is that the image only fills a tiny fraction of the as image available to my eye. The field of view only describes the image seen through the optics.

By comparison, if I hold a simple magnifying lens, say 50 mm diameter, close to my eye, almost the entire field of view of my eye is filled with the image.

Is there another term for the percent of the eye's field of view that is filled with the image?

Thanks

You are having trouble matching the image height of your compound lens system to the field of view of your eyeball. The focal length of the lens, in combination with it's physical diameter, tells you the angular field of view. For a single human eye, the angular field of view is about 60 degrees, this number is a combination of the small (instantatneous) field of view of the fovea and saccadic movements. So my guess is that the commercial device has too small a diameter.

There are other design considerations as well: the exit pupil of your compound lens should align with the entrance pupil of your eye, for example. And the image plane of your compound lens should be located at negative infinity (far in front of your eye), so you will view through the device with a relaxed eye.

http://www.edmundoptics.com/resourc...understanding-focal-length-and-field-of-view/
 
Andy Resnick said:
So my guess is that the commercial device has too small a diameter.

That was my thought as well. Widefield eyepieces for telescopes are absolutely massive compared to other eyepieces thanks to all the extra glass needed to form a high-quality, wide-field image. While you could probably use fewer elements for a trade off in image quality (which may not be noticeable if the magnification is relatively low), the final few elements still need to take up a large portion of the eye's field of view.
 
Drakkith said:
That was my thought as well. Widefield eyepieces for telescopes are absolutely massive compared to other eyepieces thanks to all the extra glass needed to form a high-quality, wide-field image. While you could probably use fewer elements for a trade off in image quality (which may not be noticeable if the magnification is relatively low), the final few elements still need to take up a large portion of the eye's field of view.

Right- similarly, low power microscope eyepieces are significantly 'fatter' than high power eyepieces.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
16K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K