Re: Emotive lenses

[dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk (David Morton)]

In-Reply-To: <199610062008.QAA25382@renoir.cftnet.com>
"Dave" <gannet@cftnet.com> wrote:

> There may or may not be an objective explanation.  I speak as a
> former mechanical engineer and test & instrumentation engineer (I do
> computer programming now).
> 
> The fact is that scientists and engineers measure what they know how
> to measure.  The universe is vastly more complicated than what we
> can measure.  In fact, it can be said that the whole process of
> science is to attempt to reduce the complexity of nature to a level
> us mere humans can grasp.  Science does this by using reasonable
> assumptions and approximations.  But they remain exactly that.  
> 
> Even basic, "irrefutable" physics like F=MA is an approximation.  It
> ignores, for example, relativistic effects.  It is true that -for our
> purposes- relativity has no meaningful effect at normal velocities.
> Relativistic effects are still there, we just "throw them away" for
> everyday purposes.
> 
> Back to lenses.  As a thought experiment, if we were to take a Leica
> lens and a Nikon lens (for example), and managed to find two
> specimens which tested exactly the same in every particular that
> science knows how to test, does that mean that the images would be
> completely indistinguishable?  Not necessarily at all.  It may well
> be that the human eye-brain can distinguish yet-unidentified effects
> that we don't know how to measure.  In fact, science may not even
> realize they exist.  They may fall into the realm of things "thrown
> away" by science as being "beneath notice".  Exactly. :) 
> 
> But what puzzles me is, assuming that Leica "character" is real (I
> don't dispute it, as I have no Leicas - yet <G>), how the heck do the
> designers design it in?  Are there Secret Black Forest Optical
> Formulas?  Do they use trial and error to get the results they want?
> Or do they know how to work with the things science knows how to
> measure in such a way as to produce that "Leica character"?  In other
> words, does Leica know something that the rest of the world's optical
> companies don't?  Or could Nikon and Canon and Zeiss produce the 
> "Leica look" if they wanted to?

It is a fur-lined, ocean-going, gold-plated certainty that the Leitz 
chappies know *exactly* what optical criteria constitute 'the look', 
otherwise they would be in great danger of a conversation which went 
something like:

"Where's Helmut today?"

"Oh he went camping in the forrest, and his chemical toilet 
exploded...very messy apparently"

"but he was the one who knew how to get 'The Look'"

"yes, shame that, I suppose we'd better pack up and go home".

and of course a company doesn't trade like that (indeed a quoted company 
would be in breech of the law if it did).

I'll go further and suggest that the people who work for Nikon, Canon and 
Zeiss know nearly as much about the way Leitz do it, from disassembling 
and reverse engineering their product (*all* technology lead companies do 
that).

That Nikon don't make a 'Leica look' lens says more about marketing than 
it does about witchcraft. As a Nikon user I expect a new lens to look the 
same as the other Nikon lenses, if I bought a 105mm f1.8 (for example) to 
go between my 85mm F1.4 and my 135mm f2, I'd be a bit pissed off if it 
looked dramatically different.

And how would Nikon market a second range of lenses with a different 
'look' anyway?

Be very *very* wary giving too much credence to the 'scientists and 
engineers can't measure it' argument. To quote Richard Dawkins, "it's OK 
to have an open mind, just make sure you don't open it up so far that 
your brains fall out". This argument holds a great deal of sway in 
audiophile circles, where much is made of the supposed properties of 
unobtainium cables and golden eared reviewers who can hear things no-one 
else can.

Two stories which happened to me:

1) In the office of the MD of a *very* well known audio cable company, I 
picked up a length of speaker cable which was marked as 'directional'. 
Having a broadcast engineering background I asked what made it 
directional, he replied "the little arrows printed on the isulation, but 
the punters like to pay more for it".

2) The BBC once invited some of the 'Golden Eared' hi-fi press to a test 
day. They agreed. Then we told them that the tests would be double blind: 
they wouldn't know when they were listening to the expensive 'audiophile' 
gear, and when they were listening to the ordinary pro-grade stuff. To a 
man they cried off, one even had the nerve to say "if I got the answers 
wrong, it would ruin my credibility".

"if we were to take a Leica lens and a Nikon lens (for example), and 
managed to find two specimens which tested exactly the same in every 
particular that science knows how to test, does that mean that the images 
would be completely indistinguishable?  Not necessarily at all."

I wager you wouldn't be able to tell the difference but then when I tried 
it they *didn't* test the same, that's why they look different!

dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk      |  "The loss of an old man
david@cassandra.compulink.co.uk  |  is like the destruction
Kilburn, London, England.        |  of a library"