WHY NO CAMERA CAN FOCUS
or
THE CRUCIAL MISSING LINK IN PHOTOGRAPHY AND
OPTICS
©1983 The Anstendig
Institute
The
industry that demands the greatest degree of mechanical precision, the
photo-optical industry, has a crucial flaw: its focusing systems. No available
camera can focus. All available focusing devices are inexact: they are
incapable of focusing a subject-point onto the film plane, and they stop
functioning at distances beyond approximately 10 to 20 meters.
"Depth-of-focus" does not exist. "Depth-of-field" has to do
with unsharpness, not with sharpness. The only
possible system of achieving absolute, focal-point-exact focus without
laboratory instruments, and achieving it with ease, has been known and
certified as such for decades. A dependable means of achieving perfect focus
has crucial implications in all fields of science and industry, and in the general
public's orientation and reactions to visual impressions.
I.
THE ONLY KNOWN FOCAL-POINT-EXACT FOCUSING SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE
It
will probably amaze most readers to learn that no camera on the market can
focus exactly, that all prevalent focusing-systems are grossly inexact, and
that the only focusing-system that can achieve absolutely exact focus (and
achieve it with ease and simplicity) has never been offered to the public. In
fact, there is strong evidence. that this system was purposely suppressed by
the optical industry when the inventor introduced it, mainly because it
demanded finer tolerances in their cameras and would have damaged their
prestige by directing attention to the inaccuracy of the systems then in use.
The name of this invention, by a German, Joseph Dahl, is “Messraster",
which translates as "Measuring-Grid" (messen
= to measure, and Raster = grid). In its first form it lacked
compensation for the refraction index of the glass that it was made of, the
necessity for which in other devices as well was still unknown to the industry.
Nevertheless, it was certified by
II.
AVAILABLE FOCUSING SYSTEMS CANNOT FOCUS
Because
it demands the greatest amount of fine mechanical precision, the photo-optical
industry has traditionally been considered the most important of all
industries, the one that any country has to prove itself in before its other
industries will be taken seriously. Germany has always understood this, and,
after the war, Japan even went so far as to set up government inspection of all
optical products before they were allowed to be exported because it knew that
until Japan proved itself in that industry, there was no hope of breaking into
the other important world markets. The makers of the huge reflecting telescopes
for the great observatories lose money, even though they charge millions and
millions of dollars. Yet Carl Zeiss, Inc., the leader
of the German optics industry, cannot refuse to make these custom installations
if German industry is to retain its reputation for mechanical precision.
Imagine
a Mercedes-Benz or a Rolls-Royce with an exceptional motor and running gear but
a transmission that is not only completely inaccurate, but is installed in such
a wrong way that, if it happens to engage the gears correctly, it could only
have been by mistake. That has been the case in the photo industry since 1902,
the year the Tessar lens was computed*. The bodies of
cameras are marvels of mechanical complication and precision, and lenses have
reached near-perfection. But the focusing-system is the "transmission"
that links the lenses to the camera, and every currently available
focusing-device is grossly inexact. Some of these devices have the additional
error that they require, but do not have, compensation for the refraction of
the glass or plastic that they are made of. They are also installed so that
their plane-of-focus does not correspond with the film-plane. Thus, if a photo
happens to be precisely focused, it is a mistake.
Everyone
who owns a camera knows the experience of going through the small prints or
contacts and finding one or two that are so precious one wants them enlarged.
But when the large prints arrive, they are little more than unsharp
blurs. Amateurs chalk this up to inexperience, lack of professional equipment,
or lack of talent, and decide to leave important things, like weddings and
such, to the professionals. No one thinks of blaming the expensive,
watch-maker-precision cameras, but the cameras are to blame, because of their
faulty focusing systems. What amateurs do not know is that, in focusing, the
only difference between them and the professionals is the amount of film used:
the professionals have merely learned not to save film, but rather to shoot as
many rolls as possible so that, with luck, they will at least have one
reasonably sharp picture that serves their purpose. Editors and other employers
have come to expect miles of film from their photographers on any assignment.
Once, on assignment in Berlin, I air-freighted one partly-filled roll of film
to Paris Match, only to be awakened in the middle of the night by a
frantic editor asking for the rest. I had used the Messraster and did not need
to take more than a few pictures. The film was developed and the next day he
had his photos, big, sharp and exactly the way I had conceived them, because
the focusing was so easy that I could concentrate completely on getting the
picture.
III.
FOCUSING AND "DEPTH OF FIELD"
When
one directs a lens at a given point in one's subject, the light-rays from that
point enter the lens, are refracted (bent) towards each other, and cross at one
particular point behind the lens. Only at this point, called the focal-point,
can the point at which the lens is directed be sharp, and it is the problem of
the photographer to bring the film-plane to the exact plane of this
focal-point, which can be as small as 1/lOOOth of a millimeter. Because the
opening of the lens is round, the rays going through the lens approach their
focal-points conically. Therefore, when taking a picture, if the film is either
in front or in back of a given focal-point, that point will be pictured as a
circle, not as a point, and the circle becomes larger the farther away from the
focal-point the film lies. These circles are the basis
of the depth-of-field tables.
The
designation "depth-of-field" comes from the German word "Tiefenschaerfe" which translates literally as
depth-of-sharpness and is universally understood as a distance within which
everything is sharp, i.e., a distance within which everything is focused, which
is an impossibility because one can only focus on one distance in front of the
camera. Depth-of-field is often referred to by the misnomer
"depth-of-focus". It may come as a shock to learn that there is
really no such thing as depth-of-focus and that depth-of-field, far from
dealing with sharpness, deals with unsharpness, but
that is the case. Depth-of-field tables are merely an attempt to indicate how
far in front and in back of the really sharp point the unsharpness
will remain tolerable enough to not obliterate the picture. But depth-of-field
tables presuppose that one can focus on the most important point in the
picture, which is practically never the case. Far from being any sort of
physical law, as it is usually touted, depth-of-field is a matter of opinion
that changes in relation to the sensitivities of the viewer (some people are
more disturbed by a particular degree of unsharpness
than others) and in relation to the viewing circumstances. Depth-of-field
presupposes a given viewing distance, a given print size, as well as a given
tolerance in the viewer. If a smaller portion of the negative is enlarged, if
the print is larger than the presupposed size, if the viewing distance changes,
or if the viewer is either more sensitive or needs more clarity for a
particular subject, the whole criterion for calculating the depth-of-field
changes. This is reflected in the fact that there are many depth-of-field
tables-some assuming less depth-of-field for more exacting needs and some
assuming a much greater depth-of-field for general use--which is proof in
itself that there is something wrong with the whole idea. This confusion is
inevitable because, as mentioned, depth-of-field tables deal only with unsharpness and are attempts to use calculations to
determine how bad the unsharpness can be and still
remain tolerable, a criterion which is impossible to establish because each
viewer experiences the degree of unsharpness
differently. In addition, since depth-of-field is calculated for distances in
front of and in back of a reference point (focal-point), it is meaningless if
the focusing system does not allow one to ascertain precisely that focal-point.
Even
the inventor of the Tessar lens fell
victim to wrong assumptions about sharpness: he spent the end of his life
trying to compute lenses with a greater, more extended range of depth-of-field.
At the time, there was a concept, later disproved, called the “chaerfenschlauch", that assumed that a lens
focused the rays going through it in such a manner that, instead of one
sharpest point, there was a certain range within which everything was pin-point
sharp. This range was thought to be tubular, hence the name "schaerfenschlauch" (tube of sharpness). But all
this man accomplished was to build a type of lens that is now called a
"soft-focus" lens, wherein the focusing quality was degraded to such
a degree that it was no longer possible to recognize where the exact focus
lies, and, of course, all the details in the photo were similarly degraded and
unrecognizable. Mild versions of this type of lens are still occasionally used
for portraits in order to suppress wrinkles and other blemishes.
Depth-of-field
originated at a time when single-lens-reflex cameras did not exist, and serious
photography was dominated by the original Leica and Contax range-finder cameras. These cameras were primitive
compared to the present-day Leica range-finder camera,
and it was well-known that they were incapable of anything resembling precise
focusing. The remaining cameras were mostly without any means of focusing: the
photographer had to estimate the distance by sight and set it manually on a
scale next to the lens. The concept of depth-of-field tables presupposed this
lack of any sort of precision and was developed merely as an aid until an
accurate means of focusing could be achieved, and not as a valid focusing
method in itself, as it is misinterpreted today.
IV.
AVAILABLE FOCUSING SYSTEMS AND THEIR SHORTCOMINGS
RANGE-FINDER
CAMERAS
This
well-known system is a separate apparatus that has nothing to do with the part
of the camera that actually takes the picture. It uses a separate, part
optical, part mechanical, device that is coupled to the camera lens. The best
of this type of apparatus can only focus up to about 30 meters at most, with a
precision that is by no means exact. Beyond 30 meters is assumed to be
infinity: focusing stops and the lens remains on the infinity marking. The
moon, of course, is quite a bit farther from the earth than 30 meters, and most
cameras of this type completely stop focusing at much closer distances than 30
meters. This inexactness becomes intolerable with long focal-length lenses and
is also unsatisfactory for shorter focal-lengths. The inadequacy of this system
is obvious in that manufacturers recommend not using the range-finder with
longer lenses and supply a ground-glass attachment for use with these lenses.
SPLIT-IMAGE
RANGE-FINDER IN THE GROUND-GLASS OF A SINGLE-LENS-REFLEX CAMERA
First
of all, this system is impractical because, in order to work best, one must
focus on lines in the subject that are exactly parallel to the film-plane. If
one end of the line is a different distance from the film-plane than the other
end (and therefore at an angle to the film plane) the result has to be
inaccurate. Few subjects contain such lines, and when they do, they are seldom
in the place that one wants to focus on. For this system to work as well as it
can, a new range-finder with the two halves at a different angle to each other
should be constructed for each combination of focal-length and
aperture-opening. When viewing with an f-stop of 4 or smaller, the circle of
the range-finder can no longer be used: it blacks out and becomes an annoying
obstruction in the center of the viewing field. Also, a change in the angle of
the viewer's eye (the angle with which one looks into the view-finder) will
cause a wrong result, and even in its particularly imprecise way, this system
can seldom measure beyond 20 meters.
FINE-FOCUSING
GRID IN SLR CAMERAS
This
seemingly magical optical arrangement consists of many tiny obstructions that
are supposed to vanish when exact focus is achieved. Actually they never
completely vanish; we simply perceive them as less disturbing, to the point
where they seem to have vanished. But the grid "disappears" long
before focus is achieved: in a test using an F 2/50mm lens on a number of
cameras, the grid "vanished" at a distance of approximately 3 meters
and remained "invisible" over a depth of 60 cm. With so great a
possibility of error, no one can claim the slightest bit of focusing precision.
NORMAL
GROUND-GLASS
The
deficiencies of the normal ground glass were the reason the industry developed
the focusing systems mentioned above, but, in the hands of an experienced
photographer, it remains the most accurate of available focusing devices. All
that the other systems accomplish is to achieve worse results with greater
ease.
The
normal ground-glass brings us to the basic problem of single-lens-reflex
focusing: the capacity of human sight itself. The ground-glass is based on an impossibility: the recognition of details too fine for
our eyes to discern. In a view-finder (and on the film), full-sized objects are
reduced to a size so small that, as explained above, important details can be
as small as 1/lOOOth of a millimeter at the focal-point. It is therefore
physiologically impossible for the human eye to perceive and recognize the
point of absolute focus. At a normal viewing distance of 25 cm, the human eye
will no longer see objects that are separated by a distance of 0.07 mm or less
as separate objects, but will see them as joined together. Also, the grain of
the ground-glass is itself larger than the details to be perceived. For these
reasons, one can move the ground-glass an appreciable distance back and forth
over the focal-point without noticing any difference in the focus. In addition,
this system makes impossible demands on the photographer's memory: The focusing
procedure is to move the ground-glass back and forth over the seemingly
sharpest-appearing stretch in an attempt to get the sharpest point in the
middle. It is well-known that our eye only possesses a subjective, vague,
fluctuating, and undependable memory. If one happens to achieve absolute focus
by means of a ground-glass, it is a matter of the operation of the laws of
chance.
CLEAR-GLASS
WITH HAIR-LINE CROSS
This
system consists of a circle of clear unmatted glass
with a hair-line (thin) cross marking its center that is located in the middle
of a ground-glass. The cross, etched on the side facing the lens, already
produces the first error: the photographer, with the aid of a magnifier, focuses
the magnifier on the hair-line cross and then focuses the so-called
"aerial image" at that plane. But, due to the refraction of the
glass, the hair-line cross is not seen coincident with the ground-glass. It is
seen behind the plane of the ground-glass. (The hair-line cross should stand
out in front of the ground-glass, the distance being the equal of the
refraction of the glass. Many split-image range-finders and fine-focusing grids
also suffer from lack of compensation for the refraction of the glass.) But
this system also suffers from the same problem that, beyond relatively nearby
distances, the lens is on infinity and no more focusing is possible.
V.
THE MESSRASTER
The
one capacity of the eye that is dependable and exact is the perception of
contrast (contrasting tones) in direct comparison, i.e., when the tones to be
differentiated are directly next to each other. For example, color tones are
precisely determined in direct comparison with a color-chart. When the
strengths and weaknesses of the eye are understood, three prerequisites for
exact focusing become clear:
1) It must be based on the only exact capacity
of the eye, the recognition of contrast by means of direct comparison;
2) The undependable memory of the eye and its
limited power of resolving detail must be eliminated;
3) It must function on any type of object, no
matter what its structure or texture.
The
Messraster of Joseph Dahl fulfills these prerequisites in the simplest manner.
It consists of a ground-glass that functions on two planes. Focusing is
achieved by means of direct comparison of the tone-contrast and degree of
sharpness in both planes. The basic system consists of a ground-glass that is
divided into strips that are displaced so that they are alternately in front of
and in back of the plane that corresponds to the focal-plane. The subject-point
on which one wants to focus is divided with one of the hair-thin dividing lines
in much the same way one would divide it with a split-image range-finder. One
then focuses until both sides of the divided point appear equal in tone and in
sharpness. When the two sides of the image-point, on either side of, and right
next to, the hair-line are equal, the focal-point lies exactly in the middle of
the two planes. The film is then exactly at the plane of the focal-point since
the Messraster is precisely constructed so that the plane that corresponds to
the film-plane lies exactly in the middle of the two image-planes, after
refraction of the glass. Even the slightest movement of the lens away from the
position of optimal focus is doubly noticeable in that one side of the
hair-line becomes more contrasty (darker) and
sharper, while the other side becomes more diffuse (lighter) and less sharp.
Since this system exclusively uses the most precise capacity of any of our
senses, the direct comparison of contrasts, the instant when the two sides
match is easily and effortlessly recognized. The customary laborious attempt at
guessing the right focus by moving the lens back and forth is eliminated. In
the shortest possible time, one achieves a much more precise result than any
other system is ever capable of, regardless of how much trouble one takes with
it. Even the smallest differences in distance can be effortlessly and precisely
focused over the whole range of distances until the lens truly reaches
infinity. Since it is possible with the Messraster to focus on any type of
object, regardless of whether or not it has lines and regardless of its
texture, the Messraster fulfills the prerequisites for an exact focusing
system.
VI.
THE BENEFITS OF PRECISE FOCUSING
The
photographic manuals quite correctly say that the most important point in the
picture should be the sharpest, but nowhere do they mention how to achieve that
necessary precision, except to recommend that one take great pains to do so.
Since even the smallest point in the subject has its own focal-point at a given
distance behind the lens, and since the film can only be at one distance behind
the lens, it is impossible to have all focal-points equally sharp at the same
time. In a portrait, for example, it is impossible to have the nose, eyes, and
ears equally sharp at the same time. But if the optimal focus is on the most
important point (in this case, the pupil of the dominant eye), the whole
portrait will appear to be sharp and will have an impression of
three-dimensionality (plasticity) that adds a life-like quality and vividly
highlights the facial expression. But if the optimal focus is on a less
important part of the face, the portrait will not have that vivid quality; the
whole picture will seem flat and vaguely unsharp, to
the detriment of the facial expression. In other words, when the most important
point in the picture is absolutely sharp even the unsharp
areas of the picture appear sharper. The gradations of tone (the half-tones) in
the subject can only be exact at the focal-point (the farther in front of or in
back of the focal-point the film lies, the more diffuse and lighter the
tone-values become), a factor that contributes significantly to the effect of
plasticity. Because a point remains a point no matter how much it is enlarged,
a considerably greater amount of enlargement is possible in an optimally
focused photo without blurring of the contours and the grain of the film will
be considerably less noticeable. But as important as the benefits of more
resolution of detail and less apparent graininess are, they seem insignificant
in relation to the effect of plasticity that arises when the most important
point in a picture has been precisely focused.
Plasticity
is the impression of three dimensionality on a two dimensional surface. This
impression can only occur at the focal-point because only there are the details
and tonal values exact. When the half-tones are faithfully rendered and the
picture-area is precisely focused, a particular phenomenon occurs where the
picture takes on a vivid, life-like quality and one can clearly make out the
depth of the planes of the subject. In the above-mentioned portrait, one would
be able to see that the eye-lashes are in front of the eye-lid; one can see the
curvature of the eyeball and that the iris stands out in front of the eyeball;
one can see how far the eyebrows stand out beyond the eye, etc. This effect
only occurs at the focal-point because of the sharp detailing and, just as
importantly, because the half-tones (the gradations of the color-tones of the
subject) are only exact at the focal-point. Because the tones are diffused and
diluted in front of or in back of the exact point of focus, a picture only
gives the impression of plasticity if the most important part of the picture is
in exact focus.
It
is impossible to overestimate the efficiency and usefulness of precise
focusing. The sciences that need optical and photographic precision presently
have to expend enormous effort to achieve merely acceptable results when they
could achieve perfection easily and elegantly with the Messraster, in a fraction
of their valuable time.
Photographs
of everything from important events to reproductions of art are a dominant part
of our lives. But these documents are, in varying degrees, falsifications due
to inability to dependably reproduce accurate detail and tonal gradations with
the currently available, faulty focusing systems. This is particularly the case
in art-reproduction and is the reason that so many photo-reproductions of art
works convey so little of the glories of the originals. But it is also the case
in advertising, where elaborately intricate techniques are used to retouch the
image quality in advertising photos, techniques that often amount to repainting
the whole photo.
There
is talk of improving the quality of television (Sony already has a better
system it wants to introduce), but the film and TV industries are those most
plagued by the inability to focus. In fact, it is general practice in those
industries to forget about focusing altogether and use a measuring tape to set
the distance between the camera and subject (an inherently flawed and
stultifying procedure--a distance scale on a lens is not fine enough to set
small differences in distance and also, most subjects do not remain absolutely
still--but it is nonetheless considered more dependable than focusing with the
cameras). A TV system can only be as good as the material it is broadcasting.
With the deplorable image-quality for which films are notorious, improvements
in the TV system will not be noticeable and will probably just highlight the
flaws in the broadcast-material.
I
have already mentioned the amateur photographer's dilemma in achieving quality
in his photos with current focusing devices. To conceive of how many people
would benefit from easy, precise focusing one need only consider the millions
upon millions of people who already own cameras, and how many new cameras are
sold each year. Probably more than a billion cameras are already in existence,
and, even though some are otherwise wonders of optical and mechanical precision
and complexity, none of them focuses with precision.
VII.
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN CONDITIONED TO ACCEPT IMPRECISE FOCUSING
As
with all our senses, the way we see is determined by habit and conditioning.
The sad result of the astonishing deficiency in focusing, which is the most
important aspect of optics and photography, is that the public has become used
to, and conditioned to accept as correct, poor quality visual images that
seldom approach the real possibilities. In instances of sustained viewing (movies
and TV, for instance), this poor quality can have a physically debilitating
effect on the viewer. In all areas of photography including movies, if the
image is already degraded by poor focusing, it can become impossible to detect
other sources of bad image-quality such as camera shake or movement of the
subject. This has resulted in a compounding of errors that we have become used
to and now accept. But, as just one example, consider what an unsharp mess the film of President Kennedy's murder was,
and what a difference it would have made in the evaluation of that act, if the
film had been clear enough to make out most of the details. Such instances are
the rule, when they should be the exception. One can rest assured that, for
every good-quality photograph one sees, whether in newspapers, magazines,
books, or elsewhere, an amazingly large number of photos ended up in the
wastebasket. And usually those good ones are not as good as they should have
been.
In
photography, the public's frame of reference has been formed by pictures that
are technically wrong. Complete control of the plane of sharpest focus means
the ability to decide exactly what point in the subject will be the sharpest.
This control is the basis for purposeful photography. It is impossible to
conceive of the magnitude and significance of the difference this control makes
until one has seen examples of it. The significance is overwhelming when one
realizes that it should not be the slightest bit difficult for the bulk of all
photos to be precisely focused. Because they have never been able to see the
enormous difference between a precisely focused subject and the usual
depth-of-field results that they are used to, amateurs and professionals alike
have come to accept as desirable a picture quality that does not even suggest
the real possibilities of photography.
Because
the most basic element (accurate focusing) is missing, the systems and methods
used and taught in photography are based on totally wrong concepts, ideas and
values in relation to the effects that can be achieved through manipulation of
the various elements at the photographer's disposal. The most important
elements of photography--the determination of which part of the picture should
be the sharpest, the precise reproduction of the color-tones of the subject,
and the compositional use of plasticity to bring out the most important part of
the photo--are not at all comprehended because the means to intentionally
control those elements and thus be able to observe and study them are lacking.
In point of fact, the ability to manipulate these elements purposefully changes
photographic concepts. For example, one is confronted with having to decide
what point of a subject should be the sharpest. Before one can make that
decision, one must be familiar with the effects of precise focus. Depth of field relationships are contradicted. For example,
the usual assumption that the impression of sharpness extends at a ratio of 1/3
from the front and 2/3 from the back of the focused point does not hold true:
if the most important part of the picture is placed in a different relationship
(3/4 from the front and 1/4 from the back, or very close to the front of the
picture, for instance), the picture will still appear sharper if one focuses on
that subject-point rather than according to depth-of-field calculations.
Focusing on the most important subject point in a photograph always gives an
impression of greater depth-of-field than simply following the so-called
depth-of-field tables.
VIII.
THE MESSRASTER SHOULD FINALLY BE MADE AVAILABLE
Until
recently, the precision necessary to produce the Messraster presented
considerable problems, which, although by no means insurmountable, would have
added appreciably to the cost of a camera. Another problem was the inventor's
insistence upon exposing the insufficiencies of all other systems and his
insistence on a fee commensurate with the importance of his invention, which he
was well aware of. The technical means of easily manufacturing the device were
perfected in the 1960's, and Mr. Dahl has long-since passed away and the patent
is now public domain. The only possible problem left is that, with such an
exact focusing device, the cameras have to be precisely adjusted so that the
film-plane exactly corresponds to the Messraster's
measuring plane, if the results are to be precise. But all cameras are supposed
to have film-planes that correspond exactly to the focusing plane anyway, and
anything that would cause manufacturers whose products are not precise to
adjust them better can hardly be faulted.
Because
of the nature and limitations of our visual powers, the Messraster is the only
possibility of achieving precise focusing with the naked eye. Arguably, it should
thus be public property. But the ability to achieve exact focus has so many
indisputably important implications in so many fields of modern life that the
public has at least a right to its availability, and camera manufacturers
should finally make it available. After more than a century, the world has yet
to witness the full potential of photography and will not until it has a means
of absolutely exact focus.
* With the Tessar
lens a quality of sharpness in mass- manufactured lenses became possible that
has not been exceeded. The optical formula of the Tessar
remains one of the most used in modern lenses.
Mark
Anstendig, a trained orchestra conductor and professional photographer, was,
for 9 years, the associate of Mr. Joseph Dahl, the inventor of the Messraster.
Under Mr. Dahl's supervision, he made the photo-experiments that demonstrated
the results of absolute focus in all aspects of photography. In the efforts to
make known the possibility of exact focus, Mr. Anstendig was entrusted with representing
Mr. Dahl in his dealings with the press, the public, and the industry. Among
other things, he has exhibited the "State of the Art" of focusing
optical lenses on the stand of Arnold and Richter (makers of the prestigious Arriflex movie cameras) at the Fotokina
exposition in Cologne, and in the Berlin Pavilion of the New York World's Fair,
for which he was commissioned to make photographs of Berlin landmarks,
demonstrating the effects of focal-point-exact focus with all types of lenses,
including extreme focal-lengths up to 2000 mm, which were supplied by the Astro-Gesellschaft of Berlin. Articles about exact focusing
by Mr. Anstendig have appeared in newspapers and magazines, including Spiegelreflex Praxis in
The
Anstendig Institute is a non-profit, tax-exempt, research institute that was
founded to investigate the vibrational influences in our lives and to pursue
research in the fields of sight and sound; to provide material designed to help
the public become aware of and understand vibrational influences; to instruct
the public in how to improve the quality of those influences in their lives;
and to provide the research and explanations that are necessary for an
understanding of how we see and hear.