Talk:Diffraction-limited system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Define variables[edit]

The article gives a formula without defining the valuables.

  • Even worse, it doesn't even give the actual formula for the diffraction limit. It gives the first "approximation" of the limit. LesPaul75talk 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the defs. I don't know of a better formula, but that's the one in the Abbe memorial; I'm not sure why it's called an approximation; maybe just that there's no exact answer. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Could the article give some examples with which people might be more familiar, for instance photography? I read the article but really didn't understand what it was talking about. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Implications for digital photography[edit]

This section has many faults, including not citing its sources, but the main one is that it is just wrong. The concept of a pixel-size-based 'diffraction limit' for a digital camera, as proposed here is unsupported by any theory or, for that matter, observational evidence. Over the next few days I'll try to rewrite the section, supposing such a section is needed. I suspect the source for this, had it been cited, is the 'Cambridge in Colour' web site, which expounds this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobn2 (talkcontribs) 06:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edited this section, in the end, I couldn't keep any of the previous version. In fact, I'm not convinced this section is needed at all, but the new version is, I believe, right and does cite it sources.Bobn2 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)