Talk:Radar display

This article really needs some pictures. Surely there must be free sources for each of the scope types mentioned in this article?

Is it too much to ask, to have a movie or animation demonstrating the operational use of each radar display type?

-- DMahalko (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Radar imaging into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep both articles separate and drop the proposition for a merger. Pierre cb (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Radar imaging is a 3D form of radar display. So the two articles should be merged. Pierre cb (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. So this would not be a good merge. Very much not. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support While there does need to be a specific display technology to support imaging radar, the concept of imaging radar goes far beyond just how it is displayed. The techniques used to "paint" the target in order ascertain its 3D shape are entirely different from the techniques used in conventional search radar applications. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are very different topics. Radar imaging deals with constructing 3-D information from radar signal returns. Radar display deals with how radar data is presented to an operator. The latter topic is more historic since nowadays radar data is displayed on a computer screen like any other data. But that did not used to be the case as the article explains.--agr (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against A radar display is primarily a display device while radar imaging is more concerned with the underlying digital image. Dedicated radar displays developed their own rudimentary radar images, resulting from direct Cartesian or polar plots of the radar power return. More elaborate image generation start with real aperture radar and go on to SAR, etc.

I propose the following hatnotes be put in place: {{for|more elaborate radar images|Radar imaging}}, {{for|simpler radar images|Radar display}}.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnievinski (talk • contribs)

Weak oppose I see what you're going for here, but I think there's more than just "this is a type of image". I wouldn't merge CAT into x-ray either. There's "something special" about the images in these examples. The hatnotes seem reasonable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also weakly oppose this proposal. My reasoning would be similar to that of ArnoldReinhold. --John (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scope (no pun intended) of a Radar Display and of Radar Imaging is very different. A radar display usually gives the operator information about the position (and possibly speed) of some sort of crafts (e.g. aircraft, ships, missiles, …), while radar imaging is typically used to gather and display topographic data (e.g. landscapes) – so these are two very very distinct applications of radar. Tony Mach (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, they are both instances of radar images, thus the potential for confusion by the non-expert reader, and the need for the proposed hatnotes. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imaging (the synthesis of a composite model from many radar measurements) is vastly different from the form of display used for the (often crude) rendition of raw radar signals. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of degree: simpler to more complicated extremes along a continuum of imaging complexity. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just a matter of degree. The technology used in search radar, where objects are located and their locations are indicated on a display, is fundamentally different from the technology used in imaging radar, where the radar is used to develop three-dimensional information about one particular object. Different waveforms are used and different signal processing is employed. It has little to do with the physical nature of the display used and everything to do with the actual techniques used to generate the data to be displayed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "Radar imaging" is more about "Imaging radar" as it describes how the different types of imaging radars work and not how the images are done. However, "Imaging radar" has been made a redirection already. I thus think the "Radar imaging " is not written in a manner to distinguish it from "Radar display". 205.211.133.128 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@205.211.133.128: I don't know what you mean. The fact that Imaging radar redirects to radar imaging indicates that those two topics are essentially the same, but not that they are the same as "radar display". I disagree that the radar imaging article is not written to sufficiently distinguish the topic from "radar display". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Radar display. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/radar-15.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference url has been changed to newer one. Pierre cb (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]