Talk:Angular resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Empirical? 2 Picture 3 Human eye 4 Units? 5 The name of this article 6 Optical? 7 Define "f"

[edit] Empirical?

...empirical diffraction limit is given by the Rayleigh criterion...

Thus it is worth bearing in mind that the Rayleigh criterion is an empirical estimate of resolution...

Although I'd agree that the diffraction limit is defined to provide a concrete comparison parameter, I wouldn't personally call it an empirical value. It has a quite precise derivation from mathematics rather than being based on data from observations or experiments, which is what the adjective normally invokes for me. Other thoughts? Objections to an edit? mh 02:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well.. Rayleigh is empirical none-the-less, from all my readings. It is Rayleighs idea of what the eye can resolve given an optical train before it. Sparrow should perhaps be given a mention as it is defined as: if intensity half way between Airy disks is equal or less than intensity of disk of lowest intensity, then two objects are resolved. Not so much to do with the eye as more digital sensors are used then perhaps more appropriate? Source of Sparrow def is D.J.Goldstein "understanding the light microscope" Acdemic press ISBN 0-12-288660-7. Goldstein calls Sparrow's "less arbitrary" than Rayleighs.--210.246.8.191 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This page needs a picture for what a resolution angle is. I made a picture that *doesn't* help at all. But this is an example of what a picture of resolution angle should look like:

I would greatly appriciate it if someone drew a simple picture explaining what the resolution angle is physically. Fresheneesz 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated that picture ^ Fresheneesz 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human eye

The article says:

This factor is used to approximate the ability of the human eye to distinguish two separate point sources depending on the overlap of their Airy discs.

I don't see how this could be accurate: the human eye has a much worse angular resolution than this formula would allow. Look, let's do a rough estimate. The diameter of the pupil of the eye is at most 10 mm (half of that in typical enlightenment conditions). The shortest wavelength a human eye sees is about 300 nm. From this, we get the angular resolution 1.22 * 300 nm / 10 mm = 3.66*10^-5. But according to the eye article, a typicla human eye has an angular resolution of 7*10^-4, which is one magnitude larger. I belive there are two limiting factors: one is the imperfect shape or material of the lens and the cornea, the other is the packing of photosensitive cells in the retina.

On the other hand, I've read the statement that the size of the aparture is in fact a limiting factor (as well as the density of the cells on the retina) somewhere else too, so I'm in doubt. – b_jonas 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion of Rayleigh diffraction limit and the human eye (with refs) here (under the optometry stuff): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/raylei.html#c2 164.54.53.165 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. – b_jonas 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units?

What should be the units used for diameter, wavelength, and angle for the empirical formulas to work? They should be stated. From the lone example given, it appears that the diameter should be in meters? I did the calculations and the answer I got was 0.1196 so this has to be in meters in order to understand the answer given of 12cm.

In science discussions, never leave out the units.

As defined angular resolution should be in radians, that is, it is a dimensionless value. That means that it should not matter what the units are, as long as everything is expressed in the same units. Apparently you entered the wavelength in meters, and then you get D in meters.

However, the formula given under "Microscope case" produces a dimensioned value: a length. That cannot be an angular resolution. Something is wrong or inconsistent here.  --Lambiam^Talk 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of this article

This article is called "Angular resolution". Other possible names, such as "Spatial resolution" and "Resolving power" redirect to this article. It strikes me that "Spatial resolution" is more general than simply another name for "Angular resolution". For example, it commonly refers to the number of pixels a computer display holds, or the detail that can be seen in a photograph. It is also in much more common use by people concerned with human vision (such as optometrists, ophthalmologists, and psychophysicists) than "Angular resolution". Moreover, the text of the article states that "Angular resolution describes the resolving power of a telescope". Apart from this being unrasonably restrictive--something I will correct--it means that "Resolving power" is defined (via redirect) as "Angular resolution", which is in turn defined as resolving power! This all needs to be clarified.

Robert P. O'Shea 04:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I was looking for "Resolving Power" in a spectroscopic context, and was brought here to 'angular resolution'. There is no discussion about spectroscopic resolving power. AmberRobot 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optical?

This article seems to be optical-centric whereas "Angular resolution" covers more than "optical components", "optical device", or "optical wavelengths" (re: for example the radio spectrum.) It looks like a little cleanup could be done to correct that. 69.72.7.204 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Define "f"

The first equation in section "Explanation" has a variable "f" which is never defined. From a similar equation in the "SLR cameras" section of Airy disc, I'm thinking that it is the distance from the lens to the film/image sensor (equivalently, i think, the focal length of the lens). Whether this or something else is what is intended, I think a definition for "f" should be added to the section. Thanks Bayle Shanks 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)