Talk:Spherical aberration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spherical aberration is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

I thought this subject needed a short, concise article instead of being redirected to the complex article on aberration in general. If someone is really strongly against this then go ahead and change it back. Rsduhamel 03:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, that's a fine idea. As much as I like the old Britannica article, I nevertheless agree with the idea of splitting the important named effects into small articles. In the end, but this would need a tough amount of work, all the elementary treament of aberrations should be separate articles, and the Aberration in optical systems would be reduced to (still lengthy)
  • Definition and overview
  • History
  • Integreated mathematical treatment (eiconal)
Pjacobi 11:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

The page really needs a simple line drawing of light rays being focused at different distances depending on their radial positions. Mglg 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some simple pictures of spherical aberration here: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/physics/Optics/Optical/Lens/Lens.htm Probably the best I have found on the web so far.

[edit] "Short focal ratio" versus "small f-number"

For me at least, the article would be easier to understand if the term "short focal ratio" were replaced with "small f-number." Clicking on the "focal ratio" hyperlink takes the reader to f-number after all. I guess different parts of the optics community use different jargon. Other than this quibble, I think the article is excellent. Alison Chaiken 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/h/Talk%7ESpherical_aberration_063b.html"