Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)
From: Dan Chaffee (dchaffee_at_blitz-it.net)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: ValeryD: "Re: TMB 100mm F/8"
- Previous message: Wally Anglesea: "Re: Thanksgiving"
- In reply to: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Reply: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:10:27 GMT
On 24 Nov 2004 21:15:09 -0800, vladis.2@juno.com (Vladimir Sacek)
wrote:
>. What you may have missed is that I wasn't talking
>about blur size in general, but about blurs caused by specific
>aberrations. While blur size in general is pretty much
>meaningless contrast wise (it is energy that counts), blur size for
>any specific pure aberration is not.
Vlad,
The poster did ask about spot diagrams in general and its possible
indications of contrast loss and my comment was simply an additional
example of what one may not necessarily infer contrastwise from
studying spot diagrams.
Dan
- Next message: ValeryD: "Re: TMB 100mm F/8"
- Previous message: Wally Anglesea: "Re: Thanksgiving"
- In reply to: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Reply: Vladimir Sacek: "Re: Contrast Vs RayTracing (Telescopes)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|