On 11/7/2014 2:39 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
...
But wait! How about a little exercise? Just as theoretical, in away, but the
processing is real.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/DiffractionContrast/diffracted_sweep.htm>
That is just a wonderful illustration of why the images do improve!!
Thanks! I do appreciate when my geeky illustrations work.
I hope Dr. Focus admires this as much as I do.
Using a increasing frequency line pair image is often a good way to explore these things. Mathematicians might argue
that diffraction is similar to convoluting with a circular PSF and the high freq data is increasingly obliterated,
requiring much more processing with a perfect deconvoluting PSF for diminishing returns and borderline useless. So
even though the maximal detail frequency is not changed,the contrast of what remains is enhanced and that is all that
seems to matter up to a point.
And if that point happens to be somewhere beyond where the other limitations of sensor, lens, whatever, have already hit
the wall, all is well.
So Moose slays the diffraction monster with vorpal sword and keyboard. O frabjous
day! Callooh! Callay!"
Thanks, but don't forget the mouse! If it doesn't get credit, it may get fractious. Speaking of vorpal swords,Dodgson
was, among other things, a mathematician.
Down the Aperture Hole Moose
Galumphing home now, Mike
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|