resolution of binocular vision

[T3D Peter Abrahams <telscope@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> It would seem that stereo acuity would by its nature be better than the
res
>>> of one eye, since it has a 60mm base, in some ways comparable to the
res of
>>> an eye 60mm in diameter.
>
>In what ways?  It's not like you could do interferometry, right?  

No, not interferometry; but I'm running into walls when I try to
substantiate this.  

Resolution is partly (but directly) a function of aperture.  If you take a
20 inch telescope mirror, for example, and mask it off to become two, four
inch circular mirrors, and each hole in the mask is at the opposite edge of
the circumference, you get twin, four inch telescopes, axes separated by
about 16 inches . The images from this pair can be combined into one image,
not interferometrically, but by precise alignment.  (It's not hard with a
single mirror -you can use your original secondary-, but with 2+ mirrors,
it certainly is).  Something like this process was used with the mirrors of
the Multiple Mirror Telescope in Arizona, the images were combined.  The
Keck Telescope can be included in the argument, if they used only two
mirrors, on opposite sides, some aspects of resolution would be about equal
to the entire scope.  The resolution of a system such as this approaches
the res of a single mirror, with a diameter equal to the distance between
the outer edges of the two mirrors.  You can't put them a long distance
apart & achieve resolution completely equal to a mirror of that diameter,
because differences in illumination, extreme difficulties in alignment, and
other considerations limit the equation.
I have read that the MMT produced images with  a resolution approximating a
mirror with a diameter equal to the distance between the outer edges of the
mirrors comprising the MMT.  
Interferometry is a different application of the same basic physical layout.

These considerations led me to speculate that resolution of one eye in
humans was less than stereo acuity, partly because the span of one eye was
less than interocular distance.  

I spent some time in the books, trying to reinforce these speculations
about vision; but should a failure to substantiate be some kind of gag? ?
This is the internet, not some encyclopedia.

And.....I posted a message yesterday where I referred to some academic
articles as 'obtuse', when I must have meant obscure or esoteric; because
my dictionary tells me I described these peer-reviewed publications as
'idiotic'.  Thank goodness no one is reading this stuff.
_______________________________________
Peter Abrahams   telscope@xxxxxxxxxx
the history of the telescope, the microscope,
    and the prism binocular


------------------------------