Re: stereoacuity

[T3D John Ohrt <johrt@xxxxxxx>]

T3D Peter Abrahams wrote:

> Daniel Schroeder, _Astronomical Optics_, is a very authoritative volume on
> that subject.  On p333, he says that the angular resolution of an array of
> telescopes is essentially equal to the res of a single telescope of a
> diameter equal to the distance spanned by the array.  He introduces some
> complications, such as 'subsidiary peaks under the diffraction envelope'
> from the distance between the mirrors.  Furthermore, this text is by no
> means as easy to understand as Manly's.  I'll say, it seems clear to me,
> with a less than total level of confidence.

I have worked with radiotelescopes.  The limit on resolution is essentially
equal to the res of a single telescope of a diameter equal to the distance
spanned by the array.

But the "BUT" is a real big one.  For amateurs, well they can detect
relatively few sources so that the probablitiy of two sources in the beam are
remote.  For the real pros, the probability may be somewhat higher but they
also use more sophisticated software to analyze the signal.  (Many amateurs
use a chart recorder and the eyeball and it usually works fine for all but
very weak signals.)

Deconvolving an image, like the HUbble fix is relatively simple if you know
the point spead function (psf).
But remember even the Hubble sees virtualy everything at infintiy, ie. no
measurable DOF.

Deconvolving out of focus objects in images with discernable DOF is routine,
like to read license plates, study faces etc since all you need is to play
around until you guess the approximate psf.

I think a ray tracer and a good estimate of the lens properties and settings
could get you in the ballpark real fast.

There should be references to this somewhere because this has been ongoing
since the sixties.

Regards,

--

John Ohrt * Toronto * ON * Canada






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