![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Tagged June, 2006. This is an important topic in optics and needs to be expanded. The current material is okay for a simple introduction, but needs rewriting in more formal tone. - dmmaus 06:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just rated this article as high. It was hard to choose between high and mid, but I went with high because the whole of optics pretty much depends on it once you get passed some basic geometry. That being said, Fourier optics is taking up a disturbing amount of my time at the moment, so I may have an inflated view of it's importance. -- Apyule 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A few key points helped me learn Fourier optics:
This helped me to get off on the right foot. There is an excellent online book on the subject worth a browse [ here] that may form a decent reference. PD 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding these simple tips in learning Fourier optics, I believe it should be better to say that Fourier optics addresses some wave properties of light that geometrical optics can't. This is so because Fourier optics does not addresses properly all the wave properties of light (as for example, polarization). -- OdracirBA ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a demo of this done with a microscope, but it was with monochromatic light. It seems like the idea is that diffraction deflects rays based on the spatial frequency of the image which is what causes the transform. If so, it seems like this would only work with monochromatic light and that white light would lead to a blurry Fourier transform. Is that correct? —Ben FrantzDale 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Usually a monochromatic coherent light source such as a laser is used. Vectis Kitsune ( talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who works with Fourier optics all the time, I've got to say this latest re-write of the article has made it really hard to understand now for anyone who is not familiar with the field. I realise it is a hard subject to define without getting into the technical details. I would suggest that the opening paragraph is redone so it is similar to that of version 29th June 2007. Then the real detail can left to those who really want to know. Doc phil 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I submit that the ratings on this article should be revisited at this time. I'm not convinced that it is any longer confusing or unclear, at least insofar as sections 2-8 are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.102.80 ( talk) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the titles of the sections need to be shortened and made less book-like. Section 3 has side-notes which make this article sound like a meta-wiki article. JT ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the confusing tag for the introduction. I think that the current introduction is too involved (and seeing the comments seem to agree with this) and so I've rewritten it. If anyone is still watching this page let me know what you think. JT ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The new introduction doesn't make any sense. For example, Fourier Optics is NOT an extension of the Huygens-Fresnel (or, more corrrectly, the Stratton-Chu) Green's function formulation. In fact, the two have NOTHING to do with one another!!! The Stratton-Chu formulation assumes a source distribution, in which each point source gives rise to a Green's fucntion field. Fourier Optics assumes a source-free region, in which the eigenfunction solutions to Maxwell's equations (i.e., the plane-wave functions) propagate. Whoever changed the introduction clearly doesn't understand electromagnetic theory, and will only confuse an unsuspecting reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.192.199 ( talk) 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a math guy. I fit the type of person that would read an article like this and get a brain hemorage. Look, I understand the article deals with math. That's fine. But the intro is about as clear as mud to someone unversed in this stuff.
At the end of that all I now know is that Fourier optics concerns optics. Nothing about why it's important or for that matter, what it is. Look, approach this article's intro from the perspective of someone who doesn't know ANY-thing about optics, much less fourier optics. The intro should be clear enough that the layman, like myself can at least get a gist about what it is and why it's important. -- Lendorien ( talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The article, as presently constituted, presents the subject matter from a fairly rigorous theoretical standpoint, based on the foundation of Maxwell's equations. This presentation assumes a familiarity with both Fourier transform methods and some complex variable theory. The presentation assumes that the reader knows about the complex exponential function, defined as: cos(x) + j sin(x), which is fundamental to all Fourier analysis, as well as its conjugate, cos(x) - j sin(x). As a result of the assumptions made in the presentation, it is probably slanted toward an audience having a roughly sophomore to senior level knowledge of math, engineering or physics, depending on the individual.
That being said, it is not the intent to exclude anyone from reading or understanding (or contributing to) the material on this subject. If any potential contributors would like to add one or more sections on the subject, which are more qualitative, descriptive or phenomenological in nature, then of course they would be more than welcome to do so. The more ways of looking at any subject, the better the level of understanding will be of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.15 ( talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is not only desperately convoluted, it also misses the most fundamental ideas that form the core of Fourier optics. I do not see any discussion of the 2D Fourier Transform, the notion of a Linear Space- and Time- Invariant optical system, optical transformation from input plane to output plane, the Fresnel Approximation, the transfer function of free space propagation, the impulse response of free space propagation, a simple diagram of an optical system with input and output planes, etc. etc. The article does not even define the notion of an object plane and an image plane, nor does it really discuss imaging at all. It is tempting to delete the entire article and start from scratch, but I am hesitant to do so because that might not go over so well. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can re-write this article and create something that is readable, useful, and interesting? First Harmonic ( talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As a first attempt, I have started a propsed outline for a re-written article (below). Please feel free to help me develop this outline by making additions, deletions, or modifications. I would request that only people who have a username and who are logged in edit this outline. Thanks. First Harmonic ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not edit this outline unless you have a username and you are currently logged in. Thanks.
Those who disagree with the form of the article (as presently constituted) may actually find the topics they wish to "have added" right within the article right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.14 ( talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion under Lens_ft.jpg, in the applications section, the path length of a plane wave propogating from the object plane to the image plane is derived as 2*f. The change in phase from the source to the lens is given as e^jkfcos(theta), and from the lens to the image plane as e^jkf/cos(theta). Is this right? Looking at the picture, I would have expected e^jkf/cos(theta) for the _first_ half of the trip. And a path length of greater than 2*f, which looks more like a lower bound from the picture. Perhaps this needs clarification? 124.169.208.94 ( talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Multiple references to "sections", as in a textbook. 71.78.136.211 ( talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Tagged June, 2006. This is an important topic in optics and needs to be expanded. The current material is okay for a simple introduction, but needs rewriting in more formal tone. - dmmaus 06:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just rated this article as high. It was hard to choose between high and mid, but I went with high because the whole of optics pretty much depends on it once you get passed some basic geometry. That being said, Fourier optics is taking up a disturbing amount of my time at the moment, so I may have an inflated view of it's importance. -- Apyule 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A few key points helped me learn Fourier optics:
This helped me to get off on the right foot. There is an excellent online book on the subject worth a browse [ here] that may form a decent reference. PD 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding these simple tips in learning Fourier optics, I believe it should be better to say that Fourier optics addresses some wave properties of light that geometrical optics can't. This is so because Fourier optics does not addresses properly all the wave properties of light (as for example, polarization). -- OdracirBA ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a demo of this done with a microscope, but it was with monochromatic light. It seems like the idea is that diffraction deflects rays based on the spatial frequency of the image which is what causes the transform. If so, it seems like this would only work with monochromatic light and that white light would lead to a blurry Fourier transform. Is that correct? —Ben FrantzDale 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Usually a monochromatic coherent light source such as a laser is used. Vectis Kitsune ( talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who works with Fourier optics all the time, I've got to say this latest re-write of the article has made it really hard to understand now for anyone who is not familiar with the field. I realise it is a hard subject to define without getting into the technical details. I would suggest that the opening paragraph is redone so it is similar to that of version 29th June 2007. Then the real detail can left to those who really want to know. Doc phil 10:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I submit that the ratings on this article should be revisited at this time. I'm not convinced that it is any longer confusing or unclear, at least insofar as sections 2-8 are concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.102.80 ( talk) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the titles of the sections need to be shortened and made less book-like. Section 3 has side-notes which make this article sound like a meta-wiki article. JT ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the confusing tag for the introduction. I think that the current introduction is too involved (and seeing the comments seem to agree with this) and so I've rewritten it. If anyone is still watching this page let me know what you think. JT ( talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The new introduction doesn't make any sense. For example, Fourier Optics is NOT an extension of the Huygens-Fresnel (or, more corrrectly, the Stratton-Chu) Green's function formulation. In fact, the two have NOTHING to do with one another!!! The Stratton-Chu formulation assumes a source distribution, in which each point source gives rise to a Green's fucntion field. Fourier Optics assumes a source-free region, in which the eigenfunction solutions to Maxwell's equations (i.e., the plane-wave functions) propagate. Whoever changed the introduction clearly doesn't understand electromagnetic theory, and will only confuse an unsuspecting reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.192.199 ( talk) 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a math guy. I fit the type of person that would read an article like this and get a brain hemorage. Look, I understand the article deals with math. That's fine. But the intro is about as clear as mud to someone unversed in this stuff.
At the end of that all I now know is that Fourier optics concerns optics. Nothing about why it's important or for that matter, what it is. Look, approach this article's intro from the perspective of someone who doesn't know ANY-thing about optics, much less fourier optics. The intro should be clear enough that the layman, like myself can at least get a gist about what it is and why it's important. -- Lendorien ( talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The article, as presently constituted, presents the subject matter from a fairly rigorous theoretical standpoint, based on the foundation of Maxwell's equations. This presentation assumes a familiarity with both Fourier transform methods and some complex variable theory. The presentation assumes that the reader knows about the complex exponential function, defined as: cos(x) + j sin(x), which is fundamental to all Fourier analysis, as well as its conjugate, cos(x) - j sin(x). As a result of the assumptions made in the presentation, it is probably slanted toward an audience having a roughly sophomore to senior level knowledge of math, engineering or physics, depending on the individual.
That being said, it is not the intent to exclude anyone from reading or understanding (or contributing to) the material on this subject. If any potential contributors would like to add one or more sections on the subject, which are more qualitative, descriptive or phenomenological in nature, then of course they would be more than welcome to do so. The more ways of looking at any subject, the better the level of understanding will be of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.15 ( talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is not only desperately convoluted, it also misses the most fundamental ideas that form the core of Fourier optics. I do not see any discussion of the 2D Fourier Transform, the notion of a Linear Space- and Time- Invariant optical system, optical transformation from input plane to output plane, the Fresnel Approximation, the transfer function of free space propagation, the impulse response of free space propagation, a simple diagram of an optical system with input and output planes, etc. etc. The article does not even define the notion of an object plane and an image plane, nor does it really discuss imaging at all. It is tempting to delete the entire article and start from scratch, but I am hesitant to do so because that might not go over so well. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can re-write this article and create something that is readable, useful, and interesting? First Harmonic ( talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As a first attempt, I have started a propsed outline for a re-written article (below). Please feel free to help me develop this outline by making additions, deletions, or modifications. I would request that only people who have a username and who are logged in edit this outline. Thanks. First Harmonic ( talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not edit this outline unless you have a username and you are currently logged in. Thanks.
Those who disagree with the form of the article (as presently constituted) may actually find the topics they wish to "have added" right within the article right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.14 ( talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion under Lens_ft.jpg, in the applications section, the path length of a plane wave propogating from the object plane to the image plane is derived as 2*f. The change in phase from the source to the lens is given as e^jkfcos(theta), and from the lens to the image plane as e^jkf/cos(theta). Is this right? Looking at the picture, I would have expected e^jkf/cos(theta) for the _first_ half of the trip. And a path length of greater than 2*f, which looks more like a lower bound from the picture. Perhaps this needs clarification? 124.169.208.94 ( talk) 16:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Multiple references to "sections", as in a textbook. 71.78.136.211 ( talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)