This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Near the top, the article states that "because the rays never really converge, one can project only a virtual image, but not a real image. Note that it cannot be obtained on a screen.

In contrast, a real image is an image in which the outgoing rays from a point on the object pass through a single point. It is easiest to observe real images when projected on an opaque screen".

Am I reading it wrong, or should the sentence in the first paragraph say "one can project only a real image, but not a virtual image"? 80.103.77.221 ( talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC) reply

You're right. That part of this entry needs to be fixed. I'll do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.112.118 ( talk) 23:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Pretty sure that bottom image is a convex and not concave mirror... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.196.135.125 ( talk) 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC) reply

In optics, a virtual image and a virtual object are different. A virtual image is an image composed of diverging light. A virtual object is an object that is composed of converging light. A real object creates diverging light. A real image is created by converging light. Dradamh ( talk) 07:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC) reply

If the object is at the focal point, the 'image' is at infinity: shouldn't that case be covered under the definition of 'virtual image'? Or should there be a third image type - real | virtual | infinity ? -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC) reply