Talk:Fourier optics

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: I would agree, and I have actually done any for quite a while. We'll see who finds time first, then. --Osquar F 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance rating

message: A few key points helped me learn Fourier optics:
* Firstly, clarify the simple distinction that I learned early on when studying Fourier optics which is quite simply that Fourier optics addresses the wave properties of light that geometrical optics can't.
* Then add the Fourier analysis to an aperture / light system to generate a spatial Fresnel integral.
* Go into the far field and the wavefront curvature drops away and the diffraction can then is described by Fraunhofer diffraction.
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)
thread_title: Simple tips in learning Fourier optics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Light wavelenght dependance? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hard to understand 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Time to Revisit this Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attempt at introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Attempt" at introduction 

message: 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.
:Fourier optics is the study of classical optics based on the fact that, in homogeneous source-free regions, the eigenfunction solution to Maxwell's equations is a weighted superposition of uniform plane waves. (Eigenfunction? weighted superposition of uniform plane waves? What the heck are those? Huh?) These uniform plane waves have complex exponential spatial dependence, hence lend themselves to analysis via Fourier transform (FT) techniques. (Complex exponential spacial dependance? What?) More specifically, Fourier Optics refers to optical technologies which result when the plane wave spectrum representation of the electric field (section 2) is combined with the Fourier transforming property of thin lenses (section 3) to yield analog image processing devices (section 4) analogous to 1D signal processing devices. (Plane wave spectrum? Fourier Transforming properties... wait, isn't this article about fourier optics? I don't know what that is! Erm?) Fourier optics forms much of the theory behind analog image processing techniques, as well as finding applications where information needs to be extracted from 2D images, such as in quantum optics. (This part makes sense)
:Similar to the conjugate variables, frequency and time, used in the analysis of 1D temporal waveforms, Fourier optics makes use of the spatial frequency domain (kx, ky) as the conjugate of the spatial (x,y) domain. (conjugate... Wait, I thought you conjugated verbs. Huh?) Terms and concepts from 1D signal processing such as, transform theory, spectrum, bandwidth, window functions and sampling are used to describe the nature of optical fields in the FT domain. (You assume I know what 1D signal processing is. What's an FT domain? Wha?)
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)
thread_title: Intro is as clear as mud

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Re-Write Needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's not only in need of adding topics that are clearly missing, it also needs to be re-written in plain language so that readers can actually understand what it says, and re-organized so that it flows in a logical progression. First Harmonic (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going to be a little difficult.  You can say something like, "A Fourier transform is how you take an infinite number or sin/cos waves, add them up and make a square wave."  Then you do that with light, but I mean it's going to either have to be really basic or it's just going to be incomprehensible.  We can link the crud out of the article, so that people can learn what an eigenvector is, but I don't think a person could really understand what all of this means without knowing a heck of a lot of stuff.  Sure, this is important, but it's complicated.  Yeah, you can build an engine from a parts manual, bit by bit, but designing an engine?  Knowing how thin you can machine the metal, what alloy to use to get strength without throwing cost or weight out the window, understanding how things will expand under heat and cold and...  This article isn't about building an engine, it's about designing one -- it's a complicated thing and can't be readily explained to a layman without going into some really deep waters, in my opinion.  Any attempt at simplification seems like it would have to be a little... disambiguous, it's going to have to make simplifications that (ultimately) will be wrong.  It's like explaining an Interrupt request (IRQ conflict) and saying, "They don't get along well and try to talk over each other."  While that explains the concept fairly handily, it's ultimately more complicated than that. Banaticus (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it might be a little difficult, it is surely possible.  See for example the entry for General relativity which manages to discuss many of the important concepts and implications but with very little maths on the page.  Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedic project not an archive of 'authoritative texts' on all subjects.  For those requiring a deeper understanding, authoritative texts are still accessible through other means, including elsewhere on the world wide web.--Vectis Kitsune (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Re-Read Needed 

message: Multiple references to "sections", as in a textbook. 71.78.136.211 (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns