Talk:Spherical aberration

message: For me at least, the article would be easier to understand if the term "short focal ratio" were replaced with "small f-number."   Clicking on the "focal ratio" hyperlink takes the reader to f-number after all.  I guess different parts of the optics community use different jargon.   Other than this quibble, I think the article is excellent.  Alison Chaiken 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Short focal ratio" versus "small f-number" 

message: The various pictures of point-spread functions appear to show interference patterns, which could confuse people expecting to see the kind of bokeh you see in photography rather than what you find in microscopy. Could someone more familiar with the details add that? —Ben FrantzDale 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interference? 

message: I expected the rings to be evenly-spaced and fading toward the edges according to Fraunhofer diffraction, yet the beautiful illustrations show brighter rings at the outside and decreasing frequency. What's up with that? 155.212.242.34 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regularity of rings 

message: I think it should be stated early that spherical surfaces are easier to grind, and so popular for optical devices. (Mirrors and lenses.)  It is explained later that the result is that it is easier to make many spherical lenses than one aspherical one, and is the whole reason why spherical aberration is important. This should be moved up and expanded. Gah4 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasn't changed yet, I will see what I can do.  Gah4 (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the improvements to my improvements.  Next: due to the increased refraction of light rays when they strike a lens or a reflection of light rays when they strike a mirror near its edge.  This isn't quite right. The way a lens or curved mirror works is that the change increases with radius (first order change).  The important part of spherical aberration is second order.  It is harder to explain a second derivative than a first derivative. Gah4 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why spherical? 

message: I moved this text here:
:Longitudinal or axial spherical aberration
:When light rays are passed through an uncorrected convex lens, the rays at the periphery are bent more than the ones passing near the optical center. Thus, the peripheral rays produce many focal points on the principal axis before the actual focus. This is called longitudinal or axial spherical aberration.
It seemed to repeat the description of the main phenomenon of the article. So I moved it here. It does, however, contain the additional vocabulary words
longitudinal spherical aberration and axial spherical aberration, which appear nowhere else in the article. Maybe these should be re-integrated into the article. 
Also, the description of the phenomenon given in this text is quite clear -- perhaps clearer than the present introduction. Was this once the introduction to the article?
178.38.191.160 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed orphan text 

message: Regarding the image (to the the right): 
 Why not just change the "description" from "Acuña-Romo lens" to something potentially more appropriate?  X1\ (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that, but didn't feel that this image was very useful in the context of this article. A different caption could make it less misleading, but still wouldn't easily allow the image to convey any useful information about Acuña-Romo lenses. A properly raytraced image showing a practical Acuña-Romo lens design would be more appropriate for this article.--Srleffler (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acuña-Romo image 

message: Re: this edit:
I chose only Spanish because only that was the only one of the linked articles that was well developed. I left the links to the other articles today, but removed the  template. Red links are only for viable article topics. The Acuña-Romo equation is not a viable article topic on the English Wikipedia. The equation is not yet notable. Even when notable, the topic is probably better covered in an existing article (possibly this one). It's not clear the topic merits an extensive exposition of the equation (WP:UNDUE). Before we go any further, there at least needs to be some coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Right now, there are a couple of blog posts and Acuña and Romo citing their own work. 
Other language Wikipedias have their own standards, so the existence of articles in other languages is not relevant.--Srleffler (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acuña-Romo equation 

message: Should we say Acuna-Romo solved the Wasserman-Wolf problem as described in  - then the red-link could redirect here ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we say Acuna-Romo solved the Wasserman-Wolf problem 

message: Should this page not discuss . I.e. many people seem to think that Acuna-Romo solved an aberration problem for the first time while Descartes seems to have taken care of that many centuries ago. Acuna-Aroma try to solve a more sophisticated problem: given the shape of one side of the lens, what shape should the other side take in order to avoid aberration? That said, their paper looks suspicious in that they appear to be merely solving algebraic equations while one would expect that the problem should require solving (delay) ODE's of some sort.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.16.178 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should definitely talk about Descartes' work. I moved your addition down a bit, since I think it's important to cover practical solutions before abstract theoretical ones. In practice, aberration is not normally corrected using aplanatic lenses. The existance of closed-form expressions for designing aspheric surfaces is not particularly important, given that a modern computer running ray tracing software can optimize a singlet lens design in minutes or less.--Srleffler (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention Descartes' work

message: "The effect is proportional to the fourth power of the diameter and inversely proportional to the third power of the focal length". This is what confuses me, as I'm not sure how the effect is measured.--CaffeineP (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  My confusion