File talk:Airy-pattern.svg

This image has lower contrast than the original, which concerns me since accurate representation of the depth of the fringes is important. I do not think the original image should be vectorized.--Srleffler (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well which is more important? Contrast or accuracy? Do you know what the peak heights should be? The original PNG image has the second peak at somewhere near 0.05 based on the gray level scale on the right. Is this correct? I don't think so. Why shouldn't this image be vectorized? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough—accuracy trumps contrast. I normally check svg conversions of technical images for accurate reproduction of the original. I've seen too many cases where subtle details or important features were lost when an image was vectorized. In this case, the original may not have been very good. It looks like you're trying to accurately model the intensity distribution rather than merely converting the image. That's great, and I'm glad you have edited the text to make this clear.--Srleffler (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffraction rings look too bright[edit]

Hi, I was wondering whether the right computation has been done to render this density plot: the outer rings seem far too bright compared to the central peak. In other words, the rings should vanish much faster IMO. The right formula is to be of the (J₁(r)/r)² form, and the image showed here is more likely to represent something of the J₀(r)² form. Cheers, MatP (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can check it yourself. On the image page, go to the section "Source code" and click the link that says "show" at the right edge of the page.--Srleffler (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]